The U. S foreign policy between Isolationism and Internationalism

Kim Them Do

Although the Cold War was finally at an end, the United States remains to be the greatest power in the modern world politics. Therefore, the current analyses of the U.S. foreign policy have always been the center of public attention.

From the historical perspective, most of the policy-makers still thought that the U. S. has occasionally oscillated between the extremes of internationalism and isolationism. Why is this happening? What theories could explain this? Were there other determining factors? Of course, many discussions have given much different reasoning.

In fact, the rising political turmoil today depends on two main aspects: the landscape of international system is dramatically changing and the U. S. is no longer a hegemonic power. The basic differences among theories of international relations becomes central to the worldview of the policy-makers. There is a certain amount of rivalry among them and no best design is available. And the diplomats have to look at the various ways in detailed explanation. The following table shows how the theories have developed over the years. 

Realism	Idealism	Isolationism
Fortress America	Great Society
Jacksonian tradition	Jeffersonian tradition
Battleship America	Global Society	Internationalism
Hamiltonian tradition	Wilsonian tradition

Theories

Realists advocate state sovereignty as a central organizing principle of international relations, and state actors calculate their self-interest and make decisions. The core of national interest would be the crux of matter. In choosing the best strategy to follow, Realists often use four typical tools: diplomatic, informational, military and economic (DIME). The outbreak of war will be seen as the worst-case scenario for the country to be discussed.

Meanwhile, theorists of interdependence highlight that international cooperation is an imperative means in resolving conflicts because an uncertain outcome of uncoordinated action is a catastrophe for politics. In this light, the diplomats involved look for the better understanding, they agreed to the changes on the sympathy; here is the best case of study among the conflicting views that they would introduce gradually. 

On the contrary, in order to address rising challenges in the domestic affairs, liberalism emphasizes the contributory role of social actors. They are relevant in the political process of socialization and internationalization. In projecting a feasible outcome for the ongoing international negotiations, they hope to take part to resolve a conflict in favor of the state involved.

Due to the complex sociopsychological dimensions of the social reality, the defenders of constructivism focus attention on the effects of how to perceive it appropriately. Therefore, constructivist views in international disputes can be included in the agenda.

Recently, feminist voice in gender relations have also been echoed in international politics affairs.

However, theoretical analyses of the U.S. foreign policy are no longer a topic for academics, but also for policy-makers.

As a matter of theory, it was generally presumed that U.S. foreign policy moved along two main trends: internationalism versus isolationism, filled with the leading doctrine realism or idealism.

Isolationist position

Looking back on its founding history, the U. S. has shown an isolated attitude toward the international system, seeing itself as a particular nation and its ideology of hegemonic domination.

As an unthinkable model in the development of world history, the U.S. considered itself as the American Exceptionalism. It prides itself as a „City upon the hill“ and is likely to establish a stable and closed community. In doing so, state-actors focus on internal affairs in creating more incentives for social solidarity. It also explains why xenophobic movements thrive as a natural matter.

In the past, Exceptionalism has also been used to highlight the U. S. importance in an extroverted way; it was occasionally called an „America number one.“

Therefore, it would be rather than for the U. S. to bring its unique and respectable values in abroad and will act as “a crusade state.” In the case needed, state-actors would use its military taskforce for its evangelical mission.

George Washington, a U.S. founding father, raised the diplomatic issue in his farewell speech in 1796: „Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?“  Isolationism evoked an idealistic spirit and became a fundamental issue that Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States (1801-1809), pursued later on.

Jefferson argued, when the U.S. as a closed social community is healthy and works well, it can grasp economic opportunities successfully for the wealth of the nation.

For this objective, Jefferson urged Americans to define the true meaning of national interest and an ideal toward a „more perfect union„, as the preamble of the U.S. Constitution states. The heavy dependence on other countries and the outbreak of war should be categorically avoided.

At the beginning of his presidency, Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969) will embrace the meaning of idealistic isolationism and brought it as a fresh air in domestic politics. He hopes that the state of the nation would be perfect through the social reform programs, in which the „Great Society„ is an example. One of his most popular domestic project was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The law was designed to establish equal rights for African Americans and end racism and discrimination.

Being obsessed by the fact that the Vietnam War would endlessly continue, Johnson began to venture into foreign policy, especially in pushing for the process of democratization in the developing countries. Unfortunately, Johnson’s efforts have also been fiercely opposed by the domestic critics because the nation-building at home program is much more needed to be done. Finally, Johnson had to put his original social welfare project to an end.

