Our Founders Were Against Intervention and Isolation
The Founders opposed intervention in the purely internal affairs of other nations for a number of reasons. Washington and successors like James Monroe and Abraham Lincoln were all against meddling in the domestic politics of other regimes. Alexander Hamilton advised against any support of the revolutionary regime in France partly because of its militant proclamation that it intended to intervene in the internal politics of foreign nations. Of course, if action was necessary to secure American rights, then the affairs were not regarded as simply internal.
The Founders thought that an important reason for the US to avoid intervening in the internal affairs of other nations (what has come to be called nation building) lay in the corrupting effects government without consent has on both the ruler and the ruled. Free government requires citizens, not subjects. Citizens must be capable of both participation in offices or ruling as well as being ruled. Republican citizens need a high degree of moderation or self-control as well as spiritedness. We must be willing to abstain from injuring the rights of our fellow citizens, and we must be willing to assert ourselves in defense of our own rights and those of our fellow citizens. The despotic rule of other nations, even when done allegedly for their own benefit, does not promote freedom for anyone.
Governing adult human beings without their consent is in principle slavery. Jefferson argued that non-consensual rule necessarily degrades both the ruler and the ruled. The master learns to be a despot, and the slave learns to be submissive and resentful. This is why John Quincy Adams argued that if America were to join in struggles for the independence of foreign nations, our "maxims . . .would insensibly change from liberty to force . . . ." America "would no longer be the ruler of her own spirit." A regime based on the idea that all men are created equal undermines that principle when it rules without consent at home or abroad.
Another critical argument against intervention lies in the practical difficulty of nation building. The great challenge is a lack of knowledge of the intricacies of the domestic politics of foreign regimes. We run the risk of being used in what John Quincy Adams called "wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom." It seems obvious that Mubarak,Gaddafi, and Assad are tyrants. But do we know who should replace them? We are opposing the Taliban in Afghanistan, but can we adequately differentiate between the Taliban and Pashtun tribal groupings? Michele Bachmann has pointed out that even though she sits on the House Intelligence Committee she has no real knowledge about the character of our Libyan allies.
Intervention in the internal affairs of other nations also has a tendency to reduce our freedom of action or our ability to choose how best to secure our rights. To the best of my knowledge, no hostile nation in the Middle East possesses the capacity to strike the territory of the United States with ballistic missiles. But a number of hostile nations in the Middle East have the capability to strike American forces engaged in long-term nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our freedom to decide how best to handle relations with regimes such as Iran and Syria is generally hindered rather than helped by our current policies.
There is a lot of concern being voiced these days by politicians and intellectuals about the dangers of isolationism. The position of the Founders was not isolationist. They simply eschewed what Washington called "permanent alliances" or "political connections." The Founders advocated a robust international commerce and called for the use of "temporary alliances" when the circumstances dictated. These policies did not spring from a desire to avoid relations with other nations. The Founders recognized that other nations have, as Washington put it, different "primary interests." We are more likely to have common interests with regimes that have a similar system of government than non-democratic nations, but our primary interests (such as national security) will not always be the same with any other nation.
Progressive nation building is harmful to both our national character and our national security. Partisans of free government should hope that the Tea Party movement produces a candidate that follows the free foreign policy of the social compact theory advocated by Washington, Monroe, and Lincoln, rather than the Progressive imperialism of John C. Calhoun, Stephen Douglas, Woodrow Wilson, and Barack Obama.
- Comment (36)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Our Founders Were Against Intervention and Isolation
235 years have passed since the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The Founders were very wise men. But their reluctance to engage in an activist foreign policy needs to put in the context of the time - America was a fledgling nation that could barely defend herself and that at one time or another three of the world's leading powers all had designs on.
In that last 50 years or so nations around the world have armed themselves with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. I would agree about avoiding nation-building but rogue regimes and countries not so cheerily disposed to the United States now have the capacity or, in the case of Iran will soon have the capacity, to launch attacks that could wipe out entire cities or large regions of the globe.
So, what is the price of non-engagement and a non-interventionist foreign policy? Should we wait, for example, for Ahmadinejad and the mullahs to give the order for nuclear warheads to be mounted on missiles? Or should we intervene before that happens?
I don't think 18th century historical precedence is necessarily always applicable in how America should conduct its international affairs.
Aug '10
Re: Our Founders Were Against Intervention and Isolation
Devil's Advocate Mode: In today's technological age where jumbo jets can be used as bombs and radioactive material can be hidden in a suitcase, how does one decide if a matter is "purely internal"?
Aug '10
Re: Our Founders Were Against Intervention and Isolation
Oops. Brian beat me to the punch.
Jun '10
Re: Our Founders Were Against Intervention and Isolation
Not at all, great additional comments about dirty bombs and the threat of more improvised, low-level technological warfare like commandeering airliners.
