Huffpost Politics
THE BLOG

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors

Christopher McKnight Nichols Headshot

More Americans Want Government Out of International Affairs

Posted: Updated:
Print

The number of Americans wanting their government to stay out of international affairs is higher than it has been since the Vietnam War, according to a new analysis.

In an article entitled "The Enduring Power of Isolationism: An Historical Perspective," published this week in Orbis: A Journal of World Affairs, Oregon State University historian Christopher McKnight Nichols notes that doubts about American involvement abroad are on the rise, up 10 percent in a decade.

Recent polls also suggest that the coup and tumultuous events in Egypt are likely to prompt confusion about the best course of action among U.S. policy-makers and citizens. These events are therefore all the more likely to further enhance skepticism about intervention, or so-called "policy uncertainty," as has been the case in recent years regarding potential U.S. action in Syria and Libya. Underscoring such analysis polls in mid-June 2013 by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press revealed that nearly 70 percent of Americans "opposed arming Syria's opposition." More than 6 in 10 objected to intervention in the form of arms shipments, as the Obama Administration has begun to do, and believed that such an action might well result in a government "no better than the current government."

Two years ago the Obama Administration garnered positive marks for handling the protests in Egypt even as many Americans seemed not to have a clear perspective on what those events might herald. It is unlikely that in light of the coup and recent violence in Egypt a more circumspect U.S. approach will have such broad appeal and yet, perplexingly, Americans evidence relatively "low public interest" in Syria -- and in the Middle East more broadly -- and seem increasingly wary of direct military and aid-based global interventions and lack a consensus on how to approach .

Nichols's recent findings draw on those of his book Promise and Peril: America at the Dawn of a Global Age to connect current reluctance on the part of many Americans to get involved militarily and politically with foreign nations to a long-standing tradition in U.S. politics.

"Virtually all isolationists in the history of the United States have subscribed to some form of international engagement, whether that is economic, cultural, political or intellectual," he said. "There is no such thing as a complete isolationist. What we do have is a rich history of Americans who have taken on isolationist or anti-interventionist beliefs at different times, and helped transform or influence the political system and policy." In his work Nichols details these debates and their impacts and links the "heyday" of American isolationism of the 1920s and 1930s to current events, including polls showing nearly 70 percent of Americans reject further U.S. efforts to intervene or to promote democracy abroad.

Nichols also wants to take back the term "isolationist" from its common stereotype of a conservative mindset that wants to wall off the U.S. from the outside world. Famous figures, ranging from peace activist Jane Addams and racial reformer W.E.B. Du Bois to writer Mark Twain and former U.S. Sen. William Borah, a nationalist who opposed the League of Nations, have all favored anti-war and anti-imperialistic isolationist policies.

"They say politics makes strange bedfellows, and we can certainly trace this with the isolationist movement, which tended to attract people on both the far left and far right," Nichols said. "Today we see that same sort of tendency with some young anti-war activists supporting someone like Ron Paul."

Most of these type of isolationist sentiments can be traced to three "policy pillars" - expressed by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe - in laying out the relationship between domestic and foreign commitments, types of diplomatic and military isolation, and debates over foreign policy cautiousness that have had a deep impact on U.S. foreign relations for more than a century.

"These are the touchstones for all foreign policy debate, then and since," he said. "The key precepts were: no permanent alliances or binding foreign entanglements, peace and honest friendship with all nations, enhancing and protecting international commerce, heralding unilateral action, and asserting U.S. rights to hemispheric defense and a wide sphere of primary U.S. influence abroad."

Isolationism as a strain of thought that informs how American citizens and policymakers evaluate options abroad and sometimes sways policy cannot be overstated. Eight years ago there were far more troops on the ground overseas than today, and he said President Obama has shown a reluctance to put "boots on the ground" in places like Libya and Syria, even as he has acted multilaterally by working with NATO and the UN, causing some of his critics to call him a "neo-isolationist."

"With President Obama, we are back to small-scale, multilateral interventions, more like those that we had in the Clinton era," Nichols said. "During Clinton's presidency, the U.S. deployed forces abroad approximately 80 times in foreign humanitarian and peacekeeping operations, but these were mostly conflicts with small troop footprints, or Special Forces, characterized by few American causalities.

"In the wake of the Iraq War, in light of the drawdown in Afghanistan, and given pressing economic and political concerns at home, the U.S. public is increasingly reluctant to sacrifice American lives or to materially support intervention and aid abroad."