US Isolationism – selfish or selfless?

Mr W J Molyneux (CR, History Department)

It is quite the irony that the term ‘isolation’ can refer to rather contrasting circumstances. The current limitations posed on our ability to make contact with our friends and family is certainly founded on the belief that isolating ourselves brings benefits to our whole society. That is to say, isolation keeps both you and me safe from the potential transmission of this deadly disease – bonum commune communitatis (common good of the community). However, what is interesting is how removed this is from another type of isolation, one that many of you lucky enough to have had yours truly as a Remove History teacher will be fully aware of: American isolationist foreign policy. This mindset, that the United States should devote its efforts to its own advancement by isolating itself from world affairs is clearly grounded in the assumption that isolation makes me better at your expense – bonum commune hominis (common good of a man). So, how and why did America undertake this foreign policy approach?

‘In God We Trust’ became the motto of the United States in 1956, signed into law by then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Whilst there were many iterations of the county’s motto prior to this, Thomas Jefferson in his inauguration speech of 1801 sought: ‘commerce with all nations, alliances with none.’ This view followed firmly on from the principles laid out by America’s founding President, George Washington, who detailed in his final speech: ‘the great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.’ It is here that we find potentially the first concrete advocacy for limiting the country’s involvement in foreign affairs. Whilst Jefferson defended the principle of international trade, hence supporting ‘commerce’, he argued that the country should prohibit itself from ‘entangling’ treaties with other states. In doing so, the Union could focus on its own political affairs, use its funds for its own internal economic interests, and avoid the inevitable engagement in European wars.

Indeed, a fear of European wars lies at the heart of the American isolationist agenda. It is with little surprise that Washington and Jefferson each make reference to events over the pond when tabling their foreign policies. It is understandable why American leaders would render an interventionist approach with suspicion as events in Europe during this period took place, particularly surrounding the actions of one ‘petit corporal’. The ‘Munroe Doctrine’, the namesake of the country’s fifth president, suggested ‘in the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do.’ Munroe thus conformed to the line of his predecessors by suggesting that the United States would not interfere in any existing colonial protections of European states, nor seek to meddle in the internal affairs of those empires themselves. However, it is important to note that isolationism does not refer to an approach designed to inhibit all involvement beyond its frontiers; the presidency of James Monroe makes this very clear. During these early decades of the Union, its size more than doubled with the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, which meant its borders extended beyond the Mississippi River, and this set the tone of American domestic expansionism such that by 1846 the country was framed by both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. The idea that America should look after its own cause at the expense of others was very much born.

Whilst the First World War never actually brought conflict to American shores, its involvement in the Allied effort symbolises, for many, the first departure from the policy of isolationism (its late entry into the war effort in 1917 has meant America has since always wanted to maintain its reputation as the ‘cool latecomer’). However, this narrative of American participation as a departure from the Founding Fathers is not entirely correct. In fact, President Woodrow Wilson’s victorious re-election in 1916 was grounded in the slogan ‘he kept us out of war’ – symbolic of a man and people bent on isolating for their own benefit. Furthermore, America’s entry in the war was conditional on their role as an ‘associate’ member of the Triple Entente of Russia, France and Great Britain. Indeed, British foreign officer Eyre Crowe suggested ‘the Entente was not an alliance at all’ and thus a far cry from the ‘entangled’ alliance that Jefferson had been so averse to. A return to non-interventionism was consolidated at the conclusion of the war with the Senate’s rejection of the Versailles Settlement and thus America’s absence from the League of Nations and denunciation of the principle of ‘collective security’. Washington and Jefferson would have been proud!

On the other hand, the Second World War marks a remarkable shift in the American attitude to its role in global affairs. In the run-up to the war, the America First Committee, which held significant popularity amongst people and politicians alike in opposing any form of entry into the conflict, and Congressional support for the Neutrality Acts in the late 1930s meant the country could not legally support any side in the matter. As such, American intervention following Pearl Harbour in both the Pacific and European spheres of the conflict has had long-lasting ramifications for American foreign policy. Indeed, following the war, New York City’s Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive became the birthplace of the United Nations and it was only two years until Harry S. Truman proclaimed the Truman Doctrine and the policy of ‘Containment’ wherein America would now force itself upon the world to defend and preserve its own interests.

America’s participation in conflicts in South-East Asia, Latin and South America, and the Middle East throughout the second half of the 20th century and into the 21st century serve only as a reminder as to how American foreign policy ambitions have shifted considerably since the country’s inception. However, there is no refuting the significance of isolationism on the American state. In recent years there have been several attempts to renew the policy of non-interventionism with Barack Obama’s denied support for intervention in Syria, and four years’ worth of ‘America First’ tweets. It will certainly be interesting to see how the American political landscape changes to accommodate the challenge afforded to it by China and Russia in the coming decades, and whether the United States will hark back to the days of selfish isolationism or continue its journey of global police force …