They’re back! Isolationist poltergeists that haunt the Republican Party forever. At least that’s what we were told.
In July, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky had a disagreement over US foreign policy. Christie clumsily condemned “this brand of libertarianism that is now going through the parties and making headlines is, in my opinion, a very dangerous thought.” It was clumsy in its garbled syntax, but also in its ill-conceived approach to “libertarianism.” I think what he meant was “isolationism,” and that is the term that many commentators on the left and right exploit to describe Paul and his ideas. Even the invaluable Charles Krauthammer sees in Paweł “the return of the most venerable trend of conservative foreign policy – isolationism.”
I’m not so sure about that. Last week, Paul introduced a measure to cut off foreign aid to Egypt. After spirited and informative debate, Paul’s amendment was defeated by a majority of 86 to 13. And, as the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank pointed out, that margin was misleading considering that six senators, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) .), sided with Paul only when they knew he would lose his voice. They disagreed with Paul on the merits of the matter, they just wanted to stay on the good side of the Paul Tea Party machine.
Moreover, lest it go unnoticed, Paul’s idea of cutting off aid to the Egyptians may be a bad idea, but you don’t have to be an isolationist to think that aid should be cut. The law states that the United States should withhold aid in response to a military coup. It was a military coup. And even before the coup, our support was morally questionable at best.
In other words, rumors of the GOP returning to its isolationist roots are greatly exaggerated.
In fact, rumors that the GOP ever had particularly isolationist roots are also exaggerated.
Republicans were first labeled as an isolationist when Massachusetts Senator Henry Cabot Lodge led the opposition to the Treaty of Versailles after World War I. However, his opposition to the stupid treaty after a badly fought war was not necessarily based on isolationist sentiments. Lodge was an interventionist hawk on both World War I and the Spanish-American War. Lodge even agreed to ratify another of President Wilson’s treaties, which would commit the United States to defend France in the event of an attack by Germany.
Consider also the renowned isolationist Senator Robert Taft (R-Ohio), a role model for former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). As a presidential candidate, Paul routinely touted Taft’s opposition to U.S. NATO membership as evidence of the GOP’s isolationist roots. But Taft also supported the Truman Doctrine and, albeit reluctantly, the Marshall Plan. He promised “100 percent support for the Chinese national government in Formosa [Taiwan]” and wanted to station as many as six divisions in Europe. What isolationism!
Meanwhile, countless leading liberals and Democrats embraced isolationism in name in the 1930s and in deed after World War II. For example, JT Flynn, a leading spokesman for the America First Committee, was a longtime columnist for the liberal New Republic.
The self-proclaimed isolationist movement died in the ashes of World War II. But as long as it existed, it was a bipartisan issue, like interventionism. Similarly, competing impulses to engage with and withdraw from the world are not the exclusive origin of one side; rather, they run straight through the American heartland. No one impulse is always right for every challenge. Even most hawks preferred the Cold War to the sizzling one with the Soviet Union. And most doves supported the counterattack against al-Qaeda after 9/11.
Many supposedly isolationist libertarians support free trade and uncomplicated immigration, but also want to shrink the military. Many supposedly isolationist progressives hate free trade and globalization but love the United Nations and international treaties.
Krauthammer is absolutely right that the GOP is going to have a substantial foreign policy debate – and it should (as should the Democrats). I’m just not sure wrapping around the word “and” does much to improve or clarify this debate.
