“Isolationism” in US foreign policy debates

Expanding here on an earlier note about the use of “isolationism” in the American foreign political context.

Andrew Bacevich, currently head of the Quincy Institute, has long been critical of the use of the epithet “isolationism.” He wrote in 2013:

The abiding defect of U.S. foreign policy? It’s isolationism, my friend. Purporting to steer clear of war, isolationism fosters it. Isolationism impedes the spread of democracy. It inhibits trade and therefore prosperity. It allows evildoers to get away with murder. Isolationists prevent the United States from accomplishing its providentially assigned global mission. Wean the American people from their persistent inclination to look inward and who knows what wonders our leaders will accomplish.

The United States has been at war for well over a decade now, with U.S. attacks and excursions in distant lands having become as commonplace as floods and forest fires. Yet during the recent debate over Syria [2013], the absence of popular enthusiasm for opening up another active front evoked expressions of concern in Washington that Americans were once more turning their backs on the world. (1)

He cites some examples of isolationism being used to discredit anyone questioning this or that US military intervention.

The [Wall Street] Journal’s op-ed page also gave the redoubtable Norman Podhoretz, not only still alive but vigorously kicking, a chance to vent. Unmasking President Obama as “a left-wing radical” intent on “reduc[ing] the country’s power and influence,” the unrepentant neoconservative accused the president of exploiting the “war-weariness of the American people and the rise of isolationist sentiment… on the left and right” to bring about “a greater diminution of American power than he probably envisaged even in his wildest radical dreams.”

Obama escalated the war in Afghanistan, “got” Osama bin Laden, toppled one Arab dictator in Libya, and bashed and bombed targets in Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, and elsewhere. Even so, it turns out he is actually part of the isolationist conspiracy to destroy America! [italics in original]

And he explains:

Most of this, of course, qualifies as overheated malarkey. As a characterization of U.S. policy at any time in memory, isolationism is a fiction. Never really a tendency, it qualifies at most as a moment, referring to that period in the 1930s when large numbers of Americans balked at the prospect of entering another European war, the previous one having fallen well short of its “War To End All Wars” advance billing.

In fact, from the day of its founding down to the present, the United States has never turned its back on the world. Isolationism owes its storied history to its value as a rhetorical device, deployed to discredit anyone opposing an action or commitment (usually involving military forces) that others happen to favor. If I, a grandson of Lithuanian immigrants, favor deploying U.S. forces to Lithuania to keep that NATO ally out of Vladimir Putin’s clutches and you oppose that proposition, then you, sir or madam, are an “isolationist.” Presumably, [hawkish then-Republican and later Never Trumper] Jennifer Rubin will see things my way and lend her support to shoring up Lithuania’s vulnerable frontiers. [my emphasis]

(Lithuania became a member of NATO in 2004. But in 2013, the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 hadn’t happened yet.)

It‘s always important to remember two things about American ”isolationism.“ One is that it doesn‘t exist in any meaningful sense of the word. (And, yes, I know about George Washington’s Farewell Address of 1796!) As Bacevich indicated, it‘s mostly used to insult anyone raising questions about a war that the person making the insult supports. Whether the criticism is coming from a pragmatic, legalistic, moral, or ideological position.

Second, to the extent there is any political faction in the US that traces its political history back to the pre-WWII America First movement, it‘s composed of hardcore militarists and rightwingers. Who, among other things, are flat-out opposed to international nuclear arms-control agreements. Ronald Radosh wrote a sympathetic account of that crew in Prophets on the Right: Profiles of Conservative Critics of American Globalism (1975). Radosh was making a left-to-right pivot at that time. (2)

The latter group‘s founding mythology is the ”FDR planned Pearl Harbor“ notion, which has also been called “the very ur-conspiracy theory of American history.” (3) Or at least the ur-conspiracy theory of today‘s Republican Party!

But the Trumpista base at least likes to hear vague suggestions that the candidates aren’t eager for more war.

The traditional Republican approach to foreign policy represented by Eisenhower, Reagan, and the two Bushes remains the preferred approach of most Republicans on Capitol Hill. Twenty-two Republican senators joined with all but two Democrats to pass the Ukraine aid package last month. If a secret vote could be arranged for that bill, it would likely pass easily in the House. But a secret vote isn’t in the offing. Lawmakers are sensitive to political winds. And in Republican circles the winds are now blowing stiffly in the direction of doing less and not more. (4)

So that’s why Republicans including Trump like to keep up the rhetorical pretense.

And, no, voting against Ukraine aid is not a sign of pacifist or restrainer instinct on the part of Trumpist Republicans elected officials. It’s a sign they prefer a pro-Putin foreign policy. Which in itself isn’t a good or bad thing. Foreign policy is all about choosing with which countries to cooperate and which to oppose. A good “realist” power-political consideration would be more likely suggest that the US should be trying to improve relations with Russia to cooperate with them as a balance against China.

The Republican militarists who flirt with superficial “isolationist” rhetoric generally love the idea of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. As we saw in Trump’s Presidency with the North Korean (5) and Iranian (6) nuclear programs.

Here’s a discussion of “isolationism” from theliberal think-taking Woodrow Wilson Center (7):

Also, here’s Woody Guthrie’s classic song about the original America First movement (8):

Notes:

(1) Bacevich, Andrew (2013): Always and Everywhere. TomDispatch 10/24/2013. <https://tomdispatch.com/andrew-bacevich-bashing-isolationists-while-at-war-in-the-world/> (Accessed: 2024-19-07).

(2) Perlstein, Rich (2015): When Leftists Become Conservatives. The Nation 03/23/2015. <https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/going-all-way/> (Accessed: 2024-19-07).

(3) Baker, Kevin (2001): Another Day Of Infamy. American Heritage 52:2 (April 2001). <https://www.americanheritage.com/another-day-infamy> (Accessed: 2024-19-07).

(4) Linsdsay, James M. (2024): Election 2024: Are Republicans Turning Isolationist? Council on Foreign Relations 03/29/2024. <https://www.cfr.org/blog/election-2024-are-republicans-turning-isolationist> (Accessed: 2024-19-07).

(5) Wit, Joel S. (2024): Blame Donald Trump for North Korea’s sabre-rattling. The Strategist 07/17/2024. <https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/blame-donald-trump-for-north-koreas-sabre-rattling/> (Accessed: 2024-19-07).

(6) Collina, Tom (2024): Killing the Iran nuclear deal was one of Trump's biggest failures. Responsible Statecraft 05/08/2024. <https://responsiblestatecraft.org/iran-nuclear-deal/> (Accessed: 2024-19-07).