Jun '10
Re: Our Founders Were Against Intervention and Isolation
Also the issue of the lack of adequate intelligence about all the players behind the Libyan uprising, as well as other areas in the Middle East, is more of an indictment of our weakness in intelligence gathering and what a lack of human engagement on the ground in these countries can mean for applying any sort of coherent foreign policy.
Rather than disengagement, especially on the intelligence front, given the potential terror threats, it's more critical to enhance and bolster our intelligence gathering capability. Perhaps had we had more human assets in these hotspots we could apply adept and insightful applications of statecraft and could have, for example, anticipated and influenced some of the factional behavior in countries like Lebanon and Egypt to such a degree that we could have hampered the rise of such groups like Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Or we could sit at home and watch American Idol and the Real Housewives of Orange County and hope that no one attacks us...again.
Mar '11
Re: Our Founders Were Against Intervention and Isolation
Glad to see Quincy get a nod, unlike that despicable Jackson.
But your post isn't about matters antiquarian, is it?
I'll leave a aside a description of my hermeneutic for reading the Founders and get straight to the point.
John, what does a policy that rejects both Intervention and Isolation (NINI) looks like for a nation that has worldwide trade?
I take it it is against "Nation Building" (NB). But virtually nobody on either side of the aisle wants the United States to invade other countries Americanize them as our foreign policy strategy. Usually the debate arising from what to do in a given conflict once we are there for reasons of National Security (NS). That is, wars premised on NS lead to NB, but not the other way around.
Would an NINI policy reject American invasion of Europe and the Marshall Plan? After all, Imperial Japan was the country that attacked us. What was the Marshall Plan except nation-building writ-large?
Put aside Iraq for a moment. What would NINI recommend we do on the ground in Afghanistan after we invaded? Or should we just have bombed? Or should we just have assassinated?
Mar '11
Re: Our Founders Were Against Intervention and Isolation
The point I'm driving at, John, is this: how can we cede whole regions of the world to lawlessness and then expect our interests not to be impacted by them? How does a nation that has worldwide interests and a broad overriding interest in peace reconcile with a world that is often hostile?
If our interests are impacted and we must act, is it crazy to suggest that leaving these countries with tyrannical regimes in place is only a delaying action until the next time they become a threat? Would decapitating Hussein in 1991 not have been better, though intrusive, then having to wait 10 years and doing it anyway when we were further in debt and engaged in another war elsewhere?
Dec '10
Re: Our Founders Were Against Intervention and Isolation
Nice to see this line of argument isn't restricted to people against the Second and Fourth Amendments.
Crow's Nest: John, what does a policy that rejects both Intervention and Isolation (NINI) looks like for a nation that has worldwide trade?
<snip>
Would an NINI policy reject American invasion of Europe and the Marshall Plan? After all, Imperial Japan was the country that attacked us. What was the Marshall Plan except nation-building writ-large?
Maintaining trade with countries worth trading with is a two-way street, and does not necessitate a military bestriding the globe. Other nations want to trade with us. Let them help. And this bears not at all to our ongoing wars. Who leads Iraq or Libya, for example, has zippo to do with our access to oil.
As for WWII: Japan attacked us, and they were allied with Germany. Hence Congress quaintly declared war. And the Marshall Plan wasn't nation-building so much as a trade agreement. Those countries, after all, were compliant.
Dec '10
Re: Our Founders Were Against Intervention and Isolation
Things like the Iranian nuclear bomb are a hairier problem. Perhaps, though, if we save a few-hundred billion on our military expenditures we could redirect that money to 1) Better intelligence services able to inform us and even sabotage such things, and 2) Adequate border defense and intelligence that minimizes the ability of any nation or terrorist group to strike at us in any way.
And, of course, a robust nuclear arsenal and effective strike forces capable of dissuading any such nation or group to attack us.
Finally, is it not possible if we cease to meddle in other country's affairs the animus these nations and groups have for the US will be diminished? I'm not saying it will disappear, but I do suggest there is a national safety return on investment in that strategy that ought not be dismissed.
Edited on Jun 25, 2011 at 6:02amRe: Our Founders Were Against Intervention and Isolation
No.
Jun '11
Re: Our Founders Were Against Intervention and Isolation
The Founding Fathers were against intervention because it violates the principle that government should rule by consent of the governed.
Well, when the Revolution began, how much consent was there among the citizens of the colonies for leaving the British empire and embarking on the new order of things? It may be a tiny point but the Framers imposed their view of things on a lot of loyal British subjects by waging war.
They themselves were radical and imposing and running an empire always makes for strange bedfellows.
Apr '11
Re: Our Founders Were Against Intervention and Isolation
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
No. · Jun 25 at 6:37am
The object of Islamism is submission by all to Islam. Talk about nation building!
