The Folly of Isolationism

[Originally written on 24 June 2007]

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none."-- Thomas Jefferson.

Profound words. The only problem I see is that when he uttered them the best chance of becoming entangled with any nation was by rowboat.

The doctrine of isolationism is not mentioned either implicitly or explicitly in the Constitution. Yet, today it is cited as the "wisdom of the founders" in a nauseatingly simplistic and repetitive fashion. Times change, and even a casual familiarity with history would demonstrate that the reluctance of the founders to engage in foreign conflicts and subject the nation to "entangling alliances" was rooted only in the military and economic weaknesses of the new nation. Their conviction on this issue could only be regarded by a historical novice as an endorsement of isolationism on a perpetual basis. Indeed, as Washington, Adams and Jefferson themselves discovered during their respective presidencies-- the doctrine of isolationism proved considerably difficult to uphold, for the path to peace is often lined with casualties and even commerce, particularly in the late 18th and 19th centuries, had the potential to induce conflict.

Adherence to this archaic doctrine is dangerously naive. The so-called blow back effect of American foreign policy is indisputable-- involvement in global and national affairs often elicits resentment, hatred and violence. In the end, it comes down to a cost-benefit analysis. Failing to intervene has its own disastrous consequences. Even those who advocate limited intervention nonetheless advocate it somewhere-- lending their own subjective preferences to the utilization of American military and economic resources to achieve some desired end in some foreign land or on a global scale.

I reject the proposition that America must choose between callous and disastrous disregard for the hazardous challenges presented by an increasingly interdependent world and an arrogantly meddlesome foreign policy. I don't much care for the foreign policy of George W. Bush, but I'm not so sure I would find the foreign policy of Ron Paul any more palatable.