What Is “Isolationism”?

In a column in the Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Paul Gigot declaims against the rise of U. S. isolationism:

On this score, my worry is less about the political left than some of our friends on the right. Modern progressives will always put the welfare state above defenses because that is their governing model and ideology. They believe in the restraining power of international treaties and arms control. They believe adversaries will be deterred by America’s forbearance and good example. They will never rebuild our defenses without pressure from the political right.

What worries me these days is the lack of unity and resolve on the right. That includes the return of conservative isolationism. The proponents of this view would not identify themselves with that term, but the policies they espouse justify it.

Senators, think-tank leaders, Silicon Valley billionaires with a podcast, even presidential candidates argue in some way or another in favor of a U.S. retreat from the world. They start by denying that defending Ukraine is in our interests. But listen and you can hear where this goes. Next they say we should consider withdrawing from NATO or South Korea. They are willing to support Israel, at least for now, but that won’t last if it means engaging more in the Middle East.

What is most striking is how much this isolationism of the right resembles the traditional isolationism of the left. Isolationists in the Vietnam era argued that America wasn’t good enough for the world. We were baby killers and imperialists. This is the view of today’s pro-Hamas left.

As Charles Krauthammer pointed out 20 years ago, the conservative isolationism that flourished in the 1930s argued the opposite—that America was too good for the world. Our republican values shouldn’t be tarnished by the bloody intrigues of Europe or Asia. But the new isolationists on the right now agree with the left that the U.S. doesn’t deserve to lead the world. They say we are too degraded culturally and too weak fiscally to play the role we did during the Cold War. They say we are too woke and too broke.

There is an element of truth to this critique. We are neither as culturally united nor as fiscally sound as we were in the 1980s. But this is not an adequate excuse for an American retreat from the world. And it cannot be an excuse for failing to protect national security, the first obligation of government.

I wonder how he defines “isolationism”? I believe in robust trade and social relations with other countries. Definitionally, that means I am not an isolationist. However, I also believe that we should not interfere in the domestic politics of other countries or invade them. I would characterize that as non-interventionist rather than isolationist. What does Mr. Gigot mean?

I would challenge Mr. Gigot to illustrate how the invasion of Panama in 1989, invading Afghanistan and Iraq, U. S. military action against Somalia, Sudan, and too many other countries to name, and U. S. support of Saudi Arabia’s war against Yemen has made the world a better place, made us safer, or improved our lives?

We may or may not need more military spending. I think we need military spending focused less on aggression and more on making us safer and more secure.