"It’s bad enough to equate
opposition to foreign aid with isolationism. It is far worse to equate
nonintervention with isolationism. But this also has become a standard
tactic of the imperial right."
Who's an Isolationist?
The Skeptics
Doug Bandow
February 14, 2011
Conservatism once was cautious, urged prudence, and emphasized fidelity
to the Constitution. Conservatives saw responsibility as the flip-side of
liberty, opposed the transfer society, and detested welfare dependence.
On international affairs conservatives believed in defending America, not
promoting social engineering overseas.
Liberals responded by tarring traditional conservatives as
“isolationists.” Skeptical of joining imperial wars in the name of
democracy, unwilling to risk American lives in dubious foreign crusades,
and unenthused about transferring U.S. wealth abroad, traditionalists
were treated as somehow disreputable. After all, progressive thought
required turning Americans into warriors on behalf of a new global
ethic.
Now neoconservatives toss the same epithet at conservatives who oppose
promiscuous war-making and endless foreign aid. Never mind that many
opponents of today’s hyperinterventionist foreign policy favor free
trade, cultural exchange, liberal immigration, and political cooperation.
If you do not believe in bombing, invading, and occupying adversaries and
subsidizing allies, then you must be an isolationist.
Consider the hysterical response to Sen. Rand Paul’s proposal to
eliminate foreign aid, including to Israel. The new Senator has drafted
$500 billion worth of budget cuts, but less than one percent of the total
has received much attention: the $3 billion in annual aid to
Israel.
The U.S. is running a $1.5 trillion deficit this year. The national debt
is $14 trillion. Without a major change in course, Uncle Sam will run up
in excess of $10 trillion in red ink over the coming decade. So an
obvious question to ask would seem to be: why are Americans being forced
to fund any foreign government?
Washington’s transfers to Israel are among the most problematic. The
country is a prosperous regional superpower, possessing upwards of 200
nuclear weapons. It can defeat any of its neighbors, so why does it
continue to be an American welfare dependent?
There are threats to Israel’s existence, but they are internal -- how can
Israel remain Jewish and democratic while maintaining military rule over
a fast-growing Palestinian population? The best evidence that Israel
doesn’t need American subsidies is the fact that its government spends
lavishly to subsidize ever-expanding settlements on the West Bank, a
policy of de facto colonization which breeds Palestinian hatred and
diminishes any chance of peace. If Israel is determined to follow such a
policy, so be it, but why should American taxpayers indirectly pay the
bill?
No surprise, Israel’s lobbyists and legislative guardians reacted with
shock and horror at Rand Paul’s proposal. Expect a friendly country to
take care of itself? Whatever could he be thinking! They saw no need to
debate the issue. They just denounced Sen. Paul for his “shocking,”
“short-sighted,” and “misguided” proposal.
Even less serious was the response by Jennifer Rubin, the Washington
Post’s official “conservative” blogger. Rubin rolled out the standard
epithet used against anyone who doesn’t believe Washington should rule
the world:
Sen. Paul is “a proponent of a neo-isolationist foreign
policy.”
Yet Rubin made no effort to defend aid to Israel. She simply treated as
self-evident the American people’s obligation to fund an international
dole, and the right of prosperous allies to collect U.S. almsapparently
forever.
Of course, she’s not alone on the right. House Majority Leader Eric
Cantor recently seemed to suggest that aid to Israel should be treated
differently than other foreign assistance, essentially becoming an
untouchable entitlement rather like Social Security and Medicare. It is a
curious conservatism which makes international welfare one of its
fundamental tenets.
Even more bizarre, Rubin’s ad hominem attack took a page from the liberal
playbook. When the new Republican Congress merely sought to reduce, not
end, foreign aid after the 1994 election, the Clinton administration
denounced the GOP members as, yes, “isolationists.” Today, it seems, both
neoconservatives and liberals support forcing taxpayers to fund an
international soup line for other countries.
It’s bad enough to equate opposition to foreign aid with isolationism. It
is far worse to equate nonintervention with isolationism. But this also
has become a standard tactic of the imperial right.
I recently wrote an article
(
for Forbes online) arguing that a country on what the Congressional
Budget Office calls an “unsustainable” fiscal path no longer can afford
to subsidize rich allies and remake failed states. Republican activist
William Hawkins said these views made me an “isolationist.” Not
“neo-isolationist,” like Rubin terms Sen. Paul. But a full-bore,
complete, absolute, unhyphenated “isolationist.”
That’s an interesting idea, since I am writing this article while
attending an international economics conference in Delhi, India. It seems
that believing in peacefully engaging the world while exercising cautious
discretion before starting wars is “isolationist.” To paraphrase Bill
Clinton, it all depends on how you define internationalism. To Hawkins,
internationalism apparently means wandering the globe imposing one’s
willbombing some countries, defending other ones, occupying some
nations, subsidizing other ones.
The costs of such promiscuous intervention are obvious: endless wars,
risk of additional conflicts, tens of thousands of dead and injured U.S.
military personnel, hundreds of thousands of dead foreign civilians, more
enemies determined to do America ill, increased military spending, limits
on domestic liberties. Obviously, one can still conjure up arguments for
America to subsidize and defend its rich allies, and to remake unstable
poor states. But it should be obvious that virtually none of Washington’s
current aid and military policies have much to do with “defense,” at
least of America.
And there is nothing “isolationist” in opposing such policies. Hawkins
complains that supporting a smaller U.S. international role reflects “the
notion that the U.S. has no interests, or faces no threats, outside its
borders.” That’s a silly claim, as he surely recognizes. America has lots
of interests, but most do not warrant war. Unlike God, who worries about
the smallest sparrow falling to earth, a superpower doesn’t have to try
to fix every failed state and defend every rich friend. A serious power
sets priorities and measures costs and benefits. America will be stronger
and more secure if it does not indiscriminately create a
debilitating welfare program for foreign governments, relieve prosperous
and populous states of responsibility for their own defense, and
administer poor and fractured societies.
Rather than avoiding substantive issues and tossing liberal epithets,
conservative advocates of an expansive and expensive foreign and military
policy should make the case of encumbering the bankrupt American republic
with a quasi-imperial foreign policy. They should explain how the U.S.
would be endangered if it was merely the world’s strongest country,
instead of being the globe’s wannabe dictatress.
Real isolationists are few. But the strongest encouragement for true
isolationists is the interventionist philosophy which believes in
sacrificing American wealth and lives around the world for unimportant,
even frivolous reasons. For years conservatives have opposed social
engineering in America. Conservatives should similarly oppose social
engineering abroad.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/whos-isolationist-4871
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
