United States non-interventionism

Last updated

United States non-interventionism primarily refers to the foreign policy that was eventually applied by the United States between the late 18th century and the first half of the 20th century whereby it sought to avoid alliances with other nations in order to prevent itself from being drawn into wars that were not related to the direct territorial self-defense of the United States. Neutrality and non-interventionism found support among elite and popular opinion in the United States, which varied depending on the international context and the country's interests. At times, the degree and nature of this policy was better known as isolationism, such as the interwar period, while some consider the term isolationism to be a pejorative used to discredit non-interventionist policy.

Contents

Due to the start of the Cold War in the aftermath of World War II and the rise of the United States as a global superpower, its traditional foreign policy turned towards American imperialism with diplomatic and military interventionism, engaging or somehow intervening in virtually any overseas armed conflict ever since, and concluding multiple bilateral and regional military alliances, chiefly the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Non-interventionist policies have had continued support from some Americans since World War II, mostly regarding specific armed conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Syria, and Ukraine.

Background

Robert Walpole, Britain's first Whig Prime Minister, proclaimed in 1723: "My politics are to keep free from all engagements as long as we possibly can." He emphasized economic advantage and rejected the idea of intervening in European affairs to maintain a balance of power. [1] Walpole's position was known to Americans. However, during the American Revolution, the Second Continental Congress debated about forming an alliance with France. It rejected non-interventionism when it was apparent that the American Revolutionary War could be won in no other manner than a military alliance with France, which Benjamin Franklin successfully negotiated in 1778. [2]

After Britain and France went to war in 1792, George Washington declared neutrality, with unanimous support of his cabinet, after deciding that the treaty with France of 1778 did not apply. [3] Washington's Farewell Address of 1796 explicitly announced the policy of American non-interventionism:

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. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. [4]

No entangling alliances (19th century)

President Thomas Jefferson extended Washington's ideas about foreign policy in his March 4, 1801 inaugural address. Jefferson said that one of the "essential principles of our government" is that of "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." [5] He also stated that "Commerce with all nations, alliance with none", should be the motto of the United States. [6] Extending at times into isolationism, both Jefferson and Madison also practiced the boycotting of belligerent nations with the Embargo Act of 1807. [7]

In 1823, President James Monroe articulated what would come to be known as the Monroe Doctrine, which some have interpreted as non-interventionist in intent: "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. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense." It was applied to Hawaii in 1842 in support of eventual annexation there, and to support U.S. expansion on the North American continent.

After Tsar Alexander II put down the 1863 January Uprising in Poland, French Emperor Napoleon III asked the United States to "join in a protest to the Tsar." [8] Secretary of State William H. Seward declined, "defending 'our policy of non-intervention—straight, absolute, and peculiar as it may seem to other nations,'" and insisted that "[t]he American people must be content to recommend the cause of human progress by the wisdom with which they should exercise the powers of self-government, forbearing at all times, and in every way, from foreign alliances, intervention, and interference." [8]

President Ulysses S. Grant attempted to annex the Dominican Republic in 1870, but failed to get the support of the Radical Republicans in the Senate. [9] The United States' policy of non-intervention was wholly abandoned with the Spanish–American War, followed by the Philippine–American War from 1899 to 1902.

20th century non-interventionism

Wake Up, America! Civilization Calls, poster by James Montgomery Flagg, 1917 FlaggWakeUpAmerica.jpg
Wake Up, America! Civilization Calls, poster by James Montgomery Flagg, 1917

President Theodore Roosevelt's administration is credited with inciting the Panamanian Revolt against Colombia, completed November 1903, in order to secure construction rights for the Panama Canal (begun in 1904).[ citation needed ]

President Woodrow Wilson was able to navigate neutrality in World War I for about three years, and to win 1916 reelection with the slogan "He kept us out of war." The neutrality policy was supported by the tradition of shunning foreign entanglements, and by the large population of immigrants from Europe with divided loyalties in the conflict. America did enter the war in April 1917, however. Congress voted to declare war on Germany, 373 to 50 in the House of Representatives and 82 to 6 in the Senate. [10] Technically the US joined the side of the Triple Entente only as an "associated power" fighting the same enemy, not as officially allied with the Entente. [11]

A few months after the declaration of war, Wilson gave a speech to Congress outlining his aims for conclusion of the conflict, labeled the Fourteen Points. That American proclamation was less triumphalist than the stated aims of some other belligerents, and its final point proposed that a "general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike." After the war, Wilson traveled to Europe and remained there for months to labor on the post-war treaty, longer than any previous Presidential sojourn outside the country. In that Treaty of Versailles, Wilson's "general association of nations" was formulated as the League of Nations.[ citation needed ]

Isolationism between the World Wars

In the wake of the First World War, the non-interventionist tendencies gained ascendancy. The Treaty of Versailles, and thus, United States' participation in the League of Nations, even with reservations, was rejected by the Senate in the final months of Wilson's presidency. Republican Senate leader Henry Cabot Lodge supported the Treaty with reservations to be sure Congress had final authority on sending the U.S. into war. Wilson and his Democratic supporters rejected the Lodge Reservations .

