What is Isolationism?

Isolationists argue that their ideology is rooted in the words and actions of America's greatest Founding Fathers. George Washington, for instance, believed that "The Great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible."[1] Instead of advocating complete isolation from the outside world, isolationists believe that America should be deeply involved in international trade and diplomacy as long as that involvement does not lead America unnecessarily into foreign wars. Referring to America's unique geographic situation in the world, Washington asked:

"Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European Ambition, Rivalship, Interest, Humour, or Caprice? 'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign world."[2]

John Quincy Adams followed Washington's advice when he opposed American intervention in Europe during the Greek uprising against the Ottoman Turks.[3] In response to demands that America intervene on the side of liberty, Adams said:

"Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will [4]

Although America has on many occasions gone abroad in search of monsters to destroy, the legacy left behind by American icons like George Washington and John Quincy Adams was never forgotten. For isolationists, the greatest lessons of history come from what was done in the name of national security - all too often with negative results. From this perspective, if the US government had intervened in less foreign conflicts, America's national security would have been much greater as a result.

Many of America's wars were opposed by isolationists in their own time and condemned by modern-day isolationists for the results they produced. The Spanish-American War of 1898 resulted in the annexation of Spain's colonies of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines by the United States.[5] In response, the Anti-Imperialist League was founding in the same year to advocate the principles of American isolationism. In the end, according to Patrick Buchanan, a modern proponent of isolationism,

"Annexation of the Philippines... produced a three-year guerrilla war, embroilment in imperial rivalries in China, an Open Door we were unprepared to keep open with force, deteriorating relations with Japan, and acquiescence in Tokyo's seizure of Korea - in return for Japan's promise to respect our position in the Philippines..."[6]

A common theme in isolationist ideology is that America's involvement in foreign wars almost always produces negative side effects later on. The theory is that even though America may have good intentions when it intervenes in an apparently straightforward conflict, the nature of the world is so complex that the way America intervenes will always be wrong.[7] As argued by Joseph Stromberg, "there is virtually no situation anywhere in the world that can't be made worse by U.S. intervention."[8] Furthermore, Stromberg suggests that the more the US intervenes in a given region, the greater the detriment to American national security will be as a result later on.[9]

Many isolationists believe that US intervention in WWI initiated a train of events that wrought tremendous devastation on the United States and the world in general. Patrick Buchanan suggests that without American support for the Allies, all involved parties would have had to accept a peace of compromise; instead, Germany was forced to accept the humiliating and crippling conditions of Versailles.[10] Buchanan considers what might have happened if America had simply stayed out of the conflict:

"A strong, united, and prosperous Germany would not have spawned a Hitler. There might have been no Holocaust, no quarter-century reign of Stalin, no Cold War. Had America stayed out, there would have been no Versailles, no occupation and dismemberment of the German nation, no American war dead, no debt, no era of disillusionment. Had America not financed the war, it would surely have ended earlier than it did, with far fewer dead."[11]

Despite the persistent belief among modern Americans that WWII was a 'good war' and that America's involvement in it was inevitable, isolationists argue that this is not the case. The America First Committee (AFC), formed in 1940, existed to keep the US out of the war (a position held by most Americans until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor).[12] Although the AFC ceased to exist when its members joined the war effort, they released one final statement: "Our principles were right. Had they been followed, war could have been avoided."[13] According to the isolationist perspective, America was drawn into both World Wars because, despite its claims of neutrality, it had favored one side in the conflict over the other. Case in point, Japan attacked the United States in response to the "economic war"[14] that America had already been waging against it. From the isolationist perspective, American involvement in WWII (like its involvement in WWI) was neither inevitable nor 'good," considering the long-term effects on America's national security. As summarized by Buchanan,

"In 1917 Wilson had gone to war to make the world safe for democracy, and had made the world safe for Lenin, Mussolini, and Hitler. In 1941 Roosevelt had gone to war to make Europe and Asia safe for democracy, and had made Europe safe for Stalinism and Asia safe for Maoism."[15]

Fundamentally, isolationists believe that it is detrimental to America's national security when the US government participates unnecessarily in foreign conflicts.

[1] Quoted in Patrick J. Buchanan, A Republic, Not an Empire: Reclaiming America's Destiny (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1999), 66.

[2] Quoted in Patrick J. Buchanan, A Republic, Not an Empire: Reclaiming America's Destiny (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1999), 66.

[3] Patrick J. Buchanan, A Republic, Not an Empire: Reclaiming America's Destiny (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1999), 100.

[4] Quoted in Patrick J. Buchanan, A Republic, Not an Empire: Reclaiming America's Destiny (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1999), 100-101.

[5] Patrick J. Buchanan, A Republic, Not an Empire: Reclaiming America's Destiny (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1999), 159.

[6] Patrick J. Buchanan, A Republic, Not an Empire: Reclaiming America's Destiny (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1999), 176-177.

[7] Ivan Eland, The Empire has No Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed (Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute, 2004), 86.

[8] Quoted in Ivan Eland, The Empire has No Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed (Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute, 2004), 86.

[9] Quoted in Ivan Eland, The Empire has No Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed (Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute, 2004), 86.

[10] Patrick J. Buchanan, A Republic, Not an Empire: Reclaiming America's Destiny (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1999), 218.

[11] Patrick J. Buchanan, A Republic, Not an Empire: Reclaiming America's Destiny (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1999), 218.

[12] Patrick J. Buchanan, A Republic, Not an Empire: Reclaiming America's Destiny (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1999), 271.

[13] Quoted in Patrick J. Buchanan, A Republic, Not an Empire: Reclaiming America's Destiny (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1999), 293.

[14] Patrick J. Buchanan, A Republic, Not an Empire: Reclaiming America's Destiny (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1999), 284.

[15] Patrick J. Buchanan, A Republic, Not an Empire: Reclaiming America's Destiny (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1999), 297.