The End of US Isolationist Policy
Before the United States became one of the most influential countries in the globe, it has experienced many internal wars and ideological battles that have caused the country to go on a state of isolationism from the globe. They became scared of the possible return of the Europeans in their borders and made the country off-limits to anyone. But, upon the dawn of the late 1800s, some members of the government and citizens believe that it’s time to re-engage with the outside world and strengthen the country. How these wars and changes in political ideologies were influence the US isolationist policy and adapt a more imperialist and expansionist policy that now made the country one of the superpowers? These wars have established the notion that Americans cannot remain isolated over the conflicts happening around them and it will always be threatened either way. In addition to this, the prospect of internationalisation and interventionism that the US had to apply upon the World Wars not only cemented the notion that isolation is no longer an option, but it also paved the way for the US to step us an influential factor in the international arena as a superpower.
Schmidt, Shelley and Bardes (2008) stated that upon the formative years of the United States in the late 1700s, foreign policy was non-existent. The war took its toll over the people and the government served as a minor compromise while studying what responsibilities it can handle. They were also fearful that peace will yet again be threatened by conflicts caused by the outsiders. The national government had no power over taxes, commerce, treaties and even the capacity of creating a military arm. The Revolutionary Army was immediately disbanded after the war and was reduced immediately. The incapacity of the national government and the lack of military arm supported the notion that the nation had no international power in that era, especially when the Barbary pirates took American hostages in the Mediterranean. The US government was unable to rescue these people and they had to buy these people back through a treaty with Morocco.
This weakness and lack of international power was connected to the mistrust of the Founders to the European governments and to other nations, in fear that the peace they have claimed would yet again be taken by another nation. The Founders were weary with another war and thus took in an isolationist stance. In one statement of George Washington, he noted that the US will not create permanent alliances and stray away from them. Thomas Jefferson noted that America pursues for peace, but they will not join in entangling alliances as this will resort to more wars. It can be noted that this position of the US enabled them to protect the nation from the growing European threat. This stance was also cemented by the fact that the oceans surrounded the country, which would take invaders months before they reach shore. However, inside the United States, ideologist movements have started springing inside the nation, pushing for a more open and active United States .
According to Dautrich and Yalof (2011), two factions have separated the political sphere of the US. Some politicians and citizens, including the Founding Fathers, have believed that the nation must stay out of the politics of other nations. Intervention, for this group, is a way to force certain beliefs that can be noted as a form of oppression. They also believe that intervening in other’s affairs would only add more problems for the nation and the government must first answer national problems. Without resolution with these problems, the US government has no right to spend money on other problems. Intervening would cost billions of dollars, and it may cause more losses. Citizens, however, have no right to influence the government as to where the money should be spent. This group were called as the isolationists.
On the other hand, there were groups that pressed for intervention as they believe that oppressed people deserve basic freedoms. Since the US is now slowly gaining a power like that of Europe, the US has a responsibility to maintain freedom throughout the world. Isolating the country would deny these people the same freedoms the country has. The US action can be vary from humanitarian aid to military aid. Interventionists also believe that the US economy will benefit from their intervention. Both arguments are strong in their own right; however, isolationism reigned especially in the early ages. George Washington, through his 1797 farewell speech, noted that his successors must not allow interference to occur. He stressed that America can conduct business with other countries, but drift away from their political issues to maintain peace. Many accepted Washington’s belief, but with expansionism happening in the borders, it was not followed easily by many. Nevertheless, the isolationism policy of the US remained for a century and a half, preserving America’s independence and move until the last minute. Through their isolationism policies, the country fought wars in lands that are found in the border in 1812, in 1846, and in 1898. Ironically, the isolationism policy did not include culture and commerce as Americans became curious to study world cultures and trading, welcoming both foreigners and their products.