The strongest opposition to American entry into the League of Nations came from the Senate where a tight-knit faction known as the Irreconcilables, led by William Borah and George Norris, had great objections regarding the clauses of the treaty which compelled America to come to the defense of other nations. Senator William Borah, of Idaho, declared that it would "purchase peace at the cost of any part of our [American] independence." [12] Senator Hiram Johnson, of California, denounced the League of Nations as a "gigantic war trust." [13] While some of the sentiment was grounded in adherence to Constitutional principles, most of the sentiment bore a reassertion of nativist and inward-looking policy. [14]

American society in the interwar period was characterized by a division in values between urban and rural areas as Americans in urban areas tended to be liberal while those in rural areas tended to be conservative. [15] Adding to the division was that Americans in rural areas tended to be Protestant of British and/or German descent while those in urban areas were often Catholic or Jewish and came from eastern or southern Europe. [16] The rural-urban divide was seen most dramatically in the intense debate about Prohibition as urban Americans tended to be "wets" while rural Americans tended to be "drys". [17] The way that American society was fractured along an urban-rural divide served to distract public attention from foreign affairs. [17] In the 1920s, the State Department had about 600 employees in total with an annual budget of $2 million, which reflected a lack of interest on the part of Congress in foreign affairs. [18] The State Department was very much an elitist body that recruited mostly from graduates of the select "Ivy League" universities, which reflected the idea that foreign policy was the concern of elites. [19] Likewise, the feeling that the United States was taking in far too many immigrants from eastern and southern Europe-who were widely depicted in the American media as criminals and revolutionaries-led to laws restricting immigration from Europe. [16] In turn, the anti-immigrant mood increased isolationism as the picture of Europe as a place overflowing with dangerous criminals and equally dangerous Communist revolutionaries led to the corresponding conclusion that the United States should have little as possible to do with nations whose peoples were depicted as disagreeable and unpleasant. [16] The same way that Congress had virtually banned all non-white immigration to the United States likewise led an indifference about the fate of non-white nations such as China and Ethiopia. The debate about Prohibition in the 1920s also encouraged nativist and isolationist feelings as "drys" often engaged in American exceptionalism by arguing that the United States was a uniquely morally pure nation that had banned alcohol, unlike the rest of the world which remained "wet" and was depicted as mired in corruption and decadence. [15]

The United States acted independently to become a major player in the 1920s in international negotiations and treaties. The Harding Administration achieved naval disarmament among the major powers through the Washington Naval Conference in 1921–22. The Dawes Plan refinanced war debts and helped restore prosperity to Germany. In August 1928, fifteen nations signed the Kellogg–Briand Pact, brainchild of American Secretary of State Frank Kellogg and French Foreign Minister Aristide Briand. [20] This pact that was said to have outlawed war and showed the United States commitment to international peace had its semantic flaws. [21] For example, it did not hold the United States to the conditions of any existing treaties, it still allowed European nations the right to self-defense, and it stated that if one nation broke the Pact, it would be up to the other signatories to enforce it. [22] Briand had sent a message on 6 April 1927 to mark the 10th anniversary of the American declaration of war on Germany in 1917 proposing that France and the United States sign a non-aggression pact. [19] Briand was attempting to create a Franco-American alliance to counter Germany as Briand envisioned turning the negotiations for the non-aggression pact into an some sort of an alliance. [19] Kellogg had no interest in an alliance with France, and countered with a vague offer for a treaty to ban all war. [19] The Kellogg–Briand Pact was more of a sign of good intentions on the part of the US, rather than a legitimate step towards the sustenance of world peace.[ citation needed ][ neutrality is disputed ]

Another reason for isolationism was the belief that the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh towards Germany and the question of war debts to the United States. [23] American public opinion was especially hostile towards France, which was depicted in the words of the Republican Senator Reed Smoot who in August 1930 called France a greedy "Shylock" intent upon taking the last "pound of flesh" from Germany via reparations while refusing to pay its war debts to the United States. [24] In the early 1930s, French diplomats at the embassy in Washington stated that the image of France was at an all-time low in the United States with American public opinion being especially incensed by France's decision to default on its war debts on 15 December 1932. [25] French diplomats throughout the interwar period complained that the German embassy and consulates in the United States waged a slick, well funded propaganda campaign designed to persuade the Americans that the Treaty of Versailles was a monstrous, unjust peace treaty while the French embassy and consulates did nothing equivalent to make the case for France. [26] The effect of German propaganda tended to persuade many Americans it had been a huge mistake to have declared war on Germany in 1917 and it would be wrong for the United States to go to war to maintain the international order created by the Treaty of Versailles. [25]

The economic depression that ensued after the Crash of 1929, also continued to abet non-intervention. The attention of the country focused mostly on addressing the problems of the national economy. The rise of aggressive imperialist policies by Fascist Italy and the Empire of Japan led to conflicts such as the Italian conquest of Ethiopia and the Japanese invasion of Manchuria. These events led to ineffectual condemnations by the League of Nations. Official American response was muted. America also did not take sides in the brutal Spanish Civil War and withdrew its troops from Haiti with the inauguration of the Good Neighbor Policy in 1934. In an attempt to influence American public opinion into taking a more favorable view of France, the Quai d'Orsay founded in 1935 the Association our la Constitution aux Etats-Unis d'un Office Français de Renseignements based in New York, a cultural propaganda council designed to give Americans a more favorable image of France. [27] Better known as the French Information Center, the group created a French Cinema Center to distribution of French films in the United States and by 1939 had handled out for free about 5, 000 copies of French films to American universities and high schools. [28] The French Information Center provided briefings to American journalists and columnists about the French point of view with the emphasis upon France as a democracy that had potential powerful enemies in the form of totalitarian dictatorships such as Germany and Italy. [29] Such propaganda did not seek to challenge American isolationism directly, but the prevailing theme was that France and the United States as democracies had more in common than what divided them. [30] By 1939, René Doynel de Saint-Quentin, the French ambassador in Washington reported that image of France was much higher than what it had been in 1932. [29]

