Our own Alex Della Rocchetta wrote the other day that there’s a growing “isolationist” tide in America. In fairness, she was encouraged to use the term by the Pew Research Center and other outlets (see, for instance, this discussion of GOP politics and the opening for an “isolationist” candidate ).
I’d like to dissent from all of this. None of the GOP contenders are isolationist. The growing popular dissatisfaction with the war in Afghanistan and the skepticism toward the Libyan adventure have very, very little to do with anything that can seriously be understood as isolationism. The chief opponent of military engagement around the world, Representative Ron Paul, is not even an isolationist properly understood since he’d lower trade and (I believe) immigration barriers.
While isolationists surely want to leave Afghanistan, wanting to get out of Afghanistan is not necessarily evidence of isolationism. It may be wrongheaded. It may be dangerous. It may even be evidence of some other ideological -ism. But isolationist? No. The same goes for Libya. Indeed, the idea that wanting to pull out of Libya (not my own position by the way) is a mark of isolationism is to suggest that basically any engagement the president enters into must be carried out indefinitely lest we give in to isolationism.
Pew cites as evidence of rising isolation that larger numbers of Americans think Obama should concentrate more on our problems at home and/or that America should “mind its own business” more in the world. Now, I believe America must stay engaged internationally, but I’m at a loss as to how these views amount to isolationism. Couldn’t Americans simply be making a prudential judgment about how we should set priorities? Isn’t it in fact true that we are fiscally over-extended and in need of some house-cleaning?
Again, my objection is solely to the word “isolationist.” While Alex seems to be using it in a clinical way, as if it is merely an accepted objective term, it is seen by many as a pejorative and by others as a once lost cause worthy of reviving. Either way the term is loaded with baggage, hence it tends to distort debates rather than edify them.
For instance, there were far more liberal isolationists than liberal historians and pundits would have people think. They included John Dewey, Charles Beard, Joseph Kennedy and his sons, various writers for the liberal New Republic, et al. Meanwhile many of the most famous “isolationists” were far more willing to engage the world than the term suggests. Henry Cabot Lodge and the Republicans who rejected the Treaty of Versailles were not remotely isolationist (I could go into all that, but it gets complicated). Ron Paul likes to invoke Senator Robert Taft’s opposition to NATO as proof of a longstanding tradition of isolationism in the GOP. He always leaves out the fact that Taft supported the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan, promised “100 percent support for the Chinese National government on Formosa,” and favored keeping six divisions in Europe, at least until the Europeans could defend themselves. That’s not exactly Fortress America talk.
Using the term isolationist as if it didn’t conjure these old debates and battles is a mistake. It offends those who simply disagree with specific policies while it encourages those who would like to claim that Isolationism—with a capital I—is once again a thriving or at least viable political movement. Do we really want Pat Buchanan out there using these polls as proof that it’s time for him to revive his America First schtick?
The American people may be wrong in their priorities, it’s happened before. And Mitt Romney and others may be wrong in theirs. But wrong is not synonymous with isolationism.
UPDATE: Tim Carney has more thoughts. We don’t see eye to eye on foreign policy, but I think he makes some good points and illustrates the trouble with the I-word.
Oh, quack quack.
Yes – the word is used constantly to describe Paul’s foreign policy positions.
North Korea is isolationist!
Paul wants trade, travel and diplomacy with all nations… perhaps especially trade.
Thanks
Isolationist, nativist, protectionist, same non-sense Neo-Con Bush said about Dubai Ports. Were americans wrong about that? REALLY wouldn’t bother me if Pat Buchanan revived his “America first” Schtick. Pat’s right most of the time, you’re not.
Fully agree. With words increasingly being used as weapons, precise definitions are important. P.S. Just curious, when did the media in general switch the word “media” from plural to singular?
I’m glad you set the record straight. Isolationist has been misused in the media recently. Non-interventionist is a better term to use.
I think we should get troops & bases out of most countries & shrink the defense budget by close to half. On the other hand, we should have a great many ICBM’s targeted at Mecca, Medina, Qom, Teheran & Peshawar. Does that make me an isolationist – or just frugal?