Subsequently, the isolationism policy was not applied to the Western hemisphere especially upon the declaration of the Monroe Doctrine on December 2, 1823. President James Monroe proclaimed that both the North and South Americas should not be considered as “future colonies by any Europeans” and would subsequently act against any European power that will endanger the nation’s peace and safety. The consequences of violating the Monroe Doctrine became clear as any colonization efforts to the United States and any location in the Atlantic Ocean would be considered as a war against the nation. The Europeans at first accepted the doctrine, however, their reasons for deferring to the US is unclear as there are no documents that present this claim. By the time the European imperial powers were gradually increasing, the US took immediate action and used the Monroe Doctrine as their backup in explaining their reasons for war. In 1895, they entered the war between Great Britain and Venezuela, over the boundaries separating Venezuela from British Guiana. They also prevented European nations from influencing affairs of Latin American countries such as the Dominican Republic (1907) and Nicaragua (1911). Spain and Germany were not spared when they entered the Latin American territories as the US also intervened .
Marley (2008) noted that by 1908, the isolationism campaign slowly waned upon the Spanish-American War and the emergence of the First World War. In the Spanish-American War in 1898, the US gained custody of Guam, Puerto Rico and the Philippines due to their victory against the Spaniards. These countries then served as their outposts in preserving American influence over the regions. Shortly afterwards, the First World War of 1914-1918 came, and the Americans immediately intervened. They declared war against Germany on April 6, 1917 when the latter refused to abandon their operation in sinking the ships heading to Britain. The US and the rest of the Allied Powers immediately created a strategy to drive Germany and its Allies and eliminate their war leaders, including Adolf Hitler. A few years later, the US returned back to its normal position and back to isolationism as the US military efforts affected the economy of the nation .
Kennedy (2002) noted that the isolationism policies of the US in the 1930s were noted as an irrational effort as it shows that the US wanted to continue absolute neutrality in military-political affairs overseas despite their earlier venture in the First World War. Nevertheless, it remained popular as the leaders of political parties supported Isolationism. Republicans such as Herbert Hoover and Robert Taft inclined to support Isolationism and made sure that their constituents and partners will support it. The Neutrality Acts is an example of an isolationist policy passed in this period and supported since it will keep America safe from war. There were no opponents to the bill, and thus, put into effect immediately. The public reflected Washington’s decision over the Neutrality Acts and each argument was triumphed by the isolationists.
However, the powers of the isolationists were slowly waning primarily upon the introduction of the League of Nations and the contradictions seen in each debate. Isolationists failed to explain how power politics became unstable and incapable of promoting peace, but they consistently suggest that the same tactics used for power politics must be used to deter Axis aggression. Hoover and Taft also sent out some contradictions upon their assertion that power politics is capable of promoting peace. In one instance, Taft suggested that Germany and Italy were deterred because Britain and France could not be defeated in any form of military war. Hoover also made this mistake as he accepted the military armament production in most Western European nations and claims that these are “weights in the balance towards peace between the totalitarian states and the democracies.” Finally, the isolationist position in peace can be faulty when it comes to discussing America’s national security. Most isolationists have argued that both geographical and military forces are enough to keep the country safe from any form of attack. This then shows the contradiction that isolationists accept the use of force against countries that will attempt an attack in the country. This argument alone shows that the isolationists never gave a concrete solution in preventing the nation from entering a war as it is inevitable .
The US Isolationist Policy has completely shattered upon the bombing of the US naval base in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on December 7, 1941 and the dawn of the Second World War. McCormick (2009) explained that this surprise attack of the Japanese has caused 2,403 American casualties and wounded 1,143 others. The country was also set into full victory and found it difficult to return back to the country’s original isolationist tendencies. The war also became the stepping stone for the country to face the direction of becoming a superpower because three factors have influenced its decision to stay in the path of internationalism and interventionism. The first factor pertains to the political and economic conditions after the Second World War. The European economy has gradually declined upon the end of the Second World War and it became a “wasteland”. Most European nations were in debt and experiencing inflation. Britain had to use most of its funds to win the war and eventually accumulated $6 billion worth of debt. France also experienced the same problems and they had to rely with American assistance to meet their needs. Germany and Italy also had contributed to the vacuum happening in the country and thus would require a large amount of money to return the countries’ economies to their original state before the war The United States, on the other hand, had a healthy and prosperous economy which is why its position as a stable economy is required to enable the Europeans to recover. This also enabled the US government to get these governments in favour to them should additional conflicts arise in the future.