Non-interventionism before entering World War II

A protest march against American involvement in World War II, before the attack on Pearl Harbor Noentanglements.jpg
A protest march against American involvement in World War II, before the attack on Pearl Harbor

As Europe moved closer to war in the late 1930s, the United States Congress continued to demand American neutrality. Between 1936 and 1937, much to the dismay of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Congress passed the Neutrality Acts. For example, in the final Neutrality Act, Americans could not sail on ships flying the flag of a belligerent nation or trade arms with warring nations. Such activities had played a role in American entrance into World War I.

On 1 September 1939, Germany invaded Poland, marking the start of World War II, and the United Kingdom and France subsequently declared war on Germany. In an address to the American people two days later, President Roosevelt assured the nation that he would do all he could to keep them out of war. [31] "When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger," Roosevelt said. [31] Even though he was intent on neutrality as the official policy of the United States, he still echoed the dangers of staying out of this war. He also cautioned the American people to not let their wish to avoid war at all costs supersede the security of the nation. [31]

The war in Europe split the American people into two camps: non-interventionists and interventionists. The two sides argued over America's involvement in this World War II. The basic principle of the interventionist argument was fear of German invasion. One of the rhetorical criticisms of interventionism was that it was driven by the so-called merchants of death - businesses who had profited from World War I lobbying for involvement in order to profit from another large war. By the summer of 1940, France suffered a stunning defeat by Germans, and Britain was the only democratic enemy of Germany. [32] [33] In a 1940 speech, Roosevelt argued, "Some, indeed, still hold to the now somewhat obvious delusion that we … can safely permit the United States to become a lone island … in a world dominated by the philosophy of force." [34]

A Life survey published in July found that in the summer of 1940, 67% of Americans believed that a German-Italian victory would endanger the United States, that if such an event occurred 88% supported "arm[ing] to the teeth at any expense to be prepared for any trouble", and that 71% favored "the immediate adoption of compulsory military training for all young men". The magazine wrote that the survey showed "the emergence of a majority attitude very different from that of six or even three months ago". [35]

Ultimately, the ideological rift between the ideals of the United States and the goals of the fascist powers empowered the interventionist argument. Writer Archibald MacLeish asked, "How could we sit back as spectators of a war against ourselves?" [36] In an address to the American people on December 29, 1940, President Roosevelt said, "the Axis not merely admits but proclaims that there can be no ultimate peace between their philosophy of government and our philosophy of government." [37]

There were still many who held on to non-interventionism. Although a minority, they were well organized, and had a powerful presence in Congress. [38] Pro-German or anti-British opinion contributed to non-interventionism. Roosevelt's national share of the 1940 presidential vote declined by seven percentage points from 1936. Of the 20 counties in which his share declined by 35 points or more, 19 were largely German-speaking. Of the 35 counties in which his share declined by 25 to 34 points, German was the largest or second-largest original nationality in 31. [39]

Non-interventionists rooted a significant portion of their arguments in historical precedent, citing events such as Washington's farewell address and the failure of World War I. [40] "If we have strong defenses and understand and believe in what we are defending, we need fear nobody in this world," Robert Maynard Hutchins, President of the University of Chicago, wrote in a 1940 essay. [41] Isolationists believed that the safety of the nation was more important than any foreign war. [42]

As 1940 became 1941, the actions of the Roosevelt administration made it more and more clear that the United States was on a course to war. This policy shift, driven by the President, came in two phases. The first came in 1939 with the passage of the Fourth Neutrality Act, which permitted the United States to trade arms with belligerent nations, as long as these nations came to America to retrieve the arms, and pay for them in cash. [38] This policy was quickly dubbed, 'Cash and Carry.' [43]

The second phase was the Lend-Lease Act of early 1941. This act allowed the President "to lend, lease, sell, or barter arms, ammunition, food, or any 'defense article' or any 'defense information' to 'the government of any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States.'" [44] American public opinion supported Roosevelt's actions. As United States involvement in the Battle of the Atlantic grew with incidents such as the sinking of the USS Reuben James (DD-245), by late 1941 72% of Americans agreed that "the biggest job facing this country today is to help defeat the Nazi Government", and 70% thought that defeating Germany was more important than staying out of the war. [45]

After the attack on Pearl Harbor caused America to enter the war in December 1941, isolationists such as Charles Lindbergh's America First Committee and Herbert Hoover announced their support of the war effort. [46] Isolationist families' sons fought in the war as much as others. [39]

Propaganda activities conducted by German embassy staff such as George Sylvester Viereck, assisted by isolationist politicians such as Hamilton Fish III, were investigated and dampened by federal prosecutors before and after U.S. joined WWII. In 1941, Fish was implicated in the America First Committee franking controversy, whereby isolationist politicians were found to be using their free mailing privileges to aid the German propaganda campaign. William Power Maloney's grand jury investigated Nazi penetration in the United States and secured convictions of Viereck and George Hill, Fish's chief of staff. [47]

