While some of my fellow Republicans had continued to flirt with the doctrine of isolationism, the bottom line is this: Isolationism can hurt the U.S. by damaging the economy, weakening political influence, limiting security options, and reducing cultural exchange. Even though the U.S. should always prioritize its own interests, it should also engage with the world in a responsible and constructive manner.
As
a Republican myself, I had watched the Republican Party undergo significant
shifts in its ideology over time with great interest. Historically, the Republican
Party (also known as the Grand Old Party [GOP]) has been associated with a more
interventionist foreign policy, particularly during the Cold War era. However,
in recent years, some members of the party have adopted a more isolationist
stance, advocating for a reduced U.S. presence in global affairs. This doctrine
of isolationism is often based on the idea that the U.S. should focus on its
domestic issues and avoid getting entangled in foreign conflicts. Some
proponents of isolationism argue that U.S. involvement in global affairs is
costly and often leads to unintended consequences.
Fox News’s Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity offers us a
perfect example of the Republican Party’s addiction to the doctrine of
isolationism. For instance, both Carlson and Hannity have been known to express
views that align with isolationism, particularly in the context of foreign
policy. They has criticized U.S. involvement in conflicts overseas and has
advocated for a reduction in U.S. military presence abroad.
Carlson, in particular, has been critical of U.S. involvement in
the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, arguing that the United States should not jump
into any European conflict involving Russia. He has also criticized the manner
in which the United States withdrew its troops from Afghanistan, describing the
whole process as chaotic. According to him, President Biden did a necessary
thing in an ugliest possible way.
Hannity has also been critical of international organizations such
as the United Nations and has argued that the United States should prioritize
its own interests over those of other countries. He has expressed skepticism
about international trade agreements and has advocated for tariffs and other
protectionist policies to protect American jobs and industries. Hannity's views
on isolationism are reflective of a broader debate within the Republican Party
over the role of the United States in global affairs. While some Republicans
support a more interventionist foreign policy, others, like Hannity, argue for
a more isolationist approach that prioritizes American interests and avoids
entanglements overseas.
Of all the prophets of the doctrine isolationism, the most popular
is the former U.S. president, Donald Trump. In fact, he is the King of
isolationism because he
pursued several policies that could be seen as isolationist during his regime.
For example, he advocated for the United States to pull out of international
agreements, including the Paris climate accord and the Iran nuclear deal. He
also imposed tariffs on imports from several countries and withdrew from the
Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. He also expressed skepticism about
the value of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which is a military
alliance between the United States, Canada, and several European countries.
According to Trump, some NATO member countries were not contributing enough
financially to the alliance and that the burden of defending Europe was falling
disproportionately on the United States. He also questioned the relevance of
NATO in the current geopolitical landscape, suggesting that the alliance was
formed to address threats that no longer exist.
Trump's
criticism of NATO caused concern among some US allies, who saw it as a
potential weakening of the alliance and a signal that the US might not come to
their defense in the event of an attack. However, Trump also succeeded in
pushing some NATO countries to increase their defense spending, which had been
a longstanding US concern.
It
is worth noting that Trump's criticism of NATO was not universally shared within
his own administration or among some members of the Republican party, and his
approach to the alliance was often controversial. However, the issue of NATO's
relevance and the burden-sharing among its members is a long-standing and
complex debate that extends beyond the Trump presidency.
To
be fair, not all of Trump's policies can be characterized as isolationist. He
also pursued an active foreign policy in some areas, including the Middle East
and North Korea, and advocated for increased military spending.
While
I am neither an expert in international relations nor a politicians, I do believe
I am well-informed enough to provide some insights on the potential
consequences of isolationism. First, advocating for a complete withdrawal from global
affairs the way some of my fellow Republicans recommend can lead to negative
consequences, such as limiting the ability of the U.S. to promote peace,
democracy, and human rights around the world. Isolationism can also damage
diplomatic relations with other countries and weaken the U.S.'s standing as a
global leader.
