Is US isolationism on the rise?

LOS ANGELES - Why do I get this feeling that isolationism is on the rise in America today? It must be because of the tough economic times Americans are enduring. The debates over budget cuts and the runaway national debt as well as the stubbornly high unemployment rate have also focused American attention on what they see as misguided priorities of their government.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa complained that “We can’t be building roads and bridges in Baghdad and Kandahar, and not Baltimore and Kansas City. Not when we spend $2.1 million on defense every single minute. Not after nearly $1.2 trillion spent and over 6,000 lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan.” And, he might have added, all these spending in foreign wars while budget cuts for the education of their children had to be made.

There used to be a time when America’s political parties spoke with one voice when it comes to foreign affairs. Not any more, it seems.

A segment of the Republican Party led by no less than the Speaker of the House is now questioning the actions of the American President in Libya. This led one blogger to comment that “the man who once decried ‘tying the hands of future presidents’ and favored a strong executive who could act decisively to implement our nation’s foreign policy is speaking in the manner of left-wing Democrats in the Vietnam era.”

This is precisely why our leaders back home must take into account the prevailing mood of America today in their planning considerations. Yes, State Secretary Clinton was very reassuring about being behind us in our problems with China in the West Philippine Sea. But if push comes to shove, can she deliver?

Columnist Chris Berg, writing for the Australian website http://www.abc.net.au/, observed that “across the political spectrum, support for the proposition that the United States should ‘mind its own business’ has never been higher, and appears to be on a long term trend further upwards.” The weird thing about this development is that the Republicans, the party of George W. Bush, appear to be at the forefront of creating a less interventionist America. And Obama is already in trouble with the left wing of the Democrats for his failure to deliver on his anti-war promises.

Berg observed that “one of the most striking attributes of the current Republican field is their dovishness.” The recent forum for Republican presidential hopefuls made clear the growing skepticism about foreign interventionism.

On Afghanistan, frontrunner Mitt Romney said, “I also think we’ve learned that our troops shouldn’t go off and try and fight a war of independence for another nation”. On the Middle East, Newt Gingrich opined that, “we need to think fundamentally about reassessing our entire strategy in the region”.

Michele Bachmann cited the US defense secretary’s view that America had no vital national interest in Libya, and Jon Huntsman – not at the forum, but now a candidate – also said that boots on foreign soil was not a necessary part of America’s national security.

While some of what Berg calls “newfound shyness in foreign policy” is obviously driven by presidential politics, I get the feeling based on conversations with ordinary citizens including Filipino Americans that this new isolationist feeling resonates.

As Berg himself reports, “the shyness is not limited to Libya and Afghanistan, two conflicts which Barack Obama now owns. A forum at the Cato Institute last year revealed that the overwhelming majority of Republicans in Congress now think invading Iraq in 2003 was a mistake. You cannot chalk that up to simple hostility about a Democrat president.”

This new ‘isolationism’ does not seem to be based on the old principles of isolationism as we have seen in history but more driven by recent bitter experience. Even so, I think this feeling is particularly resonant in the grassroots and serious enough to threaten the re-election of Barack Obama in 2012.

But as I said, it is weird. As Berg points out, “the biggest right-wing critics of America’s recent wars have been libertarians. And their support for expanding free trade and immigration is hardly ‘isolationist’... The absurdity of this view is even more obvious when you consider that one of those who has been most tarnished with the ‘isolationist’ label is Jon Huntsman – who also happens to be a former ambassador to China. Not a homebody.”

Berg explains that “neo-conservatives reasonably argued that morality does not stop at the border. The United States could not pretend to be neutral on questions of tyranny and democracy even if favoring the former met a specific American geopolitical interest.

“Nevertheless, nearly a decade of military involvement in Afghanistan and almost as long in Iraq has exposed the very real limits of neo-conservative thinking. One may be able to imagine a grand role for the United States exporting liberal democracy across the globe, but that role will hit the wall once the uncomfortable reality of protracted conflict is realized.

“Many commentators have attributed the Republicans’ foreign policy shift as simply a response to the cost of war; implying that military adventurism is still desirable, but a luxury for when the economy is doing well.”

The website www.dailydoughnuthole.com which claims to carry news and views from “the missing center” points out that “we feel there is a powerful current in the citizenry to be more locally focused. We see it in the national mayors conference calling for the $10 Billion spent on Afghanistan per month to be focused on their cities instead.

“We hear it in the cafes, and lunchrooms and see it in the op-eds every day. We even heard it from out-going Defense Secretary Gates in his assessment of a bleak future for NATO... it actually served to highlight the decreasing need for the U.S. to continue to station and support troops in Europe — a call that we can do less and still support our vital interests.”

The “doughnuthole” thinks “what the President is missing in his Afghanistan strategy is the rise of a neo-isolationism in the American body politic. How potent is this force? It has the power to draw together both the extremes of the Senator Rand Paul (R) and Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D). So is this just the wacky fringe? The Hole think-tank doesn’t believe so.”

In other words, the common American is sick of it all. “What is increasingly being rejected is the Post-Cold War view that the US needs to be the world’s policeman. That we need to expend valuable capital and lives for causes that are not directly threatening our way of life...

“It provides a needed focus towards making the US a manufacturing, technology and economic powerhouse again. It means focusing on creating a domestic growth program that is about providing and protecting the American Dream towards the 22nd Century.

“It allows us to promote our beliefs internationally through example and engagement as opposed to imposition by force of arms. Importantly, it is not the post-Vietnam isolationism and rejection of the legitimate defense of our national interests. It is a more mature and responsible understanding about how to best exercise our power as a country.”

There in a nutshell, is a distillation of views on what constitutes this new American isolationism that impacts on countries like ours, dependent on America for a lot of things including our defense. It bothers me that P-Noy and Foreign Secretary del Rosario appears to be getting much too dependent on America for things we are expected to be able to take care of as an independent nation.

The news is that America has problems, very serious problems, not the least of which is in the area of finances that cannot but have implications in carrying out its world power role in a business as usual mode. The American people are also hurting badly from the financial crisis and are in no mood to support Washington’s usual foreign adventures and profligate ways.

My guess is, whoever wins the next presidential election will have to consider this wellspring of sentiment in the American grassroots for America to, at least for now, mind its own business. America has a lot of catching up to do to assure the competitiveness of its future generations and to alleviate the sufferings of its present.

In a very strong way, this new isolationism makes sense for Americans. After all, only a third even have passports or an intention to go abroad with two thirds that couldn’t care less about the world beyond 200 miles from their homes. With the purse strings tied more than a little tighter, Washington doesn’t have seem to have much of a choice on how to proceed.

Suicide?

From Lito Balquiedra.

Imagine living with three wives in one compound and never leaving the house for five years. Osama Bin Laden must have called the US Navy Seals himself!

Boo Chanco’s e-mail address is [email protected]. He is also on Twitter @boochanco