Mere “Isolationism”: The Foreign Policy of the Old Right

Foundation for Economic Education ^ | 02/01/2000 | Joseph R. Stromberg

[NMC EXP]

For those who have no idea what the "Old Right" is.

Regards

J.R.

[maestro]

Mere ?Isolationism?: The Foreign Policy of the Old Right

Go,..."Bank of America"...Go!

[NMC EXP]

Wow.

Two minutes to read, digest and respond.

Regards

J.R.

[NMC EXP]

Which war?

[NMC EXP]

The old right as exemplified by Robt Taft were driven by principle and not party affiliation.

I reckon their opposition had nothing to do with party.

Regards

J.R.

[elmer fudd]

I think that the specter of world communism and the Soviet Union was probably responsible for the death of isolationism among conservatives. It was a real threat to the world and you had to be practically blind not to see it. In that kind of situation isolationism is suicidal. At other times however isolationism is the wisest of foreign policies. There was no reason for us to be in Haiti or Bosnia or Somalia and there is no reason for us to still keep troops in half the countries we have them in now.

[NMC EXP]

Probably true.

Its just once the interventionists gained control they never let go and mission creep set in.

Regards

J.R.

[m1911]

You're right. But of course, once the Soviets got gained control, they wouldn't have let go either, would they? The downside of libertarianism/paleoconservatism is that the world has moved on. Our day may come again, but we have to live as things are.

[m1911]

Geez. The preview is there for a reason!

the Soviets got gained control

[maestro]

To: maestro

Wow.
Two minutes to read, digest and respond.
Regards
J.R.

Yep,........

(Nov.22, 1963)

/sarcasm

Merry Christmas!

[NMC EXP]

No argument about containing Soviet expansion. I just contend that you take situations on a case by case basis.

Regards

J.R.

[Little Bill]

The Old Right, at least in my family, was a reaction to WW1. After all of the American Revolutionary Frog myths, they took one look at the place and said, "I don't even want to visit."

The after war years were tubulant times and The United States was a one News Paper town, NYC, and they trended left even then. It took 90 years for Americans to recognize who they are and say, "I don't even wan't to visit."

[x]

You have to convince "responsible" people in the mainstream if you want to change things. Rockwellites like Stromberg aim at the radical fringes and end up dragging even sensible ideas into disrepute.

A little more "Old Right" sentiment might be desireable, but it has to come from safe and steady who care more about the consequences of ideas than the ideas themselves and can demonstrate that the consequences will be an improvement. My guess is that it won't fly in any case, since great horrors abroad inevit ably spur a moral demand for intervention.

Also, you have to demonstrate that isolationism would actually work. Americans have been getting drawn into foreign conflicts for over 200 years, since the days of the Barbary Pirates and the Napoleonic Wars. If a country is a great trading power, is envied by others, and lives in an age of ideological conflicts it's likely that it will become a party in foreign conflicts and wars.

Finally, today's interventionism is a continuation of our earlier policies towards Latin America and the Caribbean. Even when we were an "isolationist" country, we were "nation building," creating and crushing governments, and trying to remake the countries to the South of us. We didn't simply do a 180º turn in 1917, 1941, or 1947.

[m1911]

Agreed.

[NMC EXP]

...who care more about the consequences of ideas than the ideas themselves...

Pragmatism over principle is what gets us into trouble more often than the other way around.

Also, you have to demonstrate that isolationism would actually work.

You seem to be using isolationism in the derogatory sense as in head in the sand and never project power abroad.

Its not an either/or situation. You get involved only when necessary.

Finally, today's interventionism is a continuation of our earlier policies

True.

But the intervention trend line is now near vertical.

Regards

J.R.

[RWR8189]

Thats a good point that many people overlook.

The Monroe Doctrine came about in 1823.

[Iris7]

I always enjoy Stromberg.

Liberty is an Aristocratic virtue, and cannot be expected to survive the shift to "Democracy". Alexander Hamilton and Plato held this view amongst others. Read "The Peloponnesian War" by Thucydides, especially about the invasion of Syracuse.

Empire was the road taken very early in American history. Read about the invasion of Canada back in 1812 or Jackson's campaigns in Florida, much less the invasion of Mexico. Shucks, Ben Franklin let his nephew be destroyed by imprisonment during the Revolutionary War for his un-PC views. The Republic has always been more of the heart than of the mind.

[NMC EXP]

I always enjoy Stromberg.

This was my first exposure to his work. He is good.

Liberty is an Aristocratic virtue, and cannot be expected to survive the shift to "Democracy".

Unfortunately I believe you are correct.

As Tolkien said we are merely "Fighting the long defeat."

Regards

J.R.