In contrast to the Jeffersonian view of the left under the Johnson administration, this similar oppositional position can now be found in the modern interpretation, particularly the right-wing. It is easy to find it among the liberals as well as in the circles of the Freedom Caucus, the Tea Party.

Of course, the realist isolationism is a contrary way of the idealistic isolationism, because the former is ready to go harder in the more extroverted way. In case of emergency, Realists are ready to use military power to defend their national interests.

Typical of this position was Andrew Jackson (1829-1837), the seventh President of the United States. He embodied a populist practice of nationalist thinking in railing against the elites and promising an „America for Americans.“ Most notably, the U. S. does not have any special obligation to make the world as a better place to live.

On contrary, to his vision, the country must develop a social and economic welfare for Americans only, and mainly in favor of the white people. In doing so, the governmental intervention is as little as possible and that foreign policy should be subjected to domestic politics. Consequently, this introduction caused strong aversions to the international alliances of defense.

In fact, Jackson advocated the U. S territorial expansion into the Far West and the Pacific. It was a manifest destiny, and the military intervention could be justified as a just cause. In doing so, this is about in building a „Fortress America„

This image was used for shaping the America’s isolationist theory before World War II. Not surprisingly, when Donald Trump was elected in the 45th Presidency (2017-2021), this heroic picture of past now returned with sympathy and understanding, but it reflected and developed in a modern way. An interpretation of his slogan „America First“ could be understood broadly.

In the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump used his rhetoric of „America First“ at best. He has nothing but praise for the view of Jackson and hopes for regaining the power of past hegemony.

In fact, there are clear similarities between the two visions of the two presidents, from a belief in a populist position to a protectionist and isolationist attitude in foreign trade policy.

The passionate defenders of economic globalization contend that an isolationist way of living and working in the age of globalization is now for the U. S. both impossible and undesirable.

To be sure, the landscape of U.S. politics changed dramatically. It was not a complete surprise, as Jackson’s scenario has come back on the stage with the Trumpist light.

With his slogan America First, Trump takes a more national egoistic view of global politics seriously. America could not be seen longer as a fortified fortress. Globalization and international interventionism in the 1970s caused a public backlash in the US politics.

Arguably most importantly, the US-China trade agreements have been unfair; the regional alliances of defense are more important than international ones. More specifically, NATO is totally obsolete.

Finally, U.S. foreign policy was marking a turning point in the contemporary history, as Donald Trump goes to the White House as an elected president.

Internationalist position

Overall, the era of U.S. interventionism proved a successful story. Importantly, in engaging in World War II in December 1941, the U. S. attitude marked the end of isolationism and turned to be as an emerging power in the post-war world politics.

In this context of theoretical development. Alexander Hamilton, the first U.S. Secretary of the Treasury (1789-1795) was one of the most popular leading thinker. His reasoning for this endeavor proved particularly plausible. He proclaimed himself as critic of Thomas Jefferson

Hamilton argued, the claims of Jefferson were not true; for his vision, maintaining and expanding the U. S economic interests would be seen as a top priority in the agenda of national development.

To achieve this objective, the U.S. needs to build a military power comparable to the rising economic power, because in the case of declining in economic interests, the U.S. military force must know how to defend it. This tradition upholds the principles of freedom of international navigation and trade. The reasoning of Hamilton is likely to be true and supported by the public.

In this light, „Battleship America“ symbolizes also the picture of U. S. great power and its noble mission.

Here is the case of James Monroe (1817-1825), the fifth President of the United States. He originated this theory and is a critic of U.S. foreign policy in the 20th century.

The Cold War has begun with the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam, the containment policy towards the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. All of these military reactions can be seen as a typical expression of Hamiltonian view. U.S. military interventions after the end of the East-West conflict, Iraq in 1991, Somalia in 1996 and the former Yugoslavia in 1999 have also developed accordingly in this light.

However, the tragic experiences of the war in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 have pointed out that the U. S. has to be faced with various unpredictable pitfalls of intervention.

In fact, these models discussed here are difficult to sort out in a satisfactory way, even if some attempts to legitimize humanitarian interventions as a just cause.

Ultimately, the U. S. used its military means by reasoning with care. Therefore, intervention has less idealistic than rational consideration.

It is not easy to name the theory for the terms of Bill Clinton (1993-2001), George W. Bush (2001-2009) and Barack Obama (2009-2017) appropriately. The reason for this is there was a rivalry between in the tradition of Hamilton, Jackson and Jefferson in the one side and Wilson on the other side. So far, this academic debate has dragged on.

