Quite often, when confronted with the ideology of a principled non-interventionist, those who favor military expansionism often dismiss the non-interventionist as an isolationist. This reflects an underlying misunderstanding of both non-interventionism as an ideology and of the term isolationism.
The term isolationist was first coined as a smear tactic to apply to those opposed to America’s entry into WWII. Contained in the term were connotations of pro-Nazism. As the indomitable libertarian philosopher and historian Murray N. Rothbard pointed out, “If not actively pro-Nazi, 'isolationists' were at the very least narrow-minded ignoramuses ignorant of the world around them, in contrast to the sophisticated, worldly, caring 'internationalists' who favored American crusading around the globe.”
When defined properly, an isolationist is a person who favors a complete and total lack of interaction with other nations. Under this precise definition, there are very few who can actually call themselves isolationists, although many isolationistic policies have been enacted over the years by both Republican and Democrat-led governments.
Indeed, the real policies of isolationism are those of restricting trade, ignoring diplomacy, devaluing the currency, and meddling in the internal affairs of other nations. All these policies go far in isolating America, in destroying international relationships and trust, and in causing hatred toward America abroad. As political commentator and author Justin Raimondo writes, “The War Party [i.e. the group that favors foreign intervention, both left and right] is the one really consistent advocate of what might be called isolationism: by forcefully intervening in the internal affairs of other nations, by occupying countries and effecting ‘regime change,’ we isolate ourselves from the rest of the world and retreat into an imperialist cocoon, cutting off all normal – i.e. economic and social – relations, and laying the groundwork for the kind of ‘blowback’ that results in terrorism directed against the US and its allies.”
This tactic of calling non-interventionists isolationists is, in effect, a straw-man argument, made to make the interventionists seem like the more reasonable ones. In a June 29th New York Times article, David Greenberg attempts to paint this picture. Noting the steadily shifting attitude of many on the right to non-interventionism, a charge no doubt led by the example and influence of ardent anti-war libertarian Ron Paul, Greenberg writes, “Suddenly, after the aggressive, militaristic foreign policy of the Bush years, isolationism — a stance that rejects America’s leadership role in the world — is on the rise among Republicans.”
So we are now supposed to believe that those who believe in the Constitution, those who are against tyrannical warmaking by the executive, and those who believe in the rule of law are now naive isolationists, thus portraying those who support a hyperactive military policy as on the side of reason. This is a grotesque and anti-intellectual distortion of reality.
To be sure, those on the side of military expansionism are indeed more irrational and dangerous than the peace-loving non-interventionists. In the post-WWI era, those who opposed the newly-labeled “isolationists” were supporters of the “League to Enforce Peace.” While often downplayed by historians, the goals of this group were incredibly frightening. Again, to quote Raimondo, “The Enforcers wanted to set up a world government, with the US and Britain at its head: anyone who looked cross-eyed at these Global Governors would be promptly invaded, subdued, and occupied. That was their idea of ‘peace.’” These goals are essentially the same as those of the interventionists of today – to "create peace" by militarily clobbering any group who the U.S., in all it’s mighty wisdom, deems disobedient.
The real internationalists, those who recognize the complex realities of geopolitics, and who do not simply see the world through red, white and blue colored glasses – the real peacemakers – are the non-interventionists. We favor globe-spanning free trade, a condition that has been incontrovertibly proven to decrease the likelihood of war. We favor truly appreciating what different races, ethnicities, cultures, values systems, and traditions have to offer, and we do not count the lives of people who are different from us as less valuable. We favor diplomatic relations that recognize other nations’ right to sovereignty, dignity and humanity. In short, we favor being active participants in the global marketplace of ideas, creativity and products, and not isolating ourselves by stirring up violence and resentment.
Posts