Moreover,
the U.S. economy is closely tied to the global economy, and isolationist
policies could harm American businesses and consumers. The U.S. relies on
international trade and investment to support economic growth, and cutting off
ties with other countries could lead to economic stagnation. Not only that, isolationism
can limit the U.S.'s ability to respond to security threats around the world.
By withdrawing from global affairs, the U.S. could leave a power vacuum that
could be exploited by adversaries or lead to conflicts. There are cultural
consequences too. For instance, isolationism can limit cultural exchange and
diversity, leading to a narrow and limited worldview. It can also reduce the
U.S.'s ability to learn from other cultures and promote mutual understanding.
On
the other hand, some proponents of isolationism argue that reducing the U.S.'s
involvement in global affairs would allow for greater focus on domestic issues
such as infrastructure, education, and healthcare. They also argue that U.S.
military interventions overseas have been costly in terms of both lives and
resources. I believe America can still do these things while, at the same time,
continue to be a major player in international affairs.
Lessons
From History
To
support the above analysis, I will provide two important real events of
historical significance and explain how the pursuit of the doctrine of
isolationism by the world governments contributed to them. The two events I am referring
to are the Great Depression and World War II.
Start
with the Great Depression. In plain
terms, isolationism played a role in causing the Great Depression in a number
of ways. First, isolationist policies led to a reduction in international trade,
which in turn reduced the demand for goods and services produced by American
companies. This lack of demand led to a decrease in production, which
ultimately led to a decrease in employment opportunities and wages. Second, in 1930, the U.S. government passed
the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which raised tariffs on 20,000 imported goods to
record levels. This act was intended to protect American businesses from
foreign competition, but instead, it had the opposite effect. Other countries
retaliated by increasing their own tariffs on American goods, reducing
international trade even further and causing a decrease in economic activity. According
to the available published evidence, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act resulted to worldwide
decline of 66% between 1929 to 1934. Third, isolationist policies led to a
reduction in foreign investment in the United States. This reduction in
investment led to a decrease in capital available for business expansion and
innovation, which limited economic growth and development. Finally, isolationist
policies contributed to political uncertainty, both domestically and
internationally. This uncertainty led to a lack of confidence among investors
and consumers, which further reduced economic activity.
All
of these factors contributed to the economic downturn that eventually led to
the Great Depression of the 1930s – the longest and the most severe economic downturn
in modern history, marked by steep declines in industrial production and in
prices, mass unemployment, banking panics, and sharp increases in rates of
poverty and homelessness. By reducing international trade and investment,
isolating the United States from the global economy, and contributing to
political uncertainty, isolationist policies played a significant role in
causing the economic collapse of the 1930s.
Isolationism
vs. World War II
The
policy of isolationism being promoted by the world governments during the first
half of the 20th century equally played a role in causing World War
II. For instance, the isolationist policies in the United States and other
Western countries allowed aggressive expansionist regimes, such as Nazi Germany
and Imperial Japan, to expand their territories unchecked. The appeasement
policies of Western European powers of Britain and France, driven in part by a
desire to avoid conflict, allowed these regimes to build up their military
strength and ultimately invade their neighbors.
Isolationist
policies also contributed to a lack of collective security among nations. The
United States, for example, refused to join the League of Nations, which was
established in 1920 after World War I to promote international cooperation and
prevent future wars. This lack of cooperation and shared responsibility for
global security left individual nations, particularly the European nations, vulnerable to attack. Even when the United
States and other Western countries began to recognize the danger posed by
aggressive expansionist regimes, isolationist sentiment delayed intervention.
The United States, for example, did not enter World War II until after the
attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. By that time, Nazi Germany had already
conquered much of Europe and was threatening to invade the Soviet Union.
Above
all, the isolationist policies also contributed to global tensions by creating the
impression that Western countries were unwilling to stand up to aggressive
regimes. This encouraged aggressive expansionist regimes to believe that they
could act with impunity, which ultimately led to war.
Simply
put, isolationist policies contributed to the outbreak of World War II by
allowing aggressive expansionist regimes to expand their territories unchecked,
by contributing to a lack of collective security, by delaying intervention, and
by fueling global tensions.
