Question

Is isolationism a feasible alternative for the United States?

Answer 1

Isolationism refers to America's longstanding reluctance to become involved in European alliances and wars. Isolationists held the view that America's perspective on the world was different from that of European societies and that America could advance the cause of freedom and democracy by means other than war.

American isolationism did not mean disengagement from the world stage. Isolationists were not averse to the idea that the United States should be a world player and even further its territorial, ideological and economic interests, particularly in the Western Hemisphere.

Isolationism is a term often caricatured by its opponents, “the strategic vision of historical and contemporary isolationism is one of quiet strength and national autonomy” The United States need not go abroad to ensure its security. On the contrary, doing so is counterproductive because “he United States is strategically immune in being insulated, invulnerable, impermeable, and impervious and thus has few security reasons to become engaged politically and militarily”

There are two varieties of modern isolationists nationalist conservatives wanting a return to normalcy, and libertarians desiring smaller government. Their similarities greatly overshadow their differences. It is not appeasement after all, “it was Britain and France, not a disengaged America, that pressured Czechoslovakia to concede much of its territory to Hitler at Munich” Nor does it necessarily involve economic protectionism, though some isolationists, as well as avowed internationalists, have backed protectionist measures.

Equally important, noninterventionism is not synonymous with a dovish foreign policy. Engagement can be either adversarial or conciliatory, both of which “derive first and foremost from the common assumption of America’s vulnerability”. Whether one is a dove or hawk depends on one’s assessment of the intentions of adversaries. Nonintervention, in contrast, is equidistant from both. In practice, its prescriptions may seem more dovish, but the underlying philosophies of the policies remain far different.

Obviously what constitutes America’s appropriate core interest is a legitimate matter of debate. Many past noninterventionists, even early in the Republic’s history, considered all of Latin America to be part of America’s security zone. Nordlinger advocates a narrower definition: the North American land mass, U.S. movement in international waters, and transit of non-U.S. shipping to and from America. Still, the differences between noninterventionists pale in comparison to those between noninterventionists and both doves and hawks who see U.S. security at stake almost everywhere on the globe.

America is relatively invulnerable economically and militarily. Washington long exhibited “geostrategic indiscriminateness” in calling virtually every nation overseas vital to the national interest. However, most of these claims were meaningless. Vulnerable in wartime and of little advantage in full-scale conflict, even Soviet bases in the Caribbean, he argues, would have been potential liabilities for America’s adversary. America’s military forces are also both impermeable and impervious that is, incapable of being surpassed by those of its enemy and unlikely to be overwhelmed even if the adversary’s forces were bigger and/or better. He concludes: “The qualitative strategic advantages that the Soviets almost certainly could not have achieved are barely imaginable in effective conventional forces”

The isolationists were a diverse group, including progressives and conservatives, business owners and peace activists, but because they faced no consistent, organized opposition from internationalists, their ideology triumphed time and again. Roosevelt appeared to accept the strength of the isolationist elements in Congress until 1937. In that year, as the situation in Europe continued to grow worse and the Second Sino-Japanese War began in Asia, the President gave a speech in which he likened international aggression to a disease that other nations must work to “quarantine.” At that time, however, Americans were still not prepared to risk their lives and livelihoods for peace abroad. Even the outbreak of war in Europe in 1939 did not suddenly diffuse popular desire to avoid international entanglements. Instead, public opinion shifted from favoring complete neutrality to supporting limited U.S. aid to the Allies short of actual intervention in the war. The surprise Japanese attack on the U.S. Navy at Pearl Harbor in December of 1941 served to convince the majority of Americans that the United States should enter the war on the side of the Allies.

The isolationism has its pros and cons that in many situations make it a desirable policy. There are many benefits of isolationism that can be good for a country. For instance by not getting involve with foreign problems isolationism promotes peace in the country. Therefore it allows the government to focus more on needs of the country. Isolationism will prevent contry to get into others conflicts and no soldiers will lose their life in the battle. Also the country might save the money that might have been spent on creating a weapons, supplying solderers with goods, care and etc. Additionally, George Washington was in favor of isolationism and in his Farewell Address in 1789, Washington gave one major piece of advice to the country regarding relations with other notions. He mentioned to “avoid entangling alliances.” Those words shaped the United States foreign policy for more than a century. Washington, tells Americans to not get into complicated alliances. In addition, Isolationism helps to solve problems related to diversity and ethnic coexistence through immigration and continental travel. It therefore promotes peaceful coexistence between different groups of people within its boundaries. Moreover isolationism increases productivity. For instance according to Benefit of Isolationism; “by utilizing resource within its boundaries, USA was able to develop new opportunities and new markets which directly impact globalization on other richer countries.” As a result, this increased productivity, generating more prosperity and wealth. The disadvantages of country being isolationism is that; country will not be able to trade with other countries for economic growth. The soldiers will be with lack of experience in the war and the nation may be unprepared for an attack and war can sometimes actually help an economy due to rationing of goods like it did during the 1940's WW2. For instance Woodrow Wilson argued against isolationism, claiming that it can be necessary to intervene either through combat or negotiations in order to maintain the peace of the world. “Wilson argued that in certain situations it is necessary to intervene, and such actions will promote peace rather than perpetuate violence. Moreover, some may argue that in certain dire global situations such as the holocaust it is necessary to intervene.”. Basically Wilson is saying that in certain situation country has to get involve with the global problems. Meaning if someone or a country violates human right, you are not going to sit in the side and say “I'm isolated!” We need to help out neighboring countries in the situation of injustice if we want to be ally or friends with them.