Tune into the next Republican presidential debate, and you will hear the usual rhetoric about limited government, lower taxes and less spending. The same candidates will then propose to expand the military, escalate the Iraq War, and possibly bomb Iran. Finally, they will resolutely defend the decision to invade Iraq.

This raises the question: What do candidates who promote an expansive, expensive, and aggressive foreign policy mean by limited government? Are conservatives (or libertarians) who push for a militantly interventionist foreign policy really conservatives (or libertarians)?

The Bush Administration might not be a particularly good representative of this policy conundrum, since it has greatly increased domestic spending, expanded the welfare state and extended the federal government’s reach. For this administration, philosophy poses no barrier to an activist foreign policy.

Inside Track: War vs. Limited Government, by Doug Bandow: READ THE REST