Discover more from Blue Blaze
In current debates about the future of US foreign policy, defenders of the longstanding US national security strategy spend a lot of time disparaging an imaginary opponent—and much less time engaging real ones.
Today, foreign policy thinkers on both left and right criticize the rise of what they call isolationists, particularly in the Republican party. Surging isolationism,” wrote columnist George Will, “is a dreadful development in a dangerous time.” NBC states that not since the 1930s “has isolationist sentiment gained so much traction in the U.S.” An NPR commentator laments, “the idea of America going it alone in the world — politically, economically, militarily — was discredited” after Pearl Harbor, but has returned. Vice President Kamala Harris declared at the Munich Security Conference that the American people must ask themselves “Whether it is in America’s interest to continue to engage with the world or to turn inward.”
It sounds so right. Everybody nods and tingles with wisdom and a sense of belonging to an enlightened tribe. But it’s a straw man. As commentator Alex Massie wrote when critics called Barack Obama an isolationist, “The term has been devoid of value for half a century now and shows no sign of becoming more useful….And yet it refuses to disappear.” Worse, the pejorative prevents Americans from having a meaningful foreign policy debate.
The False Dichotomy: Internationalism versus Isolationism
When commentators lament isolationism - and compare it to a more enlightened internationalism - they’ve performed, as Stephen Wertheim argues, a clever rhetorical trick. In this framing, isolationists want the United States to withdraw from the world; having regrettably forgotten the lessons of the 1930s, they inexplicably long to return to a world of trade protectionism and war. More enlightened people, who learned the lessons of history, favor “internationalism” for the greater security and prosperity it provides.
But what is internationalism? The current vision of internationalism in the United States is not the internationalism of say a Britain or a South Korea: countries deeply engaged economically and diplomatically in their regions and across the globe.
Rather, the internationalism of Joe Biden and many Republicans (Nikki Haley and the neo-Reaganite faction of the GOP) is a highly ambitious, muscular internationalism. It emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union in response to U.S. primacy. This version of internationalism relies on massive defense spending and the frequent use of military force. It casts the United States in the position of leader and defender of a liberal international order. As leader, the United States accepts allies as junior rather than equal partners (for they made steep drops in defense spending during this era).
the internationalism of Joe Biden and many Republicans (Nikki Haley and the neo-Reaganite faction of the GOP) is a highly ambitious, muscular internationalism.
This type of internationalism (variously called a strategy of global leadership or deep engagement) was possible for a while. But things have changed.
First, for three decades, the United States faced no great-power competitor. Today the United States faces a revanchist Russia, and a great-power competitor in China. In this world, the strategy of global leadership will be increasingly costly and dangerous.
Second, for a while, a U.S. strategy of global leadership was possible because American finances were in good shape. But today the problem of the U.S. national debt is approaching dire levels. In fact, this year the United States has reached a “grim and once-unimaginable milestone”: the Congressional Budget Office has said that this year the amount that the United States spends on interest on the debt ($870 billion) will exceed defense spending ($850 billion). Under such conditions, Americans will increasingly be asked to make tough budgetary choices.
Debating Global Leadership and its Alternatives
In this setting, American foreign policy is likely going to have to change, and Americans need to debate how it should change. The debate is not between 1930s isolationism versus US global dominance. No one in mainstream U.S. foreign policy debates is saying the United States should be isolationist – that the United States should withdraw from the world, pursue economic autarky, and stay out of global institutions.
No one in mainstream U.S. foreign policy debates is saying the United States should be isolationist
The views that many critics of U.S. foreign policy do hold – which the isolationist pejorative obscures – are more subtle. Advocates of competing foreign policies – e.g. nationalists and restrainters – want the United States to remain a highly engaged actor but don’t want the United States to fight so many wars. Furthermore, they want greater burden sharing from U.S. allies and partners: after all, these partners live next-door to countries that they say are dire threats. Nationalists support international trade and want trade deals that benefit American workers and businesses. Many people have deep sympathy and admiration for Ukraine but question how U.S. aid will help bring an end to what seems to be an endless war.
It is not isolationism to wonder whether countries with a vital security interest should be spending more than they are; to question the theory of victory in Ukraine; to note real budgetary constraints and ask what Americans are going to have to give up in order to fund a strategy of global leadership.
Nor is it isolationism to ask American leaders to devote more energy and resources to addressing problems at home. The crisis on the U.S. southern border faces what Brookings describes as “skyrocketing” numbers of people illegally crossing the U.S. border, while both border patrols and immigration courts face “chronic underfunding.” Furthermore, in 2023 fentanyl killed 112,000 Americans; as NPR noted, “the magnitude of this calamity now eclipses every previous drug epidemic, from crack cocaine in the 1980s to the prescription opioid crisis of the 2000s.”
On the progressive side of the spectrum, many scholars – who also want to continue engaging with the world – believe that the United States has an overly militarized foreign policy. They want less military spending and more foreign aid. Progressives favor a non-“imperialist” foreign policy and want to promote – using transnational and international fora – global justice. Progressives oppose what they call U.S. hegemony. They support “giving other countries and groups that represent the working class greater say in managing global affairs,” explains my Dartmouth colleague Jeff Friedman, “which includes restructuring, replacing, or removing intergovernmental organizations that reinforce US primacy.” Progressives lament a Washington D.C. echo chamber that closes doors to people who question U.S. hegemony: behavior that discriminates against many talented foreign policy thinkers and undermines robust debate. Labeling people with such views as “isolationists” ignores their critiques.
How to discuss US foreign policy without this pejorative? Fellow Blue Blazer Jeremy Shapiro offers some wise words on this. Jeremy – along with his ECFR colleague Majda Ruge — studied different “tribes” within the Republican Party. Jeremy tells me that in that project he never used the term “isolationism” to describe the Trump faction of the GOP. “If people who subscribe to a view reject a name for it,” he commented, “then I don’t use it.” A more respectful debate comes with an additional benefit: we might actually engage each other’s arguments. Imagine that.
Subscribe to Blue Blaze
International relations and US foreign policy, off the main trail
The article hits the nail on the head. We see the issue playing out particularly in the context of NATO, where calls for allies to do more in their own backyard are mistakenly conflated with “isolationism.”
Fantastic article - its long past time for our elected officials to stop pandering to emotional responses of misinformed masses swayed by the media feeding frenzy of yellow journalism advertising $$. I loved the rational discussion here - we cannot exist in a vacuum, we must lead in across the globe, but no longer just w/ military force - (not working too well in Ukraine, Palestine, etc.) but with carrots, not sticks. Also - SO much cheaper to do and builds long term healthier relationships (see the Marshall Policy post WWII). Best line of the article - Defense spending is now outweighed by debt spending - not sustainable!
So why is it that this makes SO much sense to any even relatively informed reader/citizen, but we cannot move as a nation in this direction? Jennifer Lind for President.