Isolationism

11 May, 2007


The American concept of “Isolationism” dates back to our colonial days. The thirteen colonies were populated by people who had fled Europe, where there was religious persecution, economic privation, and constant war. Their new homeland was looked upon as a place to make things better than the old ways. The sheer distance and rigors of the voyage from Europe tended to accentuate the remoteness of the New World. The roots of isolationism were well established years before independence, notwithstanding the alliance with France during the War for Independence. Thomas Paine stressed isolationist ideals in his work “Common Sense”, which presents numerous arguments for avoiding foreign alliances. Paine's writings exerted so much political influence that the Continental Congress strove against an alliance with France and gave in only when it appeared highly probable that the war for independence would be lost without one. Thomas Jefferson, in his inaugural address, admonished the new nation; "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." With this in mind, the United States remained politically isolated all through the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, an unusual feat in western history. Historians have attributed the fact to the geographical position of the United States, protected by the wide expanse of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

From every side, everyone knows that isolationism is obsolete and dead in this age of H-bombs, strategic bombers, and guided missiles, but is it really? It’s my contention that our national interests would be much better served by a return to an updated version of the isolationist policies that stood us in good stead for our first hundred and fifty years as a nation. However, I do not propose that we lock ourselves behind our borders and look at the world through rose colored glasses, but like everything else there are various degrees of isolationism, both political and economic. Certainly we belong, like it or not, to the world community, and we cannot escape the responsibilities that accompany that membership. And yes, it is in our best interest to see that the world is a peaceful community. But no one either expects, or wants, the United States to be the world communities self appointed policeman. That function properly belongs to the United Nations, and is the sole reason the UN was established in the first place!

It is not in our national interest to forcibly export our moralistic or political system on a world that neither understands nor “appreciates” the finer points of American life.

Quite literally we need to pull in our horns. We need to establish diplomatic relations with all countries, and explain in simple and no uncertain terms exactly what we feel our national interests are, and what our national policies will be. Once that is clearly understood, we should bring all the troops home, secure our borders, and build up our national defenses to a stage that no sane foreign politician has any desire to pose a threat to the United States, and expose himself to the inevitable outcome of armed conflict. Certainly we have several traditional and long standing allies whom we should invite under our defensive umbrella, but acceptance should be by their choice, not because of our demands.

We should further call for a program of world disarmament to the point where isolationism again becomes militarily practical. Specifically, America is threatened now by those weapons, H-bomb missiles, disease germs, and chemical gases, which can quickly span the old protection of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. We are not threatened by foreign tanks or machine guns or infantry. It is, therefore, the principal task of an American foreign policy devoted to American interests not to bring about further unrest and hatred, but rather a universal scuttling of these weapons. If we all returned to no more than the old "conventional" weapons, and preferably even to the muskets of yore, then America would no longer be endangered, and we could then be sitting, fat, dumb, and happy, on our side of the ocean. I do feel that threats to world peace, such as we experienced with Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, should be squashed by an overwhelming American military might as soon as they raise their ugly heads. But it is not our duty, and certainly not in our interest, to interfere in every regional or tribal conflict that troubles the world. Again, that is the mission of the UN, not the US.

If there is one thing I have learned through the years, leadership is best accomplished by setting a good example, not through force. We erroneously expect the rest of the world to jump on the bandwagon of “democracy” because that political system has served us well. We forget that few peoples in our modern world have any experience with freedom of choice, instead they are, and have for millennia, been ruled by everything from tribal leaders to kings to dictators. Their societies literally cannot function in a political atmosphere wherein the population is not constantly being told what to do by the “authorities”. (A system that is also rapidly developing in the “politically correct” American society today.)

In our rather simplistic worldview, we get all upset because the Russian experiment in democracy is faltering. Yet we refuse to understand that the Russian people have had absolutely no experience with any but dictatorial governance (Boyars, Tsars, and Party Secretaries) in their entire history. We expected Iraq to become an overnight democracy despite the simple fact that they, along with the rest of the mid-east, have had nothing but a theocratic political system for nearly fifteen-hundred years, a land where Kings, Sheiks, and Imans abound, jealously guarding their special privileges. Mexico and points south have for several hundred years labored under a political system based on patronage by the rich, not freedom of choice. We forget that nearly all of Africa and much of south-east Asia have tribal based cultures, where everyone other than the immediate tribe is viewed with suspicion, and generally considered to be evil, dangerous, and to be destroyed at first opportunity.

Democracy is after all a slow growing ideal, and is very fragile. So, rather than nurturing democratic governments around the world, we try to replace other political systems through covert political activities and big business dealings. Then, when that doesn’t work, we send in the Marines! Such a program certainly doesn’t seem to be winning us many friends around the world, or building many democracies. Perhaps the US should try leading by example for a change.