By Jonah Goldberg - from The American
Our own Alex Della Rocchetta wrote the other day that there’s a growing “isolationist” tide in America. In fairness, she was encouraged to use the term by the Pew Research Center and other outlets (see, for instance, this discussion of GOP politics and the opening for an “isolationist” candidate ).
I’d like to dissent from all of this. None of the GOP contenders are isolationist. The growing popular dissatisfaction with the war in Afghanistan and the skepticism toward the Libyan adventure have very, very little to do with anything that can seriously be understood as isolationism. The chief opponent of military engagement around the world, Representative Ron Paul, is not even an isolationist properly understood since he’d lower trade and (I believe) immigration barriers.
While isolationists surely want to leave Afghanistan, wanting to get out of Afghanistan is not necessarily evidence of isolationism. It may be wrongheaded. It may be dangerous. It may even be evidence of some other ideological -ism. But isolationist? No. The same goes for Libya. Indeed, the idea that wanting to pull out of Libya (not my own position by the way) is a mark of isolationism is to suggest that basically any engagement the president enters into must be carried out indefinitely lest we give in to isolationism.
Pew cites as evidence of rising isolation that larger numbers of Americans think Obama should concentrate more on our problems at home and/or that America should “mind its own business” more in the world. Now, I believe America must stay engaged internationally, but I’m at a loss as to how these views amount to isolationism. Couldn’t Americans simply be making a prudential judgment about how we should set priorities? Isn’t it in fact true that we are fiscally over-extended and in need of some house-cleaning?
Again, my objection is solely to the word “isolationist.” While Alex seems to be using it in a clinical way, as if it is merely an accepted objective term, it is seen by many as a pejorative and by others as a once lost cause worthy of reviving. Either way the term is loaded with baggage, hence it tends to distort debates rather than edify them.
No comments:
Post a Comment