Conservatives love Stoics, Part 2: On Foreign Policy

A continuation of Part 1.

One of the hallmarks of conservative thought has been a tough foreign policy.  Since there seems to be some admiration of Stoic thought from conservatives, I'm interested in thinking through what Stoic thought would be about foreign policy.

Stoicism is about morality first and foremost.  With the Stoic, if there is a choice between doing the right thing and benefitting yourself, then we must always just do the right thing.  The "right thing", though, is open to debate.  Maybe peace is always the right thing.  But it didn't seem so in WW II.  Maybe aggressive protection of allies is.  But that was a catastrophic failure for Europe in WW I.  This stuff is hard to judge accurately at the time.

Marcus Aurelius was the only Stoic that I know of that actually could make foreign policy decisions.  He did defend Rome in the Marcomannic Wars.  I never got the impression from his writings, however, that he tried to apply Stoicism to foreign policy.  But I would assume he brought the same logical thinking to foreign policy that he brought to his personal philosophy.

Imagining international relations as interpersonal relations is a good exercise, though, even if it is over-simplifying.  Would a Stoic attack another except as a defense of themselves or others?  It seems unlikely.  He certainly wouldn't attack someone because he feared an attack on his own.  Nor would he meddle in other's lives as the U.S. has meddled in the politics of countless countries around the globe.  But, as I stated, perhaps this is an over-simplification.  Maybe we can't think at that level, and can only think in terms of how we should think about philosophy as citizens.

As a citizen of a country, a Stoic should not be swayed by emotion or illogical arguments.  Many of the arguments used to support aggressive foreign policy are based on fear (such as fear of terrorism), or demonization (of the current enemy).  Stoicism is a logical philosophy as well as a moral one.  It's hard to see a Stoic supporting an aggressive foreign policy, since that requires both illogical emotions to sustain, as well as being ethically dubious.

Remember, for the Stoic, death was preferable to the compromising of principles.  Maybe conservatives see that as warlike: I'll fight to my death for this country.  And there might be truth to that.  But another interpretation is: I'd rather let myself and my country die rather than fight an unjust war.