The Essential Rothbard - Ludwig von Mises Institute

The Essential Rothbard 95
Buckley’s National Review, he rejected the aggressive pursuit of the
Cold War advocated by Buckley and such members of his editorial
staff as James Burnham and Frank S. Meyer. He broke with these
self-styled conservatives and thereafter became one of their
strongest opponents. For similar reasons, he condemned their
neoconservative successors.
Rothbard made clear the basis of his opposition to National
Review foreign policy in an essay, “For a New Isolationism,” written
in April 1959; the magazine did not publish it. To those who
favored a policy of “liberation” directed against the Communist
bloc, Rothbard raised a devastating objection:
In all the reams of material written by the Right in the last
decade [1949–1959], there is never any precise spelling-out of
what a policy of ultrafirmness or toughness really entails. Let
us then fill in this gap by considering what I am sure is the
toughest possible policy: an immediate ultimatum to
Khrushchev and Co. to resign and disband the whole Communist
regime; otherwise we drop the H-bomb on the Kremlin.
. . . What is wrong with this policy? Simply that it would
quickly precipitate an H-bomb, bacteriological, chemical,
global war which would destroy the United States as well as
Russia. 247
To this dire picture, proponents of “rollback” would of course
respond that the Communists would surrender: Rothbard dissents,
for reasons that will be discussed in detail later. Suffice it to say
here that he thought it obvious that since “the destruction of the
United States would follow such an ultimatum, we must strongly
oppose such a policy.” 248
If “liberation” leads to national suicide, what is the alternative?
Rothbard suggests a return to “the ancient and traditional American
policy of isolationism and neutrality.” But is this not open to a
247
Unpublished manuscript, “For a New Isolationism,” April 1959;
emphasis in the original.
248
Ibid.