The
Way Forward
The
doctrine of expansionism, or the policy of expanding a country's territorial or
economic influence, has been a significant part of U.S. history since its
inception. The U.S. has expanded its territorial boundaries and global
influence through various means, including military conquest, diplomacy, and
economic influence.
In
the 19th century, the U.S. engaged in territorial expansion, acquiring new
lands through military conquest, purchase, and treaty. For example, the
Louisiana Purchase in 1803, the acquisition of Florida in 1819, and the
Mexican-American War in 1846-1848 all contributed to the expansion of U.S.
territory.
In
the early 20th century, the U.S. shifted its focus to economic expansionism,
seeking to expand its economic influence through trade and investment. This
policy led to the establishment of economic spheres of influence in Latin
America and the Pacific, as well as the creation of the Open Door policy in
China.
It
is worth pointing out that expansionism can provide a buffer zone between the
U.S. and potential adversaries, reducing the likelihood of conflict. For
example, the acquisition of territories such as Puerto Rico and Guam allowed
the U.S. to establish military bases in the Caribbean and Pacific.
During
the Cold War, the U.S. pursued a policy of containment, seeking to contain the
spread of communism and expand its sphere of influence around the world. This
policy led to military interventions in Korea, Vietnam, and other parts of the
world, as well as the establishment of military bases and alliances around the
globe.
In
recent years, the U.S. has focused on expanding its economic influence through
trade agreements such as NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, as well as
promoting democracy and human rights around the world.
It
is no secret that the doctrine of expansionism has played a significant role in
shaping U.S. history and global influence. While it has brought economic and
strategic benefits, it has also been criticized for its negative consequences,
such as the exploitation of resources and the suppression of local populations.
Therefore, any expansionist policies should be pursued in a responsible and
ethical manner, taking into account the interests and well-being of all parties
involved.
The
bottom line is that isolationism can hurt the U.S. by damaging the economy,
weakening political influence, limiting security options, and reducing cultural
exchange. While the U.S. should always prioritize its own interests, it should
also engage with the world in a responsible and constructive manner.
References
Bang , P. F., Bayly , C. A., & Scheidel , W. (2021). The
Oxford World History of Empire: Volume Two - The History of Empires. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Fordham, B. O. (2007). The Evolution of Republican and
Democratic Positions on Cold War Military Spending: A Historical Puzzle. Social
Science History, 31(4), 603-636.
Gstalter, M. (2019, May 31). Fox News Commentator:
Republicans Who Don’t support Trump’s Tariffs ‘Should Go Jump Off a Cliff’. The
Hill. Retrieved from
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/446390-fox-news-commentator-republicans-who-dont-support-trumps-tariffs-should-go/
Hannity, S. (2022). Live Free or Die: America (and the
World) On the Brink. New York: Threshold Editions.
History Channel. (2023, March 18). Republican Party.
Retrieved from
https://www.history.com/topics/us-government-and-politics/republican-party#section_5
Juul, P. (2022, June 22). The Revival of Conservative
Isolationism. Retrieved from The Liberal Patriot:
https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/the-revival-of-conservative-isolationism
McTague, T., & Nicholas, P. (2020, October 29). How
'America First' Became America Alone. Retrieved from The Atlantic:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/10/donald-trump-foreign-policy-america-first/616872/
Office of the Historian. (2017, May 9). American
Isolationism in the 1930s. Retrieved from
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/american-isolationism#:~:text=During%20the%201930s%2C%20the%20combination,non%2Dentanglement%20in%20international%20politics.
Schwartz, S. (2023). National Security, Isolationism, and
the Coming of World War II. Retrieved from Gilder Lehrman Institute of
American History: https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/lesson-plan/national-security-isolationism-and-coming-world-war-ii
Stabile, A. (2021, August 16). Tucker blasts Afghanistan
Withdrawal: Biden Did ‘Necessary Thing’ in ‘Ugliest Possible Way’. Fox News.
Retrieved from https://www.foxnews.com/media/tucker-blasts-afghanistan-withdrawal-biden-did-necessary-thing-in-ugliest-possible-way
No comments:
Post a Comment