Non-interventionism after World War II

Ohio Senator Robert A. Taft was a leading opponent of interventionism after 1945, although it always played a secondary role to his deep interest in domestic affairs. Historian George Fujii, citing the Taft papers, argues:

Taft fought a mostly losing battle to reduce government expenditures and to curtail or prevent foreign aid measures such as the British loan of 1945 and the Marshall Plan. He feared that these measures would "destroy the freedom of the individual, freedom of States and local communities, freedom of the farmer to run his own farm and the workman to do his own job" (p. 375), thereby threatening the foundations of American prosperity and leading to a "totalitarian state" (p. 377). [48]

In 1951, in the midst of bitter partisan debate over the Korean War, Taft increasingly spoke out on foreign policy issues. According to his biographer James T. Patterson:

Two basic beliefs continued to form a fairly consistent core of Taft's thinking on foreign policy. First, he insisted on limiting America's overseas commitments. [Taft said] "Nobody today can be an isolationist.... The only question is the degree to which we shall take action throughout the entire world." America had obligations that it had to honor – such as NATO – and it could not turn a blind eye to such countries as Formosa or Israel. But the United States had limited funds and problems at home and must therefore curb its commitments....This fear of overcommitment was rooted in Taft's even deeper faith in liberty, which made him shrink from a foreign policy that would cost large sums of money, increase the power of the military, and transform American society into what he called a garrison state. [49]

Norman A. Graebner argues:

Differences over collective security in the G.O.P. were real in 1952, but Taft tried during his pre-convention campaign to moderate his image as a "go-it-aloner" in foreign policy. His whole effort proved unsuccessful, largely because by spring the internationalist camp had a formidable candidate of its own in Dwight D. Eisenhower. As the personification of post-1945 American commitment to collective security, particularly in Europe, General Eisenhower had decided to run because he feared, apparently, that Taft's election would lead to repudiation of the whole collective security effort, including NATO. [50]

Eisenhower won the nomination and secured Taft's support by promising Taft a dominant voice in domestic policies, while Eisenhower's internationalism would set the foreign-policy agenda. [51] Graebner argues that Eisenhower succeeded in moving the conservative Republicans away from their traditional attacks on foreign aid and reciprocal trade policies, and collective security arrangements, to support for those policies. [52] By 1964 the Republican conservatives rallied behind Barry Goldwater who was an aggressive advocate of an anti-communist internationalist foreign policy. Goldwater wanted to roll back Communism and win the Cold War, asking "Why Not Victory?" [53]

Non-interventionism in the 21st century

During the presidency of Barack Obama, some members of the United States federal government, including President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, considered intervening militarily in the Syrian Civil War. [54] [55] A poll from late April 2013 found that 62% of Americans thought that the "United States has no responsibility to do something about the fighting in Syria between government forces and antigovernment groups," with only twenty-five percent disagreeing with that statement. [56]

A writer for The New York Times referred to this as "an isolationist streak," a characterization international relations scholar Stephen Walt strongly objected to, calling the description "sloppy journalism." [56] [57] According to Walt, "the overwhelming majority of people who have doubts about the wisdom of deeper involvement in Syria—including yours truly—are not 'isolationist.' They are merely sensible people who recognize that we may not have vital interests there, that deeper involvement may not lead to a better outcome and could make things worse, and who believe that the last thing the United States needs to do is to get dragged into yet another nasty sectarian fight in the Arab/Islamic world." [57]

In December 2013, the Pew Research Center reported that their newest poll, "American's Place in the World 2013," had revealed that 52 percent of respondents in the national poll said that the United States "should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own." [58] This was the most people to answer that question this way in the history of the question, one which pollsters began asking in 1964. [59] Only about a third of respondents felt this way a decade ago. [59]

A July 2014 poll of "battleground voters" across the United States found "77 percent in favor of full withdrawal from Afghanistan by the end of 2016; only 15 percent and 17 percent interested in more involvement in Syria and Ukraine, respectively; and 67 percent agreeing with the statement that, 'U.S. military actions should be limited to direct threats to our national security.'" [60]

Polls indicate growing impatience among Americans with the war in Ukraine, [61] with 2023 polls showing just 17% of Americans think their country is "not doing enough" to support Ukraine. This percentage is the lowest since the war began. [62]

Conservative policies

Rathbun (2008) compares three separate themes in conservative policies since the 1980s: conservatism, neoconservatism, and isolationism. These approaches are similar in that they all invoked the mantle of "realism" and pursued foreign policy goals designed to promote national interests. Conservatives were the only group that was "realist" in the academic sense in that they defined the national interest narrowly, strove for balances of power internationally, viewed international relations as amoral, and especially valued sovereignty. [63]

By contrast, neoconservatives based their foreign policy on nationalism, and isolationists sought to minimize any involvement in foreign affairs and raise new barriers to immigration. [63] Former Republican Congressman Ron Paul favored a return to the non-interventionist policies of Thomas Jefferson and frequently opposed military intervention in countries like Iran and Iraq.

After Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Republican Party has been divided on Ukraine's aid, believing that it is not in the interests of the United States to get involved in a "proxy war" against Russia. [64] Former President Donald Trump has called on the United States to push for peace talks rather than continue to support Ukraine. [65]

Supporters of non-interventionism

Politicians

Deceased

Living

Government officials

Public figures

Criticism

In his World Policy Journal review of Bill Kauffman's 1995 book America First! Its History, Culture, and Politics, Benjamin Schwartz described America's history of isolationism as a tragedy and being rooted in Puritan thinking. [95]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Felix Gilbert, "The English Background of American Isolationism in the Eighteenth Century," William and Mary Quarterly (1944) 1#2 p 142
  2. ↑ George C. Herring, From colony to superpower: US foreign relations since 1776 (2008). pp 14-23
  3. ↑ Herring, From colony to superpower pp 66-73
  4. ↑ Adam Quinn (2009). US Foreign Policy in Context: National Ideology from the Founders to the Bush Doctrine. Routledge. pp. 50–52. ISBN   978-1-135-26882-4.
  5. ↑ Jefferson, Thomas (4 March 1801). "First Inaugural Address". The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. Princeton University. Retrieved 13 August 2014.
  6. ↑ "Thomas Jefferson Quotes".
  7. ↑ Irwin, Douglas (September 2005). "The Welfare Cost of Autarky: Evidence from the Jeffersonian Trade Embargo, 1807–09" (PDF). Review of International Economics. 13 (4): 631–645. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9396.2005.00527.x. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-12-24. Retrieved 2021-08-14.
  8. 1 2 Raico, Ralph. America's Will to War: The Turning Point, Mises Institute
  9. ↑ "Ulysses S. Grant: Foreign Affairs | Miller Center". 4 October 2016.
  10. ↑ http://www.newsinhistory.com/blog/wwi-us-declares-war-germany [ page needed ]
  11. ↑ The Encyclopedia of World War I: A - D., Volume 1, p.1264 ABC-CLIO, 2005.
  12. ↑ "William e. Borah, Speech on the League of Nations [November 19, 1919]".
  13. ↑ "JOHNSON ASSAILS LEAGUE OF NATIONS; Californian Calls It a "Gigantic War Trust" in Speech to Senate. SEES AMERICA SWALLOWED Declares the Monroe Doctrine is Left to the Interpretation of Foreign Nations. FEARS VOTES OF ENGLAND Senator Attacks the Shantung "Secret Treaty" and Plan toProtect France. Sees No War Preventive. Danies Monroe Doctrine Safeguard. Asserts League is Deceptive". The New York Times. 3 June 1919.
  14. ↑ Selig Adler, The Isolationist Impulse: Its Twentieth Century Reaction (New York: The Free Press, 1957), 201
  15. 1 2 Sevareid 1978, p. 46.
  16. 1 2 3 Sevareid 1978, p. 46-47.
  17. 1 2 Sevareid 1978, p. 47.
  18. ↑ Sevareid 1978, p. 47-48.
  19. 1 2 3 4 Sevareid 1978, p. 48.
  20. ↑ Adler, 213
  21. ↑ Adler, 217
  22. ↑ Adler, 214–215
  23. ↑ Young 2005, p. 187-188.
  24. ↑ Young 2005, p. 187.
  25. 1 2 Young 2005, p. 188.
  26. ↑ Young 2005, p. 192-193.
  27. ↑ Young 2005, p. 200.
  28. ↑ Young 2005, p. 196.
  29. 1 2 Young 2005, p. 201.
  30. ↑ Young 2005, p. 201-202.
  31. 1 2 3 Roosevelt, Franklin D. (3 September 1939). "120 – Fireside Chat" (Text of Radio Address). The American Presidency Project, University of California at Santa Barbara. Retrieved 13 August 2014.
  32. ↑ Adler, Isolationist Impulse, 259.
  33. ↑ The Annals of America, vol. 16, (Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 1968),6, N.B. The Annals of America is a multivolume collection of primary sources grouped by year.
  34. ↑ The Annals of America, vol. 16, 8.
  35. ↑ "What the U. S. A. Thinks". Life. 1940-07-29. p. 20. Retrieved November 10, 2011.
  36. ↑ The Annals of America, vol. 16, (Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 1968),4, N.B. The Annals of America is a multivolume collection of primary sources grouped by year.
  37. ↑ Roosevelt, Franklin D. (29 December 1940). "154 – Fireside Chat – December 29, 1940" (Text of Radio Address). The American Presidency Project, University of California at Santa Barbara. Retrieved 13 August 2014.
  38. 1 2 Adler, Isolationist Impulse, 257.
  39. 1 2 Lubell, Samuel (1956). The Future of American Politics (2nd ed.). Anchor Press. pp. 139–140, 142. OL   6193934M.
  40. ↑ Adler, Isolationist Impulse, 284.
  41. ↑ Annals of America, 71.
  42. ↑ Annals of America, 75
  43. ↑ Adler, Isolationist Impulse 257.
  44. ↑ Adler, Isolationist Impulse 282.
  45. ↑ Cull, Nicholas John (1995). Selling War: The British Propaganda Campaign against American "Neutrality" in World War II . Oxford University Press. pp.  185, 241. ISBN   978-0-19-508566-2.
  46. ↑ "Isolationist Groups Back Roosevelt". The New York Times. 1941-12-09. p. 44.
  47. ↑ Maddow, Rachel. Prequel An American Fight Against Fascism. pp. 243, 250–251.
  48. ↑ George Fujii. "Review of Wunderlin, Clarence E., Robert A. Taft: Ideas, Tradition, and Party in U.S. Foreign Policy (Biographies in American Foreign Policy) and Wunderlin, Clarence E. Jr.., ed., The Papers of Robert A. Taft, Volume 3: 1945-1948." H-Diplo, H-Net Reviews. December, 2005"
  49. ↑ James T. Patterson (1972). Mr. Republican: a biography of Robert A. Taft . Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. pp.  475–76. ISBN   978-0-395-13938-7.
  50. ↑ Norman A. Graebner (1986). The National Security: Its Theory and Practice, 1945-1960. Oxford University Press, USA. p. 249. ISBN   978-0-19-802103-2.
  51. ↑ Patterson, p. 577
  52. ↑ Graebner, p 249
  53. ↑ J. Peter Scoblic (2008). U.S. vs. Them: Conservatism in the Age of Nuclear Terror. Penguin. p. 46. ISBN   978-1-4406-3901-2.