A question, I have been feeling angry and helpless that Greeks who would rather “Live, Love, Laugh” instead of work, save, invest, will cost me more of my retirement money. Does that make me an isolationist?
Guess what? Most people in the USA haven’t a clue about the baggage the term “isolationist” carries. There hasn’t been a serious discussion of the classic meaning since before WWII. As for Joseph Kennedy and his sons being isolationists, Joe was a supporter of Adolph Hitler until WWII started, Joseph Jr died fighting, and JFK managed to get himself and his PT boat run down by a Japanese destroyer, hardly your classic isolationists.
thanks for writing this, altho’ I don’t know if I agree with you about Ron Paul. but in general, I noticed the trend too especially related to the Libyan not-war.
but you have to remember, the MSM needs the GOP to have infighting, and isolationists vs. hawks is another good division for them to spin about.
Good article, seemingly as nonbiased as could be helped. One thing, Ron Paul doesn’t claim to be isolationist. He specifically claims the term “noninterventionist”, which by your own evidence of his rejecting trade barriers, makes sense.
Many big lies are being passed around these days it seems…
I’m loving this intellectual denouement of the Progressive propagandists in the MSM.
If all they have left to attack with is the ‘big lie’ it means that we have won the argument. The key problem we now face is getting the fact that we ‘have won’ out to the voting public.
RichInIowa
everything is relative in politics.
relative to adding more than 65k troops to afghanistan, and spending 10 billion a year, to train/equip/organize a minority overthrow in libya, i am james ‘freakin’ monroe.
democrats want to increase entitlements, and anyone with the temerity to oppose it clearly hates those who would benefit.
Isolantionist is not Non-interventionist.
Mr. Ron Paul for 2012.
Regan said, “What to ask is am I better off now than 4 years ago. Is food cheaper now than 4 years ago? Are taxes lower now than 4 years ago? Is the job situation better than it was 4 years ago?”
With Ron Paul’s 2012, You, it, and they would be.
Constitutionally, legislatively, and morally, Ron Paul has no equal. His 22 year voting record speaks for itself.
As Mr. Regan said, “You ain’t seen nothin yet!”
Isolationism isn’t just a word, it’s a set of policies and like all policies it’s the actions one takes after making some sort of judgment. The key to understanding the word is to understand the judgement.
In the 30′s the judgement was Imperial Europe was morally corrupt and the best thing for the U.S. to do was to close it’s doors against European Influence. That judgement was held by conservatives and liberals.
Since the 1970′s, it has been liberals who have passed judgment on a country — on the U.S — and deemed the U.S. to be morally corrupt with the policies that followed of hamstringing every possible action the U.S. could take unilaterally.
Isolationism isn’t just a word, it’s a set of policies and like all policies it’s the actions one takes after making some sort of judgment. The key to understanding the word is to understand the judgement.
In the 30′s the judgement was THAT Imperial Europe was morally corrupt and the best thing for the U.S. to do was to close it’s doors against European Influence. That judgement was held by conservatives and liberals and quite likely grew out of the revulsion of WWI.
Since the 1970′s, it has been liberals who have passed judgment on a country — on the U.S — and deemed the U.S. to be morally corrupt. All the policies that followed are intended to hamstring every possible action the U.S. could take unilaterally, be it trade, foreign military action, or confronting ideological opponents,such as the Soviet Union in its day or Iran today. That judgement grew out of the revulsion of the war in Vietnam.
In both cases the policies that sprang from those moral judgement were intended to limit the influence of those state actors who were deemed to be so morally flawed as to require isolation.
Minding our our business isn’t isolationism. Passing moral judgement on state actors and then choosing to isolate them on those moral grounds, is.
Using the word Isolationist as a political pejorative is, IMO, fair. But it should not be used out of the proper content, the context of the moral judgement that necessitates the policies.
Ron Paul 22 years. Oh boy another career politician
You can certainly see your skills within the paintings you write. The world hopes for even more passionate writers such as you who are not afraid to mention how they believe. All the time go after your heart.