American Isolationism?

[Nationalist_Cause]

In the 1940's there was a strong movement amongst isolationist minded people in America who wanted little to do with the affairs of Europe. During WWI the same thing happened, these people didnt want to get involved in Europe's wars. They happened to be dead wrong and we went to war anyway but my point was that the mentality still exists and many Americans care little for the trials and tribulations of countries far away across the pond.

Posted by RZZZA in another thread and I took issue. New thread started to prevent the hijacking of the Rioting in Paris thread.

First, you would do well to read this article .


As the article states, the concept of American isolationism is a myth. But not only during the interwar years as it discusses, but throughout the entirety of its history. This is a misconception of American tradition in foreign policy that is held not only by the vast majority of Americans, but by those abroad as well.

Americans were involved in a series of wars in the 19th century. Although they may seem of little importance when compared to the balance of power politics of Europeans, they were still international conflicts. What kinds of conflicts were Americans involved in?

1) Seizure of Florida from Spain
2) Countless wars with Natives
3) Conflict with Barbary pirates
4) Undeclared naval war with France
5) War of 1812
6) Mexican War
7) Civil War (During which much diplomacy with European powers took place)
8) Spanish American War

And I'm sure there are more I'm not thinking of. Now how exactly can one call that isolationist?

Perhaps if one was to view the issue from a purely Eurocentric standpoint, I could more understand their folly. That argument might be along the lines that America fought no major war with a European power, with the exception of the war of 1812. But isn't the goal of diplomacy and statesmanship to avoid wars? And it is true that, despite the lack of armed conflict between the U.S. and European powers, there was extensive diplomacy and interaction between these states.

This was true even during the interwar years of the 20th century. Though America never became part of the League of Nations, it was heavily engaged in diplomacy with other nations even to the degree of signing an arms treaty (Kellogg-Briand). That America didn't immediately set up long term alliances following the First World War doesn't mean it was isolationist. It simply means Americans felt their national interests were better served by staying out of wars which, as they perceived them, were European troubles.

EDIT: Pretty sure I fixed the link. Works for me at least. Let me know if problem persists since it is a very good read. Also note: In PDF format and somewhat long...30 pages I think.

[First Crusader]

There's something wrong with your link. It is very unlinkish.

Interesting topic. I'll post my thoughts on it soon.

EDIT: The link works now.

[RZZZA]

You said it yourself at the end there..." It simply means Americans felt their national interests were better served by staying out of wars which, as they perceived them, were European troubles." Thats exactly what my point was, simply that many Americans, in the many wars and small conflicts America always seems to be in, have felt like maybe the wiser foreign policy would be to maintain diplomatic and trade relations but keep your military arms to yourself. Besides, how do you explain away American news' tendancy to overlook tragedies and important happenings in foreign countries? How do you explain away government tendancy to overlook genocides and famines and diseases in other countries. Do you think America can't afford to feed the hungry? It can, it just chooses not to. Do you think American news can't cover the news in Europe? It can, it just doesn't want to. Its a matter of priorities and Americans just don't care....well some do, but most don't. Of course there are exceptions I'm just sharing my personal views. America also does a lot of good...we donate some money to Africa at least. Of course another problem is the africans themselves...there seems to be a lot of civil unrest and civil wars in some areas. Who knows where a lot of that money goes...between the crooks in this country pocketing cash and the crooks in africa stealing it to run arms or whatever who knows how much of that money we donate actually is used to feed starving people. Sorry I'm drunk and I'm just rambling now...

[Marshal Qin]

Off topic - about aid. Most aid is lost because it is in the form of food or money rather than knowledge and self-help programs. Food aid just benefits US farmers and money benefits US banks/companies/'non-profit' organisations etc, but little actually goes into helping the people it is intended for. Teaching people how to help themselves is far more important but has little benefit for the aid giver. (e.g. the GM issue - African farmers are not allowed to plant seed that comes from GM food aid due to patent infringement.)

My mother is in charge of all Australia's aid to SE asia. US aid, though abundant is often seen as a weapon of diplomacy and corporate greed rather than as help.

Sorry to hijack the thread, but aid is not a simple issue RZZZA.

Back On topic, citizens in the US seems to know a lot less about other countries, than citizens of other countries do about each other and the US. Some put it down to the perception that people in the US just don't care about anything that isn't in or about the US. This leads to some believing that the US is isolationist while I think its more that you don't realise that the US is not at the centre of everybody's world and that its the people who are isolationist rather than the government. Officially, you seem to be in everybody's internal affairs, but your people couldn't care less afaik.

[Peachy Carnehan]

I think the whole point of that is not that it was ever official policy, but that many felt that way. When you elect new leaders every few years, you get different policies. It is not a myth in the sense that it existed, only if someone believes that it was the only policy that was followed throughout history. Sometimes the Isolationists would be in the minority, sometimes not so much. I think your list shows that yes, Isolationism did exist. Periodically. I imagine it really depended on the nature of the president at the time. (and wars with natives--how does that have anything to do with Isolationism?)

[Rosacrux redux]

I agree with Marshal Quinn on this. The US public is completely apathetic and blissfully ignorant about anything outside of their immediate environment - their city of county and maybe their state. Many have more than a passing "patriotism" and affection for what is perceived as "U.S. of A." but only few are interested (like actually interested, not just bickering and yammering of how the feds rob them of their hard-earned dollars) in the federal affairs.

It would be a huge surprise indeed such an apathetic and apolitic population to be interested in the international affairs, even to the extent of knowing the difference between Austria and Australia, Communism and Socialism, terrorists and freedom fighters.

