American Isolationism Policy - Essay Example

Isolationism and it's Stall of America's intervention in WWII American isolationism, which is the diplomatic policy pertaining to America's tendency to avoid alliances with other nations has had a long history in the United States, and it is the core reason why America backed off support of Britain between 1939-41, short of war. In 1930, Isolationism, as defined by its adherents, did not oppose American involvement with global economic, cultural, humanitarian, or even limited political affairs. A 1930's American isolationist believed that their country should maintain an absolutely neutral stance in all military-political conflicts overseas. This explains why America and Britain remained so diplomatically cordial up until the war. Isolationism was a very popular political position during the 1930's and is very much to blame for why the United States did little to prevent the gradual slide of the world's major powers into a war that it would inevitably be drawn into as well. Hindsight is twenty-twenty, and in retrospect it appears that isolationism might not have been the best political stance for America to take between 1939 and 1941. In Ross Kennedy's publication The Ideology of American Isolationism 1931-1939, he analyzes the ideals inherent in isolationist theory. It is his view that that core belief in isolationism by the people stemmed from a lack of faith in the world power politics of the day (Kennedy, 2002). This basically boiling don't to the fact that the American people along with the American government had premature collective security, and collective security schemes lead to the practicing of power politics. Most Americans felt that to involve their country in this global competition would result in the loss of American Freedoms at home. Power politics are attributed to imperial rivalries, imperialism stemming from territorial trade of raw materials war during 1939. Germany, Italy and Japan were all deemed have-not nations. Secretary of State William Castle explained it as they want colonies as an outlet for their surplus population. They want raw materials (Kennedy, 2002). These have not countries were attempting to commandeer and then colonize France and England in hopes profiting off of their raw materials. This of course had very little to do with the Unites States, so in the tradition of isolationism, America sought to remain neutral. Another aspect of power politics that Americans disapproved of was what they considered to be devious and immoral tactics inherent in the European method. The week Nazi Germany signed its non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union, The journal known as the main proponent of isolationism, The New Republic published this statement, European affairs are still full of insincerity, devious methods, secrets and surprises, and we should not be taken aback at any treachery or weakness (Kennedy, 2002). It was a common belief among Americans that Europeans were not to be trusted pertaining to their use of power politics. When asked about it Herbert Hoover said, when we talk of using force of any kind, we are playing power politics at the European chess table (Kennedy, 2002). The prime example of this belief in action is the signing of the Versailles treaty, which ended World War I. It can be considered a form of coercion, since it was signed at the end of a gun. Tactics like these have a tradition in America as far back as the American revolutionary war, and they all tend to be driven by monetary gain. In his essay, The U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, Keith Krawczynksi, convinced that men were motivated primarily by economic self-interest and that class conflict pervaded human events, argues that the Founding Fathers carried out a counterrevolution by creating a reactionary document to protect their interests against popularly controlled state governments that passed cheap paper money legislation, debtor laws, and other measures that favored small farmers and artisans at the expense of wealthy creditors (2003). To prove their case they pointed to the many provisions in the Constitution that checked popular sovereignty: the difficult procedure for adopting amendments, the judicial veto, the election of senators by state legislators, the election of the president by an electoral college, the appointment of Supreme Court justices by the president, and the awesome power conferred to the central government to suppress popular dissent. Thus, the Constitution was equipped with a system of minority checks and vetoes designed to prevent majority rule (Krawczynksi, 2003). On top of all these constitutional road blocks, there is the fact that America is run with a conflicting party system. This is partly why isolationism during the 1930's is so significant even today, considering that it was a stance which both liberals and conservatives agreed upon. This gives it credit as an actual American ideology and not just a political tactic to stall the war. In his essay, American Isolationism, 1939-1941, Justus D. Doenecke searches for understanding of the different ideologies that lead to faith in American Isolationism. Conservatives saw the capitalist economic system in peril, as full-scale mobilization was bound to bring in its wake inflation, price and wage controls, compulsory unionization, and - in practicality - a wartime socialism that would remain after the conflict ended. (Doenecke, 1982) Doenecke further points out that these conditions were feared to incite race riots, revolts and insurmountable public destruction. One aspect of isolationism that is very different from contemporary politics is that in the 1930's it was something that both Liberals and Conservatives could agree upon. The irony of this is that it was due to two almost opposing fears. Liberal isolationists had different fears, ones that were in some ways the reverse of conservatives. To liberals, war would turn the clock back to the days of Coolidge, when big business appeared triumphant. The nation would be engulfed in armament economics, a sure sign of forthcoming fascism. (Doenecke, 1982) Here we see the two parties in favor of isolationism for completely opposing reasons. The conservatives fear the economy might spread itself too thin by mobilizing during war time, while the Liberals feel the contrary. They actually predict that the war will boost the economy but to the disadvantage of the American citizen. In actuality, the war ends the Great Depression