  54. ↑ "Text of President Obama's Remarks on Syria". The New York Times. 31 August 2013. Retrieved 9 September 2013.
  55. ↑ Kasperowicz, Pete (September 6, 2013). "A closer look at next week... Spending, Syria, ObamaCare". The Hill. Retrieved 9 September 2013.
  56. 1 2 Thee-Brenan, Megan (30 April 2013). "Poll Shows Isolationist Streak in Americans". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 August 2014.
  57. 1 2 Walt, Stephen M. (1 May 2013). "Sloppy journalism at the New York Times". Foreign Policy. Archived from the original on 9 August 2014. Retrieved 8 August 2014.
  58. ↑ Healy, Gene (10 December 2013). "It's not isolationist for America to mind its own business". Washington Examiner. Retrieved 13 August 2014.
  59. 1 2 Lindsay, James M.; Kauss, Rachael (3 December 2013). "The Public's Mixed Message on America's Role in the World". Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Retrieved 13 August 2014.
  60. ↑ Kassel, Whitney (29 July 2014). "What Would Nietzsche Do?". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 8 August 2014.
  61. ↑ "Americans show signs of impatience with Ukraine war". Brookings. Retrieved 2023-07-09.
  62. ↑ "US Polling and Politics on Ukraine War is Changing". Kyiv Post . 19 June 2023. Retrieved 2023-07-09.
  63. 1 2 Brian C. Rathbun, "Does One Right Make a Realist? Conservatism, Neoconservatism, and Isolationism in the Foreign Policy Ideology of American Elites," Political Science Quarterly 2008 123(2): 271-299
  64. ↑ Stanley, Tim (2023-06-15). "Taiwan matters more to US Republicans than Ukraine – here's why". The Telegraph. ISSN   0307-1235 . Retrieved 2023-07-09.
  65. ↑ "Trump says he can end war in 24 hours; Zelenskyy says Biden could in 5 minutes: Ukraine live updates". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2023-07-09.
  66. ↑ Stromberg, Joseph R. (April 24, 2001). "The Old Cause". Antiwar.com. Retrieved October 5, 2021.
  67. ↑ Daher, Trevor (July 27, 2020). "Howard Buffett: Anticommunist and Anti-interventionist". Mises Institute. Retrieved October 5, 2021.
  68. ↑ Joel Webster. "Coolidge against the world: Peace, prosperity, and foreign policy in the 1920s". James Madison University. Retrieved February 1, 2020.
  69. ↑ Ayesh, Orion Rummler, Rashaan (2019-05-05). "Mike Gravel: Everything you need to know about the 2020 candidate". Axios. Retrieved 2022-11-28.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  70. ↑ "About – Gravel Institute" . Retrieved 2022-11-28.
  71. ↑ "'Wild Bill' dies, Nov. 8, 1959". Politico. November 8, 2013.
  72. ↑ "Louis Ludlow and the Power to Declare War". Indiana State Library. January 14, 2020.
  73. ↑ Liberty, Power (August 1, 2005). "Henrik Shipstead Against the UN". History News Network. Retrieved May 12, 2022.
  74. ↑ Bresiger, Gregory (March 8, 2014). "Robert Taft and His Forgotten "Isolationism"". Mises Institute. Retrieved October 5, 2021.
  75. ↑ "George Will: Justin Amash, one to watch from Michigan". The Washington Post. April 19, 2013.
  76. ↑ "Rep. Justin Amash on Trump, Ryan, and the 'Stupidity' of How the Government Spends Your Money". Reason Magazine. April 9, 2018.
  77. 1 2 3 "Will the Real GOP Non-Interventionists Stand up?". The American Conservative. August 29, 2017.
  78. ↑ "The question no one asked: What did Russia get for hacking our electorates?". LibertyFighters.uk. March 13, 2017.
  79. ↑ Martinez, Remso (17 May 2019). "Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Stands Firm on Anti-Regime Change Stance". www.theadvocates.org. The Advocates. Retrieved 15 March 2022.
  80. ↑ Gabbard, Tulsi (16 October 2019). "Tulsi Gabbard Opposes 'Regime Change Wars' — But She's Not Anti-war". www.huffpost.com. Huffington Post. Retrieved 15 March 2022.
  81. ↑ "Gary Johnson presidential campaign, 2016/Foreign affairs". Ballotpedia. Retrieved 2022-11-28.
  82. ↑ "Thomas Massie Stands Against Neoconservative Intervention". Liberty Conservative News. June 24, 2019.
  83. ↑ Trygstad, Kyle (July 12, 2011). "Ron Paul to Retire from Congress". Roll Call . Archived from the original on July 8, 2019. Retrieved September 22, 2012.
  84. ↑ Paul, Ron (2002-09-16). "Entangling Alliances Distort our Foreign Policy". Texas Straight Talk. House of Representatives. Archived from the original on 2002-09-23.
  85. ↑ Paul, Ron (2007-05-22). "Patriotism". Congressional Record . House of Representatives. Retrieved 2007-10-23.
  86. ↑ Rockwell, Lew (2007-05-21). "The Foreign Policy of Ron Paul". Lew Rockwell. Retrieved 2007-11-06.
  87. ↑ "Rand Paul's Foreign Policy: For the Situation Room or the Dorm Room?". National Review. April 15, 2014.
  88. ↑ "Rand Paul Found His Voice: Can He Find Noninterventionist Voters?". The National Interest. September 17, 2015.
  89. ↑ "The Two Non-Interventionists". HuffPost. June 29, 2017. Archived from the original on June 28, 2019. Retrieved July 4, 2019.
  90. ↑ "Responsible Foreign Policy". Bernie Sanders Official Website. Retrieved 2022-11-28.
  91. ↑ "What the World Could Expect From Dr. Ron Paul's Non-Interventionist America". LewRockwell.com. November 28, 2007.
  92. ↑ "Inside the Pentagon's "Office of Special Plans"". natsummit.org. March 7, 2014.
  93. ↑ Plott, Elaina (December 15, 2019). "What Does Tucker Carlson Believe?". The Atlantic . Archived from the original on July 26, 2020. Retrieved July 22, 2020.
  94. ↑ Mills, Curt (July 14, 2017). "Tucker Carlson Goes to War Against the Neocons". The National Interest . Archived from the original on July 23, 2018. Retrieved January 29, 2019.
  95. ↑ Schwartz, Benjamin (Fall 1996). "Review: The Tragedy of American Isolationism". World Policy Journal. 13 (3). Duke University Press: 107. JSTOR   40209494.