So, what we have is a strongly interventionist government - from the early 19th century right up to today - with an isolationist, apathetic, apolitic population. Of course the real bosses over there - the large corporations and the infamous military/industrial complex, have a rather great interest in international affairs and meddle as much as their government (one could argue that the gov. is meddling for them anyway) in the internal businesses of other countries.

Corporate Dictatorship USA - we know better what's best for you. Glory, Glory indeed...

[Justinian]

As said before, it's not that the American government is isolationist (do you call invading Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq twice isolationist?), it's that the American people don't care what happens outside America. Americans are raised thinking the rest of the world is unimportant.

The only reason Americans can get away with this is because America is so large, with only two borders (one onto a country very similar to America, and the other on a country everyone pretends doesn't exist).

If America was as small as a European country and crammed into Europe like everybody else, it would simply be impossible for Americans to be so xenophobic.

My newspaper (the Trenton Times, to be specific) is so caught up with the gubernatorial elections that they don't even have a little paragraph in the corner about the riots in France. The only news they report from anywhere outside America (with the exception of Iraq) is the UK. I get the feeling if a bomb exploded in, say, Rome, there would be a passing mention of it, or none at all.

[Peachy Carnehan]

Corporate Dictatorship USA - we know better what's best for you. Glory, Glory indeed...

I guess I must live in some other country.

[Pra]

I do agree that many Americans are apathetic, not just about the situations of other countries, but of their own as well.

As a personal anecdote, I can relate the latter example; in class, we had to identify current leaders of our country, eg President, Vice President, etc. In my class, which is coincidentally an AP Political Science Class, some members actually didn't know who Dick Cheney is. Now you may accuse my school of an idiocy unparalleled, but it is ranked among the top ten in Minnesota-whose education system is ranked among the top in America.

However, though Americans are apathetic to the situations in America and outside as well, our leaders, or rather the policy makers, are certainly not unaware these conditions. Nevertheless, this 'awareness' doesn't manifest itself in a philanthropic American 'world government' but rather a mercantilist one which seeks to better itself, while discarding some 'side-effects' of bennefiting the native economy in which it seeks to develop.

Is this world view incorrect? I'll leave you to decide this. Suffice it to say that the ignorance of the general populace is effective in allowing our policy makers carry out their machinations. Ignorance is bliss.

[Nationalist_Cause]

My question is why this particular foreign policy tradition is derided? It is viewed with disdain by most government officials, academics, and the media. No, perhaps these people would rather see the U.S. involved in every last corner of the earth. We have meaningless security agreements with dozens of nations who can't defend themselves. I just keep wondering how this "selfish" policy of "isolationism" can be any worse than one of agressive war, preventive war, unlimited war. Our current foreign policy is sure to leave the U.S. as a second rate power much closer down the road.

We were presented with a golden opportunity at the end of the Cold War to pull back troops from areas that no longer needed defending (read Europe) and to try to strengthen relations with diplomacy and not military coercion. We completely blew it. We have had a military base in Saudi Arabia for 15 years now, one of the principle causes of 9/11. And we continue to give uncritical moral and financial support to an Israel that nearly dictates U.S. policy in the region. Another cause of 9/11. Now we are staring defeat in the face because our government isn't wise or humble enough to realize our mistakes in the Middle East.

[Pra]

My question is why this particular foreign policy tradition is derided? It is viewed with disdain by most government officials, academics, and the media. No, perhaps these people would rather see the U.S. involved in every last corner of the earth. We have meaningless security agreements with dozens of nations who can't defend themselves. I just keep wondering how this "selfish" policy of "isolationism" can be any worse than one of agressive war, preventive war, unlimited war. Our current foreign policy is sure to leave the U.S. as a second rate power much closer down the road.

We were presented with a golden opportunity at the end of the Cold War to pull back troops from areas that no longer needed defending (read Europe) and to try to strengthen relations with diplomacy and not military coercion. We completely blew it. We have had a military base in Saudi Arabia for 15 years now, one of the principle causes of 9/11. And we continue to give uncritical moral and financial support to an Israel that nearly dictates U.S. policy in the region. Another cause of 9/11. Now we are staring defeat in the face because our government isn't wise or humble enough to realize our mistakes in the Middle East.

I would agree with an America for America's sake, as long as the proponents of such a world view would not attempt to cover it with meaningless frivolities and platitudes that only heap further scorn onto America, particularly after they are seen acting with a duplicity in relation to the aforementioned view. In the end, we need honesty and we need people who are willing to put American Views above votes and monetary rewards.

[Sidus Preclarum]

1) Seizure of Florida from Spain

and the Philipinos.
Not to mention the US was ready to go for war over Louisiana with Spain, and then France, had the later not offered to sell it .

5) War of 1812

amongst hidden motives for it were certainly the desire of the western territories to extend at the expense of the indians, and the desire of some to seize Canada.

6) Mexican War

there was a strong desire for plain annexation at first.
indeed, to some, manifest destiny supposedly willed it so that the natural boundary of the united states where, the frozen waste to the north, the Panama Isthmus to the south.

Most of the history of the formation of the United State has been branded by the seal of expansionsm, concealed beneath/justified by impressive dose of hypocritic casuistics : see this, which naturally lead to an impressive dose of "interventionism"....
on the other hand, it could be argued, imho, that all this imperialism has been dictated by a wish to be "ourselves alone" on the continent, ie in the end, by Isolationism...

[RZZZA]

No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens

We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them

Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us

We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too

Boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me

They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now

by Randy Newman

I know many if not most people know this song but this about says it all, doesn't it?