December 30, 2011
The Difference between Non-Interventionism and Isolationism
Driving home from work earlier this week, I happened to catch a called on Sean Hannity’s program. This caller, who sounded to be in his 20s or 30s, was lamenting Ron Paul’s foreign policy views. I was not in the least bit surprised to hear that; many in the GOP think the US should have an aggressive foreign policy. What made me hit the roof (and yell at the radio) was when this caller described Paul’s views as “isolationism.” I’m sure many people sincerely think that pursuing a peaceful foreign policy is isolationism; I’m sure there are many others who know the difference, but choose the word ‘isolationism’ as a loaded term. So I’d like to make the clear delineation between the two words, because they represent distinct philosophies.
The New American Oxford Dictionary defines non-interventionism as “the principle or practice of not becoming involved in the affairs of other countries; such a policy adopted by a country in its international relations.” The principle of non-interventionism follows from the principle of self-determination, which states that people are free to determine their own form of government. If citizens of Country A attempt to remove the government that the citizens of Country B have chosen, the self-determination of the citizens of Country B is violated. The United States has been Country A in this scenario several times, most notably in Iran, Guatemala, and Chile. Defenders of interventionism often justify the action by pointing to the objective of the intervention, and how much better off the world would be by intervening. This is much like saying that it is OK to arrest and search the homes of everyone who lives in a certain neighborhood known for gang violence, solely to find the criminals involved and decrease violence in the neighborhood. What’s left unsaid – or ignored – in both cases, is that violence is done to innocents in the process; this is not acceptable.
Many of America’s founders were non-interventionist in nature. George Washington famously exhorted Americans that “(t)he great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.” Thomas Jefferson desired “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” John Quincy Adams stated that America “goes not abroad seeking monsters to destroy.” Notably, America’s greatest foreign interest, as stated by Washington and Jefferson above, was free trade with other nations. Non-interventionism affirms the right of nations, and individuals within those nations, to trade freely. The best examples of non-interventionism in today’s world include Switzerland, Canada, and New Zealand.
Isolationism shares some traits with non-interventionism: both philosophies reject involvement in the internal affairs of other nations. However, isolationism goes much further. Oxford defines isolationism as “a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, esp. the political affairs of other countries.” The difference is subtle, yet profound: isolationism keeps a country apart from other countries altogether, while a country that practices non-interventionism retains friendly, peaceful relations with other countries. Isolationism in practice involves protectionism – legal measures that restrict the free flow of goods, capital, and labor from crossing the borders of that country. That means restrictions on trade, high tariffs, fixed exchange rates, restrictions on foreign citizens’ investments in a country’s stock market or capital investments, and restrictions on immigration and emigration. Look no further than North Korea to see isolationism in all its glory.
But look no further than the platforms of America’s two major parties for many tenets of isolationism. How many times have you heard Republican candidates talk about closing the southern border with Mexico, or building a wall, or deporting all 11 million illegal immigrants (never mind the mind-boggling logistics of that)? How many restrictions have the GOP proposed to limit legal immigration? On the other hand, Democrats, especially of the pro-union variety, are guilty of protectionist economics, including limitations on free trade and subsidies to various “threatened” industries. Agriculture and the steel industry come to mind immediately.
A candidate who supports immigration or trade restrictions is isolationist. A candidate who supports a foreign policy of peace and free trade with all nations is non-interventionist. Now you know.
