Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
I was struck while reading Paul Gigot's Opinion piece, "The Return of the Isolationist Republicans", with the realization that I recognize myself and do not think I am wrong.
He lays out his premise with typical skill:
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.
Yes, we are. My youthful enthusiasm for spreading the "American Way" to improve the world was based on my belief that our ideals as a nation and capitalist markets were better than the alternative. I am not a "my nation, right or wrong" kind of guy. When we are in the right, we should try to spread the wealth and principles to people less well off. When we are lost and looking for ways to right the ship, we should not be proselytizing our fads through the force of markets.
I have a few years to go before I will have lived half my life in this century, and it doesn't seem much of an improvement. Cell phones are tiny and powerful, and I can use them to summon a bag of birdseed or a muffler to my doorstep. At the same time, we haven't passed a federal budget this century and declarations of war have given way to a limit on how many days a President can attack a random country before he has to give a speech before Congress.
This "perfect war" in Ukraine is a sad harbinger of things to come. We now fight wars with other people's lives, using accumulations of weapons long paid for (requiring new contracts to replenish!), financed by dilution of the global money supply. Everyone wins! Except for the Ukrainians, suckers relying on Social Security or 401(k)s, and any manufacturing companies remaining in Europe.
I am now an Isolationist Republican.
Discussion (113)
Hear! Hear!
I particularly agree with:
When we coerce third world nations to adopt transgender ideology or pro-abortion policies on the threat of withholding aid, I do not want us exporting our culture.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I have some respect for an honest isolationist position of the old Republican type. But isn't it rather arrogant to say Ukrainians are better off living under the Russian yoke? Whatever it is, it's not an improvement over those who want to spread the "American Way" everywhere, and it's not very isolationist.
I never adopt my opponent’s terms. Or at least I will acknowledge how the term’s opposite sounds. I’m a ‘nationalist’ then you must be a ‘globalist’. If I’m an ‘isolationist’ then you’re an interventionist.
Gigot, and others who employ these terms, will claim they do not want to intervene everywhere and that we must ‘pick our battles’ so he’s nuanced you see, but the opposition the ‘isolationists’ are somehow incapable of deviating from some strict dogma he applies to them.
Apparently there’s no possibility that these so-called isolationists might be for strong defense generally, but desire prudent use of military engagement- if only to preserve our forces, our ammunition and hardware- as well as our treasury and our credibility at home and abroad. Or, if you will, a more prudent use of military engagement. x
Gigot admits he was wrong about how he cheered for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ( finally?) , and then conflates the Ukraine war with the current horrors in Israel and Gaza. One is a civilizational conflict that seems to have worldwide implications, the other is a political dispute.
Not so, Paul Gigot.
Ukraine preserving their “nascent democracy” they never had, while we are losing ours here at home ( which we did actually have at one time). It’s not only that our country has declined culturally, we have declined politically into a near fascist state. It’s not just that we have little to offer other countries, as he claims is the position, we are corrupt ourselves and are unable to help Ukraine become a democracy whilst actively participating in the existing corruption.
Here he shows us more of his ignorance:
Really?
Gigot takes a conveniently abstract approach to this issue and ignores things like protecting our southern border from hordes of invaders.
I guess he’s “isolationist” on that issue?
I could do more damage to this pathetic opinion piece, but this is just a comment.
Typical WSJ drivel.
MODERATOR
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
We can ign0re the world outside our borders; not sure that the world will ignore us.
In Ukraine, the only Americans who die are volunteers. If Russia conquers Ukraine, I suspect a NATO Ally is next. I am happy to send American dollars to Ukraine to avoid American deaths in Europe. Russia intends us evil; anything that weakens them is a good thing.
In Israel, again it is other people willing to die for our freedom. A sweet deal if you can get it.
Taiwan is the source of most of our semi-conductors. Our economy is kind of f'd without them.
I am not recommending sending American soldiers, but if our enemies end up on our borders after conquering all our allies , it is really too late.
Isolationism works, until it doesn't. I don't want to deal with doesn't.
We have borders?
You're seeing five of 113 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.