---

Surreal "Realism"
...See, we "minimalists" believe in responding to tangible colorable threats. If the threat's al-Qaeda, we go and find al-Qaeda operatives, and we kill them. If the threat's Iraq, we go in and break Iraq. Then we leave Iraq, with the promise that if it threatens us again, we'll break it again. We don't believe that the military is capable of conceiving, planning, and constructing free societies from desert sand.

Certainly, some of the world is Hobbesian and anarchic. Some of the world is civilized. Much of the world is somewhere in between. But believing that we can occupy, civilize, and make in our own image the Hobbesian portion is not only foolhardy, it requires a devotion to government, planning, and military capacity that's not only inconsistent with history, human nature, and a realistic view of American will and resources, it's also wholly inconsistent with any notion of libertarianism.

Yousefzadeh seems to think it's possible to have an idealistic, imperial, aggressive government abroad, and a minimalist, laissez faire government at home. It's never happened. Every major period of government expansion at home came at a time when the administration in power was simultaneously trying to conquer and "civilize" the world abroad. See here.

"Realists" think the same politician who believes government capable to occupy, civilize, and liberalize places where liberal institutions have been dead for centuries can simultaneously recognize the limits of government when it comes to domestic policy. We "minimalists" understand that that's asking too much. It's never happened.

The current president is as fine an example as any....