What Isolationism?

February 8th, 2006 at 19:16 Björn Hallberg

Andrew Bacevich gives his opinion on the much used but little understood spectre of “isolationism.” Noteworthy since it brings us to the heart of what is wrong with America.

Common Dreams - In his state of the Union address on Tuesday, President Bush worked himself into a lather about the dangers of “retreating within our borders.” His speech bulged with ominous references to ostensibly resurgent isolationists hankering to “tie our hands” and leave “an assaulted world to fend for itself.” Turning inward, the president cautioned, would provide “false comfort” because isolationism inevitably “ends in danger and decline.”

But who exactly are these isolationists eager to pull up the drawbridges? What party do they control? What influential journals of opinion do they publish? Who are their leaders? Which foundations bankroll this isolationist cause?

The president provided no such details, and for good reason: They do not exist. Indeed, in present-day American politics, isolationism does not exist. It is a fiction, a fabrication and a smear imported from another era.

I may not agree in all things military with Bacevich, he is obviously a supporter of America first, but the US does indeed have a major problem in that it still lives its Wilsonian dream. A dream born directly from a yearning for imperialistic grandeur that is flawed because history does not have an “identifiable direction and purpose.” That thinking is indeed very dangerous because if you think you have the answer and can see the future why not make it happen today? Just as the Soviet Union realized communism and made flesh an ideology because, after all, it was inevitable. Or just as Nazi Germany proceeded to start a perpetual war and expand its lebensraum (manifest destiny), because if you believe that life is a constant state of war, then what does it matter. Inevitability is a dangerous thing. You’d think that futurists would have learned this by now and stopped perpetuating ideas like “American purpose” or “The End of History.”

As for specifics, one doesn’t have to go far to realize that the US was never truly isolationistic. Not even if isolationism is understood in strictly military terms. The last time I looked it up, my Princeton dictionary defined the term as:

Noun: Isolationism
1. A policy of nonparticipation in international economic and political relations

There is however a vast difference between isolationism and minding your own damn business. The US couldn’t be isolationistic even if it wanted to. It is an oxymoron now, due to connectedness and it was a pipe dream (or spectre depending on who was juggling it) in the age of Wilson. But in Bushzarro-world, where war is peace, torture is justice and spying is freedom, perhaps one shouldn’t be so surprised that the terms are being twisted and turned. Not to mention how a really simple idea (of the US staying within its own borders) is being obfuscated and covered in dishonesty and confusion to appear much more complicated. The truth is that the US is out “saving” the world based on a false premiss.

Entry 450 filed under: North America. This entry was posted 2 years, 11 months ago. RSS feed for comments on this post.