Another factor that has moved the United States away from the isolationist stance is the position of the leading political figures in the country especially after the Second World War. Scott (1998) noted that Roosevelt and his political team studied the possible reactions of the public as to their active international engagement in the Second World War. By 1943, the Gallup, the National Opinion Research Centre and other polling bodies have asked if the public is in favour of internationalism or "the active role in world affairs or just allow it to continue. The study revealed that 76 percent found internationalism or an active role for the US to be more acceptable. 14 percent preferred to remain isolated regarding world affairs. As the years passed, fifty surveys have shown that internationalism is a logical choice. There have been critics and members of the public who fear a possible return to isolationism as seen in some studies. Analysts such as Handley Cantrill, Gavriel Almond, Walter Lippmann, and George Kennan pushed for internationalism. By the late 1980s, this support for internationalism increased as relations between Washington and Moscow are better than before. Other commentators, on the other hand, noted that post-cold war America can return back to isolationism. However, this was no longer possible since the public are more active in pursuing an internationalism concern. This public support was also cemented by the fact that the Soviet Union's dissolution would not really end troubling conflicts. Many still supported a more active American role in international affairs .
Finally, the United States had to act upon the rise of the Soviet Union and their ideological faction, the Socialists as it acts as a deterrent to the peace they have acquired after the Second World War. The Soviet Union has been a silent partner of Germany and with their allies also threatening to hinder the balance of power in the Allied Powers; it is up for the United States to stop this growing threat and idealism. With the European countries still on recovery mode, the United States is the only country that can fight against this growing Soviet threat. Eventually the Cold War concentrated in most of the Soviet Union’s territories and had kick-started one of the worst duels between the two superpowers. In the end of the Cold War, the United States became the victor and remained to be the only superpower in existence. The next administrations after the war have continued to push for interventionism and internationalism as seen in the Bush Administration. These administrations believe that the war is still amongst the shadows and can strike at any time; however, there is a need to redefine bipartisanship in the post-Cold War Era. The Clinton Administration also made this same appeal and has eliminated any form of movement with regards to returning to isolationism. He stated that “new isolationists both on the left and the right would radically revise the fundamentals of the country’s foreign policy that have earned bipartisan support since the end of World War II”. This statement continued to ring around the legislative parties up to the present. However, they have embraced the ideals with regards to internationalism and prosperity .
Despite the decline of the isolationist point of view, it did not completely disappear in American literature. But, it no longer made a comeback in the US political arena as the national government has noticed significant changes in the international system upon their return from their isolation in the 1930s. Internationalism and interventionism became the new foundation for the United States as they have realized the importance of their actions in the international community. Becoming completely isolated from the world would only delay the threats to their country, nevertheless, the peace they have will still be challenged by the countries which will have interest in them. These wars also showed that their intervention would not only influence international affairs, but also the fact that their presence in the issue will define the state affairs of each conflict. Truly, the United States has moved on to these isolationist ways and has accepted the fact that they also have a say in the international area.
References
Dautrich, K., & Yalof, D. (2011). American Government: Historical, Popular, and Global Perspectives. Boston: Cengage Learning.
Kennedy, R. (2002). The Ideology of American Isolationism: 1931-1939. Cercles, 1(40), 57-76.
Marley, D. (2008). Wars of the Americas: a chronology of armed conflict in the Western Hemisphere. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
McCormick, J. (2009). American Foreign Policy and Process. Santa Barbara: Cengage Learning.
Schmidt, S., Shelley, M., & Bardes, B. (2008). American Government and Politics Today. Belmont: Cengage Learning.
Scott, J. (1998). After the end: making U.S foreign policy in the post-cold war world. Durham: Duke University Press.
