Given David Gordon’s recent talk on the subject of the foreign policy recommendations, the great historian Charles A. Beard had for the United States, specifically the “Continentalism” he proscribed in works such as A Foreign Policy for America, it is worth recalling another of his great works and ideas that would provide the basis for a better understanding of American foreign policy: American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932-1940; A Study in Responsibilities.
In this work, Beard put his finger on what would later be explicitly formulated as public choice theory, a foundational element of libertarian realism, which sees all foreign policy as essentially a function of domestic policy. This perspective, so crucial to understanding the failures and hypocrisies of modern American foreign policy, was far ahead of its time—and remains as relevant today as it was when Beard wrote.
Beard’s Critique of American Foreign Policy
Charles A. Beard is often considered one of the most important American historians of the 20th century, not just for his comprehensive historical narratives, but for his penetrating analysis of the motivations behind government actions. While many historians focused on the political and economic events that shaped the United States, Beard took a step further and examined the interests, ideologies, and domestic imperatives that drove the actions of the US government—especially in the realm of foreign policy.
In American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932-1940, Beard dissected the foreign policy decisions made by Franklin D. Roosevelt during a critical period in American history, one that would lay the groundwork for the US’s eventual entry into World War II. Beard recognized the fundamental conflict between the supposed ideals of American foreign policy—rooted in democratic self-determination and non-intervention—and the reality of desired hegemonism and economic self-interest that often underpinned those decisions. Rather than viewing foreign policy as a reflection of noble ideals, Beard saw it as a consequence of the interplay between competing domestic interests, particularly the desire of elites to expand state power and foster international markets that would benefit their political and economic agendas.
This insight would later form a central pillar of public choice theory, which asserts that all government actions—both domestic and foreign—are driven by the pursuit of power and wealth by special interests. For Beard, Roosevelt’s foreign policy was less about protecting democracy abroad and more about consolidating power at home. This view aligns closely with the libertarian critique of modern American interventionism, which argues that foreign policy is often a tool of crony capitalism, serving the interests of multinational corporations, defense contractors, and other elites who stand to gain from war, military spending, and global hegemony.
Continentalism: A Non-Interventionist Vision
Beard’s advocacy for a foreign policy based on “Continentalism” offers a stark contrast to the interventionist ethos that has dominated American political life in the 20th and 21st centuries. In A Foreign Policy for America, Beard argued that the United States should adopt a strategy focused on preserving peace within the Western hemisphere and avoiding entanglement in European and Asian conflicts. Rather than intervening abroad, Beard contended, the US should focus on strengthening its own political and economic system, prioritizing its own prosperity and security without the need for empire-building.
Beard’s Continentalism was not “isolationist,” an epithet with which he was predictably tarred. It was a strategic commitment to non-interventionism that recognized the geopolitical realities of the Americas while rejecting the need for military adventurism overseas. This vision was rooted in a profound skepticism of war and its ability to resolve international disputes. In his Devil Theory of War—a work that stands as a damning critique of the ideological justifications for war—Beard had already argued that war was not an inevitable outcome of human nature or some eternal historical force. Instead, he saw war as a tool wielded by elites for the purposes of consolidation, expansion, and profit. His critique was prescient, anticipating the rise of the military-industrial complex and the increasing role of corporate interests in shaping American foreign policy.
Beard’s analysis was grounded in a deep understanding of the dangers of imperialism, as well as the corrosive effects of war on democratic institutions. He saw war as a centralizing force, one that expanded the powers of the state at the expense of individual liberty and economic freedom. His advocacy for a non-interventionist foreign policy was not just a moral stance but a practical recognition that war erodes the very principles that make America unique—principles that, if preserved, could offer a powerful alternative to the authoritarianism that was beginning to define the global order.
Libertarian Realism: Beard’s Influence on Modern Thinkers
In many ways, Beard’s insights anticipate the broader libertarian critique of American foreign policy—one that was more explicitly articulated in the works of figures like Murray Rothbard. Rothbard, in particular, built on Beard’s skepticism of state power and imperialism, applying these ideas to the global stage.
Mises—whose work on the economics of interventionism remains foundational to Austrian economics—would have no doubt appreciated Beard’s arguments about the economic consequences of foreign policy decisions. Mises viewed war and foreign intervention not as opportunities to promote freedom, but as mechanisms by which the state grows ever more powerful, regardless of the consequences for ordinary people. Mises, like Beard, saw the state as fundamentally antagonistic to liberty, and both men warned that the expansion of state power would ultimately result in the erosion of the very freedoms it purported to defend.
David Gordon, in bringing Beard back front and center, has done much to revive and expand upon Beard’s insights. Gordon’s recent lecture on Charles A. Beard’s contributions to understanding American foreign policy reminds us that, far from being an isolated critic, Beard was part of a long tradition of historians who understood the dangers of interventionism and imperialism.
The Cronyism and Imperialism of American Foreign Policy
The United States’ foreign policy in the 20th and 21st centuries has largely validated the warnings raised by Beard and his intellectual descendants. From the creation of the military-industrial complex to the seemingly-endless wars in the Middle East, American foreign policy has often been driven by the interests of a powerful elite—corporations, defense contractors, and politicians seeking to expand their influence and control. As Beard predicted, the supposed idealism of American foreign policy often masked a darker, more self-interested reality.
The consequences of this cronyism and imperialism have been devastating. Not only have millions of lives been lost in wars abroad, but the domestic costs of these interventions have been steep. The US government’s commitment to endless warfare has contributed to the erosion of civil liberties, the expansion of the surveillance state, and the growth of centralized power. Far from promoting freedom or democracy, American interventionism has fostered a world of instability, conflict, and inequality.
Conclusion: A Return to Beard’s Wisdom
In today’s world of geopolitical rivalries, military conflicts, and economic instability, the ideas of Charles A. Beard offer a powerful alternative to the interventionist policies that have come to dominate American foreign policy. Beard’s vision of a foreign policy rooted in Continentalism, non-interventionism, and skepticism of war remains as relevant as ever. It is time for libertarians, non-interventionists, and lovers of liberty to look back at Beard’s work, as well as the insights of Rothbard, Mises, and Gordon, to reclaim a foreign policy that prioritizes peace, individual freedom, and the avoidance of unnecessary conflict. In doing so, we can honor the memory of one of America’s greatest historians and return to a foreign policy that reflects the true values of liberty and self-determination.