and makes America a substantial economic power. The fear of the liberals never does come true due to groups like the organized labor union which strengthened by the war, became a major counterbalance from the domineering powers of both the government and private industries. Of course the people at the time were unaware of how any of this would turn out and isolationism was considered the best policy. There were many other contributing factors to why isolationism was favored. The memory of World War I was a haunting one and many young people were becoming more educated. Doenecke points it out best when he says, An entire generation had been raised on the revisionist histories of Sidney Bradshaw Fay, Harry Elmer Barnes, and Walter Millis. And, even if one was not an intellectual, the message conveyed by Ernest Hemingway and Lawrence Stallings was quite simple: war was neither purposeful nor glorious. (Doenecke, 1982). Educated individuals were beginning to see the dark side to war, and fighting for President and country was losing its appeal. Congressman Daniel Reed spoke outwardly about his experience seeing the gassed troops in the British hospital during WWI. Senator William E. Borah was cited giving his battle descriptions saying, chunks of human flesh were quivering on the branches of the trees (1939). Congressional support of this political stance is undeniable. The Neutrality Act was supported mostly by isolationists and considered to be the best way to keep Americans out of war. The first Neutrality Act passed in 1935 by the Senate with absolutely no debate. The House passed the it by a vote of 353 to 27 (Divine, 1962). In acknowledging the dramatic influence which isolationism had on American foreign policy during the day the question is no longer why did American support for Britain stop short of the war This is because U.S. foreign policy only allowed them to go so far in support of other countries during war time. The question now is, what made America drop their policy of isolationism and take arms On January 1939 Roosevelt made a statement that God-fearing democracies...cannot safely be indifferent to international lawlessness anywhere (Kennedy, 2002). It was FDR's view that America had to confront all aggressors with something more than just verbal protests. His policy inadvertently would result in unsanctioned interventionism around the world. Hoover responded to FDR by referring to his policy as America setting itself up as the oracle of righteousness in age-old quarrels that began before our nation was born (Kennedy, 2002). While FDR was in office, leading to the war he had many encounters with isolationist protests. On November 4, 1939 FDR signed a bill that repealed the arms embargo; this permitted foreign nations to buy munitions from the U.S. for cash. The isolationist argument was best expressed by Congressman George A. Dondero when he said, if two men are fighting in the street and you are standing nearby and give one of them a knife, are you neutral (Doenecke, 1982) Debates like this against the administration eventually began to turn sour for supporters of isolationism. The predominantly Jewish media, who was in favor of getting involved in the war began to appoint harsh and very negative slogans to those who supported isolationism. Terms like fascist, or anti-Semite were used to vilify those who opposed the war. Isolationists, through media propaganda were deemed as trying to weaken the full authority of the president. One of the most prominent isolationist was the great aviator Lindbergh. He was credited for being the best representative for the movement because he had a charisma comparable to FDR, with what was considered by many to be a more moral foundation. When he refused to return the Order of the German Eagle he had received during WWI, it was to his detriment, as he was vilified for the rest of his life. No matter how badly they were condemned, isolationists still have significance today. They protested the war even after Pearl Harbor, and withstood much slander, and degradation. They did this to the point that their position must be recognized as a significant part of American political ideology, and it can't just be written off as political tactic. The isolationist were wise patriots of their era, and their influence can not be denied. It can be argued that WWII may have been prevented had they not held back American intervention for as long as they did, but their stance represents a pride in America as well as a respect of foreign traditions. In sum, today isolationism is a thing of the past. Our foreign policy is one of full involvement with other countries. In Justin Logan's article The "Isolationism" Canard, he points out how this concept of isolationism was recently used in one of President Bush's speeches, in which he referred to it as the lure to promote tyranny in the world. His use of the term only signifies his administration's very broad and vague interpretation of foreign conflict. Work CIted Borah E., William, Congressional Record, October 2, 1939, p.74; and Daniel Reed, October 16, 1939, p.477. Divine, Robert A., (1962) The Illusion of Neutrality. Chicago: University Press of Chicago 112, 157, 185-193. Doenecke D., Justus. (1982) American Isolationism 1939-1941. The Journal of Libertarian Studies Vol. 1 Nos. 3-4. Hirsh, John C., and John L. Motley. "John Lothrop Motley on the American Republic, 1846: a Document." Journal of the Early Republic os 6.1 (1986): 59-65. Jstor. Strozier Library, Tallahassee. 30 Nov. 2006. Keyword: James K. Polk. Kennedy, Ross A. The Ideology of American Isolationism: 1931-1939 Cercles 5 (2002) : 57-76 www.cercles.com Krawczynksi, Keith "The U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence." History in Dispute, Vol. 12: The American Revolution, 1763-1789., ed. St. James Press, 2003. Reproduced in History Resource Center. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Mark Harrison. "Resource Mobilization for World War II: The U.S.A., UK, U.S.S.R., and Germany, 1938-1945" in The Economic History Review, Vol. 41, No. 2. (May, 1988), pp. 171-192. Raymond W. Goldsmith, "The Power of Victory: Munitions Output in World War II" Military Affairs, Vol. 10, No. 1. (Spring, 1946), pp. 69-80; online at JSTOR Logan, Justin (2006) The "Isolationism" Canard San Diego Union-Tribune. World War II. (2007, March 6). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 02:50, March 8, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=World_War_II&oldid=112999212 Read More