Liberal interventionism and neoconservatism offer us the same militaristic approaches. It’s time for a new, more thoughtful approach to our foreign policy.

For the past few decades, there have been two dominant schools of thought on foreign policy: the liberal interventionist camp, and the neoconservative interventionist group. The intellectual foundation for these two schools of thought was always thin, but both have failed to create positive outcomes for U.S. global interests. If America’s vital national interests are to be safeguarded, we need new ways of thinking and acting international stage—ways that accurately reflect the evolving and sometimes chaotic world of 2016.

It’s time to jettison the old ways of thinking for a new school of thought that takes the world as it exists—some of which is violent, anarchic, and threatening, and other of which is peaceful, stable, and friendly—and form an American foreign policy that firmly defends the security and freedom of American citizens while fostering, to the extent possible, a stable international environment.

This new thinking would be willing to push the envelope in seeking the most stable world possible, guaranteeing the security of our country, and providing the greatest economic opportunity possible.

Neocons and Liberal Interventionists Embrace the Same Militaristic Approach

Neoconservatism has held that to secure America, the U.S. needs to go abroad militarily to shape the internal affairs of other countries, even if that means preemptively striking hostile powers and actors. The liberal interventionist school of thought has generally focused on using military power to resolve humanitarian concerns abroad, support for international law, and likewise spread democracy to other nations.

Unfortunately for the neoconservatives, it has become painfully clear over the past decade that relying on the military to solve the majority of international problems has produced a worsening of the very conditions it sought to solve. Liberal interventionists have had a heart for those on the wrong side of inequality globally, but have believed that using or threatening to use force was an effective way to solve problems.

Both schools of thought have it wrong. This fact has made them operationally indistinguishable. This is why neoconservatives or military primacists, like Lindsey Graham, often recommend similar military actions to liberal interventionists, like John Kerry. There is now effectively one bipartisan school of thought in foreign policy. Some scholars have called it “liberal hegemonialism” or “primacy.”

When Republicans are in charge of the White House or Congress, the fused hybrid most often manifests itself by deploying lethal military power to select global hotspots, trying to coerce or destroy opponents in an attempt to bend them to U.S. will.

When Democrats have the power, they almost reflexively use military power to compel states to adopt American-approved democracy, or behave in ways they believe others ought to behave, whether others agree or not.

But the difference between the actions taken by the GOP and Democratic parties is more a nuance than a distinction. The Republicans can’t seem to accept that the Cold War no longer exists. And Democrats appear unwilling to recognize that some violent actors are irredeemable. Both have failed America, and today’s new reality demands a new school of foreign policy thought.

Read the rest of the article by Daniel L. Davis at the Federalist.