References and further reading

Related Research Articles

Isolationism is a term used to refer to a political philosophy advocating a foreign policy that opposes involvement in the political affairs, and especially the wars, of other countries. Thus, isolationism fundamentally advocates neutrality and opposes entanglement in military alliances and mutual defense pacts. In its purest form, isolationism opposes all commitments to foreign countries, including treaties and trade agreements. In the political science lexicon, there is also the term of “non-interventionism”, which is sometimes improperly used to replace the concept of “isolationism”. “Non-interventionism” is commonly understood as “a foreign policy of political or military non-involvement in foreign relations or in other countries’ internal affairs”. “Isolationism” should be interpreted more broadly as “a foreign policy grand strategy of military and political non-interference in international affairs and in the internal affairs of sovereign states, associated with trade and economic protectionism and cultural and religious isolation, as well as with the inability to be in permanent military alliances, with the preservation, however, some opportunities to participate in temporary military alliances that meet the current interests of the state and in permanent international organizations of a non-military nature”.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wendell Willkie</span> American lawyer and corporate executive (1892–1944)

Wendell Lewis Willkie was an American lawyer, corporate executive and the 1940 Republican nominee for president. Willkie appealed to many convention delegates as the Republican field's only interventionist: although the U.S. remained neutral prior to Pearl Harbor, he favored greater U.S. involvement in World War II to support Britain and other Allies. His Democratic opponent, incumbent President Franklin D. Roosevelt, won the 1940 election with about 55% of the popular vote and took the electoral college vote by a wide margin.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1940 United States presidential election</span>

The 1940 United States presidential election was the 39th quadrennial presidential election. It was held on Tuesday, November 5, 1940. Incumbent Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt defeated Republican businessman Wendell Willkie to be reelected for an unprecedented third term in office. Until 1988, this was the last time in which the incumbent's party won three consecutive presidential elections. It was also the fourth presidential election in which both major party candidates were registered in the same home state; the others have been in 1860, 1904, 1920, 1944, and 2016.

The Neutrality Acts were a series of acts passed by the US Congress in 1935, 1936, 1937, and 1939 in response to the growing threats and wars that led to World War II. They were spurred by the growth in isolationism and non-interventionism in the US following the US joining World War I, and they sought to ensure that the US would not become entangled again in foreign conflicts.

The America First Committee (AFC) was an American isolationist pressure group against the United States' entry into World War II. Launched in September 1940, it surpassed 800,000 members in 450 chapters at its peak. The AFC principally supported isolationism for its own sake, and its varied coalition included Republicans, Democrats, farmers, industrialists, communists, anti-communists, students, and journalists – however, it was controversial for the anti-Semitic and pro-fascist views of some of its most prominent speakers, leaders, and members. The AFC was dissolved on December 11, 1941, four days after the attack on Pearl Harbor brought the United States into the war.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Joseph H. Ball</span> American politician

Joseph Hurst Ball was an American journalist, politician and businessman. Ball served as a Republican senator from Minnesota from 1940 to 1949. He was a conservative in domestic policy and a leading foe of labor unions who helped draft the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. Ball was best known for his internationalism and his support for a postwar world organization, that became the United Nations. However, after 1945, he was an opponent of the Marshall Plan.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Henrik Shipstead</span> American politician (1881–1960)

Henrik Shipstead was an American politician. He served in the United States Senate from 1923 to 1947, from the state of Minnesota. He served first as a member of the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party from 1923 to 1941 and then as a Republican from 1941 to 1947.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Arthur Vandenberg</span> U.S. Senator from Michigan (1884-1951)

Arthur Hendrick Vandenberg Sr. was an American politician who served as a United States senator from Michigan from 1928 to 1951. A member of the Republican Party, he participated in the creation of the United Nations. He is best known for leading the Republican Party from a foreign policy of isolationism to one of internationalism, and supporting the Cold War, the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, and NATO. He served as president pro tempore of the United States Senate from 1947 to 1949.

