From its inception, America has been intertwined with conflict. The American Revolution and the resulting Constitution were rooted in liberal ideals—natural rights, governance by consent, and constraints on governmental power. Yet, the Revolution marked only the beginning of a long-standing relationship between America and warfare. Since 1798, the United States has participated in 469 recognized military interventions, averaging about 2.08 interventions annually.
However, the military endeavors that followed diverged fundamentally from the original revolutionary quest for independence. Rather than seeking to liberate from a foreign monarch, these conflicts often involved the U.S. projecting its military might globally—frequently under the guise of promoting or preserving liberty. As we approach the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, it becomes crucial to examine the threats warfare poses to the liberal tenets underpinning the American ethos.
The perils of war were articulated by some of America’s founding figures. In 1795, James Madison remarked:
“Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”
Just a year later, in his 1796 farewell address, President George Washington warned against “overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.”
Both Madison and Washington understood that the act of waging war threatened the very freedoms for which the American revolutionaries fought. Sadly, their cautions have largely faded from public memory, even among many who identify as classical liberals.
Over time, the boundaries of acceptable government actions broadened, along with its war-making capabilities. While the historical narrative is complex, it can be categorized into three primary stages. The first is the continental expansion of the early to mid-19th century, including the Louisiana Purchase, the Florida Purchase, the annexation of Texas, the Oregon Treaty, and the 1848 Mexican Cession. The second phase commenced with the Spanish-American War in 1898, marking a shift towards exerting American military influence across the Western Hemisphere, epitomized by the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. The third phase, ushered in by World War II, established the U.S. as a global hegemon, striving to act as the world’s enforcer.
Regardless of the intentions behind these military expansions, they come with significant costs—both immediate and long-lasting. As Madison and Washington foresaw, warfare influences both the scale and scope of government. Let’s unpack each aspect.
Firstly, war is expensive, and the financial ramifications often linger long after the last shot is fired. The United States spends more on defense than the next ten countries combined, including China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. Approximately 17% of federal spending is allocated to defense-related concerns. Historically, war has led to the implementation of new taxes, many of which remain long after the conflict subsides. Furthermore, as documented by political scientist Sarah Kreps, starting with the Korean War, the U.S. government transitioned from tax-based funding for wars to debt-financing, obscuring the true costs of war from the public. This shift has not only escalated public debt but also compromised democratic accountability.
Military engagements also exact a heavy toll in human lives. The Department of Defense reports over 1,151,012 battle deaths in principal wars, alongside 857,000 conflict-related fatalities and more than 2.5 million wounded.
The adverse effects of militarization extend beyond these immediate casualties. War centralizes state power, necessitating resource allocation and strategic choices. As political scientist Bruce Porter observed, “a government at war is a juggernaut of centralization determined to crush any internal opposition that impedes the mobilization of militarily vital resources.” This centralizing influence has historically undermined individual liberties.
Moreover, this bureaucratic expansion during wartime leads to the establishment of new agencies, often empowered to act in ways that infringe upon personal freedoms. For instance, during World War II, the Office of Price Administration imposed restrictions on goods and services, while the Office of War Information controlled public communications. The War Powers Acts of 1941 and 1942 conferred sweeping authorities upon the president, allowing for government restructuring, censorship, and land confiscation for military use. Additionally, over 10.1 million Americans were drafted into military service.
This bureaucratic centralization erodes the pluralism vital to democratic governance. Instead of serving as a check on central authority, state and local governments often align themselves with federal objectives.
The unifying effect of war diverts public attention from domestic struggles for freedom towards the perceived external threats requiring a robust central response. As economist Robert Higgs noted, this shift can result in enduring ideological transformations regarding the role of government. Take, for example, contemporary airport security measures, a response to the war on terror initiated after the September 11 attacks. Such intrusions would have been unimaginable for travelers in 1999, yet many Americans now accept invasive security protocols in the name of “national security,” despite the poor performance of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).
Additionally, the expansion of surveillance capabilities has been notable in the context of the war on terror. The Bush administration, for instance, significantly broadened surveillance powers through the USA PATRIOT Act. Under the Obama administration, this trend continued, with the National Security Agency (NSA) gaining the authority to share collected data with law enforcement agencies without warrants. Local law enforcement, too, has engaged in questionable surveillance practices, such as the use of facial recognition technology.
Moreover, the wartime environment fosters an atmosphere where truth becomes a casualty. Winston Churchill famously remarked that, “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” While a well-intentioned government may strive to balance truth and deception to serve the “national interest,” historical evidence demonstrates that governments often misuse their control over information to mislead citizens. This manipulation is particularly insidious during wartime, as officials frequently exaggerate threats and misrepresent the benefits of military action.
The broader implications of such information control erode essential checks on governmental power. Even if citizens seek to stay informed about military actions and their consequences, they are often thwarted. Consequently, citizens become obstacles for officials rather than sources of authority. Moreover, the control over information diminishes the media’s role as a watchdog over the government.
It is critical to recognize that these changes do not occur instantaneously. Some wartime transitions are overt (e.g., conscription, rationing), while others are more subtle. This understanding isn’t novel; Alexis de Tocqueville warned of the dangers inherent to prolonged conflict:
“There is no long war that, in a democratic country, does not put liberty at great risk. It is not that you must fear precisely to see, after each victory, conquering generals seize sovereign power by force, in the manner of Sylla or of Cesar. The danger is of another kind. War does not always deliver democratic peoples to military government; but it cannot fail to increase immensely, among these people, the attributions of civil government; it almost inevitably centralizes in government’s hands the direction of all men and the use of everything. If it does not lead suddenly to despotism by violence, it goes softly by habits. All those who seek to destroy liberty within a democratic nation should know the surest and shortest means to succeed in doing so is war. That is the first axiom of the science.”
In summary, the interplay of scale and scope in warfare significantly impacts the cost of militarism. While some costs are immediate and apparent, many are concealed. Numerous commentators argue that proactive U.S. interventions benefit both America and other nations. However, the issues highlighted suggest that a militaristic foreign policy undermines the very principles that policymakers claim to uphold.
The Founding Fathers foresaw these pitfalls of war and intervention, articulating their concerns and attempting to impose restrictions on government. Unfortunately, these constraints have proven largely ineffective in curbing the expansion of governmental authority during wartime. As articulated above and in other discussions, war provides a convenient avenue for government to bypass or abolish existing restrictions, offering little incentive for modern policymakers to self-regulate. Even if they wished to, future conflicts would likely trigger further erosion of these constraints.
This leads to a pertinent question for those committed to the cause of liberty: If U.S. foreign policies have failed to cultivate liberal ideals, what alternatives exist?
The answer may rest in the philosophies of our Founding Fathers and the principles that informed them. Rather than attempting to ‘fix’ other nations and exert control globally, we should refocus on domestic policies that embrace the freedoms upon which our country was founded. A healthy skepticism of government can foster a culture of peaceful cooperation within a self-governing society, promoting a bottom-up approach rather than a top-down imposition.
Ultimately, we must recognize that pursuing intervention or warfare in the name of liberty is inherently paradoxical. The supposed advancement of liberal ideals through illiberal means—both at home and abroad—stands in stark contradiction to the very principles that inspired the American Revolution.
Endnotes
[1] “Principal Wars” in these figures include the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Mexican War, the U.S. Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Persian Gulf War.
This post first appeared as an essay at A Call to Liberty It has been reposted here as part of Econlib’s celebration of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
