I see all sorts of people talking about the virtues of noninterventionism as a foreign policy for the United States, presumably as a consequence of the Internet interest in He Who Must Not Be Named. Assuming for the moment that when they say noninterventionism they really mean it and don’t just mean isolationism, how would that play out in practice?
While America’s enormously powerful military is a tremendous source of influence i.e. intervention in the affairs of people in other countries it isn’t our only source. First, there are the actions of U. S. corporations and multinationals viewed as U. S. corporations. The practical upshot of a withdrawal from active intervention on the part of our government is that we’d cede our foreign policy to U. S. corporations. We’ve been down that road before. In the words of Dr. Phil, how is that workin’ out for ya?
Secondly, there’s the enormous amount of influence wielded by Americans due to the extent of our travel and trade. American culture, such as it is, is pervasive and that won’t change if our government doesn’t intervene actively overseas.
We won’t make any friends with noninterventionism we’ll just relinquish one of the tools we have for influencing events. And the interference of American companies and American culture in the affairs of people in other countries will continue to earn us enemies.