Isolationism?

The Pew Research Center reports:

In their first major presidential debate June 13, the Republican candidates sketched out a cautious approach to U.S. global engagement that would represent a departure from the policies of the Bush administration. Yet their ideas are very much in tune with the evolving views of the GOP base.

In the Pew Research Center’s political typology survey, released May 4, majorities in every partisan group –including 55% of conservative Republicans – said the U.S. “should pay less attention to problems overseas and concentrate on problems here at home.”

In December 2004, conservative Republicans had been the only group in which a majority had expressed the opposing view – 58% said “it is best for the future of our country to be active in world affairs.”

The proportion of conservative Republicans supporting U.S. activism in world affairs has fallen by 19 points to 39%. Since 2004, liberal Democrats and independents also have become less supportive of U.S. global engagement, but the change has been most dramatic among conservatives.

...

Republicans have become less supportive of U.S. global engagement, but they continue to favor a muscular approach to national security. In the political typology survey, half of Republicans (50%) supported the Reagan-era concept of “peace through strength,” while 38% said “good diplomacy is the best way to ensure peace.”

By comparison, just 29% of independents and 22% of Democrats said peace is best ensured through military strength. These views are little changed from recent years.

From an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll:

Q36 The President has announced that he plans to begin reducing American troop levels in Afghanistan in July 2011. Which of these statements comes closest to your point of view on this? (ROTATE TOP-TO-BOTTOM,

BOTTOM-TO-TOP)

Statement A: The troops should be removed now.

Statement B: The troops should be removed on the timetable of July 2011.

Statement C: The troops should be removed depending upon the military conditions in July 2011.

Statement D: The troops should only be removed after the Afghan government has stabilized and the Taliban has been defeated.

................................................................................................6/11 1/11 8/26-30/10

A/Removed now ..................................................................... 23...... 23......... 18

B/Removed on this timetable .................................................. 24 .......21........16

C/Removed depending on military conditions ........................ 37........34........ 37

D/Removed after gov’t stabilized and Taliban defeated.... ........15 ....... 21........ 25

Not sure .......................................................................... ........1.......... 1.......... 4

In August 2010, the statement read “…depending upon the military conditions in 2011”

Jonah Goldberg writes:

Again, my objection is solely to the word “isolationist.” ...[T]he term is loaded with baggage, hence it tends to distort debates rather than edify them.

For instance, there were far more liberal isolationists than liberal historians and pundits would have people think. They included John Dewey, Charles Beard, Joseph Kennedy and his sons, various writers for the liberal New Republic, et al. Meanwhile many of the most famous “isolationists” were far more willing to engage the world than the term suggests. Henry Cabot Lodge and the Republicans who rejected the Treaty of Versailles were not remotely isolationist (I could go into all that, but it gets complicated). Ron Paul likes to invoke Senator Robert Taft’s opposition to NATO as proof of a longstanding tradition of isolationism in the GOP. He always leaves out the fact that Taft supported the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan, promised “100 percent support for the Chinese National government on Formosa,” and favored keeping six divisions in Europe, at least until the Europeans could defend themselves. That’s not exactly Fortress America talk.

Using the term isolationist as if it didn’t conjure these old debates and battles is a mistake. It offends those who simply disagree with specific policies while it encourages those who would like to claim that Isolationism—with a capital I—is once again a thriving or at least viable political movement. Do we really want Pat Buchanan out there using these polls as proof that it’s time for him to revive his America First schtick?

The American people may be wrong in their priorities, it’s happened before. And Mitt Romney and others may be wrong in theirs. But wrong is not synonymous with isolationism.