The Quarantine Speech was a speech given by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt in Chicago on October 5, 1937. The speech called for an international "quarantine" against the "epidemic of world lawlessness" by aggressive nations as an alternative to the political climate of American neutrality and non-intervention that was prevalent at the time. No countries were directly mentioned in the speech, although it was interpreted as referring to the Empire of Japan, the Kingdom of Italy, and Nazi Germany. Roosevelt suggested the use of economic pressure, a forceful response, but less direct than outright aggression. The speech was given at the dedication of the Outer Drive Bridge between north and south outer Lake Shore Drive. The speech received backlash for its interventionist ideals, causing protest from non-interventionists and heightening America's isolationist sentiments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Burton K. Wheeler</span> American politician and lawyer (1882–1975)

Burton Kendall Wheeler was an attorney and an American politician of the Democratic Party in Montana, which he represented as a United States senator from 1923 until 1947.

The Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies (CDAAA) was an American mass movement, political action group formed in May 1940. Also known as the White Committee, its leader until January 1941 was William Allen White. Other important members included Clark Eichelberger and Dean Acheson. The CDAAA shared its leadership with the dissolved Non-Partisan Committee for Peace through Revision of the Neutrality Law (NPC), who was also chaired by White and directed by Eichelberger. Additionally, the CDAAA used ex-NPC offices in the League of Nations building at 8 W. Fortieth Street in New York City, as their central base. This has drawn commentators to regard the CDAAA as the successor to the NPC.

Non-interventionism or non-intervention is commonly understood as "a foreign policy of political or military non-involvement in foreign relations or in other countries' internal affairs". This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state as well as the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Old Right (United States)</span> Branch of American conservatism (c. 1910–1950s)

The Old Right is an informal designation used for a branch of American conservatism that was most prominent from 1910 to the mid-1950s, but never became an organized movement. Most members were Republicans, although there was a conservative Democratic element based largely in the Southern United States. They are termed the "Old Right" to distinguish them from their New Right successors who came to prominence in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bricker Amendment</span> Proposed bill to amend US Constitution

The Bricker Amendment is the collective name of a number of slightly different proposed amendments to the United States Constitution considered by the United States Senate in the 1950s. None of these amendments ever passed Congress. Each of them would require explicit congressional approval, especially for executive agreements that did not require the Senate's two-thirds approval for treaty. They are named for their sponsor, conservative Republican Senator John W. Bricker of Ohio, who distrusted the exclusive powers of the president to involve the United States beyond the wishes of Congress.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Opposition to World War II</span>

Opposition to World War II was expressed by the governments and peoples of all combatant nations to various extents. Initial reluctance for conflict in the Allied democratic nations changed to overwhelming, but not complete, support once the war had been joined. Some politicians and military leaders in the Axis powers opposed starting or expanding the conflict during its course. However, the totalitarian nature of these countries limited their effect. Noncombatant nations opposed joining the war for a variety of reasons, including self preservation, economic disincentives or a belief in neutrality in upon itself. After the war the populations of the former Axis powers mostly regretted their nations' involvement. In contrast, the people of Allied nations celebrated their involvement and the perceived just nature of the war, particularly in comparison with World War I.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pacifism in the United States</span>

Pacifism has manifested in the United States in a variety of forms, and in myriad contexts. In general, it exists in contrast to an acceptance of the necessity of war for national defense.

Justus Drew Doenecke is an American historian, writer, and professor. His 2000 book, Storm on the Horizon: the Challenge to American Intervention, 1939-1941, received the Herbert Hoover Book Award from the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and Museum. Doenecke is Professor Emeritus at New College of Florida.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of foreign policy and national defense in the Republican Party</span>

The Republican Party of the United States has held a variety of views on foreign policy and national defense over the course of its existence. Generally speaking, it has advocated for a more militaristic foreign policy. Republican presidents have joined or started a number of wars over the course of American history, with mixed results.

The foreign policy of the United States was controlled personally by Franklin D. Roosevelt during his first and second and third and fourth terms as the president of the United States from 1933 to 1945. He depended heavily on Henry Morgenthau Jr., Sumner Welles, and Harry Hopkins. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Cordell Hull handled routine matters. Roosevelt was an internationalist, while powerful members of Congress favored more isolationist solutions in order to keep the U.S. out of European wars. There was considerable tension before the Attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. The attack converted the isolationists or made them irrelevant. The US began aid to the Soviet Union after Germany invaded it in June 1941. After the US declared war in December 1941, key decisions were made at the highest level by Roosevelt, Britain's Winston Churchill and the Soviet Union's Joseph Stalin, along with their top aides. After 1938 Washington's policy was to help China in its war against Japan, including cutting off money and oil to Japan. While isolationism was powerful regarding Europe, American public and elite opinion strongly opposed Japan.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of U.S. foreign policy, 1913–1933</span>

The history of U.S. foreign policy from 1913–1933 covers the foreign policy of the United States during World War I and much of the Interwar period. The administrations of Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover successively handled U.S. foreign policy during this period.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.