Jun '11
Re: Our Founders Were Against Intervention and Isolation
Michael Patrick Tracy
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
No. · Jun 25 at 6:37am
The object of Islamism is submission by all to Islam. Talk about nation building! · Jun 25 at 6:56am
In history, nations have a choice.
Rule or be ruled.l
Dec '10
Re: Our Founders Were Against Intervention and Isolation
michael kelley: In history, nations have a choice.
Rule or be ruled.l · Jun 25 at 7:07am
What does this even mean in this context? Not being flip. I am wondering how one uses such an epigram to inform policy.
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
No. · Jun 25 at 6:37am
The essay to which you link makes a compelling case that elite anti-Americanism will always be with us. But I do not think French academics are about to mass on our borders to invade New Hampshire, or sneak a suitcase nuke into Arizona.
And I do not doubt that the medieval brutalists of Islamism will always view America and the West as a nemesis. But without our meddling-- and the associated troops-- we steal targets of opportunity from them. In the face of this it seems to me their more immediate internecine feuds will take precedence, in which case the animus towards America may not reduce in kind, but should reduce qualitatively.
Rubble, as they say, don't make trouble.
Jun '11
Re: Our Founders Were Against Intervention and Isolation
KarlUB
michael kelley: In history, nations have a choice.
Rule or be ruled.l · Jun 25 at 7:07am
What does this even mean in this context? Not being flip. I am wondering how one uses such an epigram to inform policy.
No, Karl, it does not across as flip at all. You all are discussing this in much greater detail than my offering.
The epigram is intended to point to that trait in human nature and the political associations which follow from that trait - the desire for dominion. If this tendency did not exist, we would not have tyranny nor would we have aggression among tribes and nations and we could sit quietly behind our borders. People, however, seek power, in different ways, but they seek power.
There are certainly egregious and poorly executed examples of American intervention in the world but the biggest intervention of all is the exporting of our ideas, our culture and our economic system. Like Romans, we can have a civilizing effect upon the world. As pointed out above, if we leave the arena to Islam, given their population surge, it will be a matter of time before Shariah is imposed.
Re: Our Founders Were Against Intervention and Isolation
If lawlessness is a threat to our rights (if there is knowledge of a design against our security for instance) then we can take the necessary measures to defend ourselves.
We have a right to remove a regime that has warred against our rights--we don't have a right to rule another people and claim it is for their own benefit.
Crow's Nest: The point I'm driving at, John, is this: how can we cede whole regions of the world to lawlessness and then expect our interests not to be impacted by them? How does a nation that has worldwide interests and a broad overriding interest in peace reconcile with a world that is often hostile?
If our interests are impacted and we must act, is it crazy to suggest that leaving these countries with tyrannical regimes in place is only a delaying action until the next time they become a threat? Would decapitating Hussein in 1991 not have been better, though intrusive, then having to wait 10 years and doing it anyway when we were further in debt and engaged in another war elsewhere? · Jun 25 at 2:13am
Re: Our Founders Were Against Intervention and Isolation
If there is known, settled design on your rights by another nation, then it is not purely internal. If we know that nation "A" is training terrorists to strike us, we have a perfect right to take action to remove the threat.
Re: Our Founders Were Against Intervention and Isolation
Brian,
The age of the principles of the Founding is not important. If the principles are correct (I think they are) then they don't change. Now of course different circumstances may alter the policies based on those principles. For instance, the Founders based part of their policies on the idea that America was in an "insular" situation. That is still partly true, but the advent of aerial warfare and later nuclear weapons means that we need to adopt policies that secure our rights in the face of the new technology.
Nation building is I think not only not necessary, it makes us less secure.
Nov '10
Re: Our Founders Were Against Intervention and Isolation
John Grant, Guest Contributor:
We have a right to remove a regime that has warred against our rights--we don't have a right to rule another people and claim it is for their own benefit.
But the Khomeinis, the Kims, the Husseins of the world--they do have a right to rule those people and claim it is for their own benefit. Is that it?
Pardon me, but this is garbage. Selfish, realpolitik garbage.
Jun '10
Re: Our Founders Were Against Intervention and Isolation
John - I haven't advocated for nation building as a general practice. I do think that after WWII our efforts to rebuild war torn Europe and Japan were wholly justified. The general principle of letting nations determine their own courses of action is fine...provided that their one of their aims is not to destroy you. I don't know how you discern that unless you are actively engaged with them and actively engaged not only at a diplomatic level but also at other levels - commerce, academia, and overt and covert information gathering. And your proposition that if America is not directly threatened implies that we have no other regional interests worth protecting - in the case of the Middle East - the Suez Canal, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other more moderate Islamic states. What's the point of building alliances and engaging in commerce if we can't protect our allies or the flow of trade? Generally the principle is admirable...but I question whether it's based on sound reasoning or an understanding of how the world works and sometimes breaks apart in the 21st century.