Idealistic international intervention was perhaps most evident in the state philosophy of President Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921), who is a pioneer for the United States‘ engaging into World War I in 1917. He was famous for declaring that „the world must be safe to build for democracy.„ Wilson has also a decisive influence on the founding of the League of Nations.

The main point of Wilsonism was to protect and expand democracy by peaceful means. When the democratic model attracts public opinion, it would be used as the best soft power.

The end of the Cold War and the polarization in American society

The foreign policies of former presidents Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama cannot be classified as a single model, but rather a mix of old and new traditions. There are many reasons to explain.

On the one hand, the U.S. Congress had reached a bipartisan consensus for decades. Arthur Vandenberg (1928-1951), a Republican senator, argued that „partisan politics must stop at national borders,“, that is to say that domestic political disputes should not affect foreign policy. The U. S. must speak to the outside world with a single and powerful voice. His argument has a positive impact on congressional life and gives the U. S. law-making process a prestige in diplomatic supremacy.

But the international situation changed. After the end of the Cold War, the Soviet and the Warsaw Pact disappeared. Fortunately, two powerless enemies are gone forever, the U. S. opens up a new future and finds the best concepts for foreign policy and to put it into practice easily because it will be the most powerful center in a new world order today.

On the other hand, reality is different from all wishful thinking. From 1993 to the present, the U. S. political and social divisions has been peaked. Since the bipartisan model of working is unable to reach any agreement, it affects the dysfunction of public life. Of course, these rifts have to lead to the negative impact on foreign policy.

One of the most obvious examples is in the field of international agreement. The U.S. signing only takes effect when the Senate approves it by a 2/3 majority. This procedural law of consensus is seen as the standard of serious diplomatic efforts and makes the Congress to gain more confidence in the international community.

However, the experience in recent years point out that the process of ratification of treaties become games in political and ideological disputes between the two parties. As a result, many treaty initiatives are time-consuming and ineffective. As a result, the Senate could no longer pass them. The lawmakers look it at the cost of failure as its consequence is uncertain. Finally, there is a lot of traditional prestige attached to this is simply faded away.

Joe Biden’s diplomatic achievements

In his first two years in office, Joe Biden planned its administration to return to normalcy as Trump’s tumultuous presidency war over. With the slogan „America is back„, Joe Biden has expressed his foreign policy of reviving multilateralism and regional cooperation. It took more time to normalize the situation.

Most remarkably, the U.S. rejoins the Paris climate accord, cooperates with the World Health Organization, conducts multinational summits, facilitates negotiations to resolve regional crises, and supports democratic values.

For Europe, the U.S. follows the practical way of the Hamilton tradition, namely strengthening economic and security ties. In addition, Wilson’s ideals were realized when Joe Biden clearly emphasized democratic values in order to create solidarity among Western nations.

At the same time, he urged its people to focus on building national strength and protecting democracy in danger.

Despite adjusting to Trump’s policies toward China, Biden lost his reputation after the clumsy withdrawal of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. From February 2022, Russia’s invasion in Ukraine becomes a new risk of european security and the protection for Taiwan and the South China Sea are now the most difficult task to deal with the Chinese realtionships.  

Prospect

After the presidential midterm elections in November 2022, the current foreign policy is more difficult to design than ever.  

As of 2023, President Joe Biden must work with two different majorities in the Congress. While Republicans have a majority in the House, Democrats have a narrow majority in the Senate (51/49). Having to deal with these consequences, the question can be made whether Joe Biden can succeed his foreign politics until the end of his term. Of course, the successful future is unpredictable.

Joe Biden is trying to mix up both traditions, but is unlikely to reach a consensus with the congressional majority. Any support on every issue is need to be reasoned with care. The consideration of idealism or realism is here the case. Both theories cannot defend Taiwan or support Ukraine. The U.S. military intervention in Taiwan has different consequences than the ongoing war in Ukraine. Perhaps any future solutions will depend more on real interests than idealistic principles.

It is presumed that Republican based on Jackson’s view remained very influential in congressional decisions and the public opinion has no longer a proof of internationalist ideals. They have to face with more inflationary pressure and energy crisis. Why make Americans the supreme sacrifice to defend the security of Taiwan or the wealth of Japan is here the question.

The success of the Trumpist followers in the midterm elections in November 2022 is still exemplary. Is Trump likely to return to the White House, are there many challenges that Joe Biden has to be faced with.