Searching for isolationists

A number of people commenting on Bush's SOTU Tuesday evening were puzzled about his warnings on the dire threat of "isolationism".

Ivo Daalder on isolationism - Bush's Isolationists TPM Cafe 02/01/06:

For Bush, you are either with him all the way or you are with the isolationists -- there is never any middle ground. But that, of course, misreads the debate we're having. Not only can and must we debate what to do about the mess in Iraq -- without those who favor a different course being accused of being irresponsible, unpatriotic, or appeasers -- but we must debate how we engage the world. For the real debate is not between those who want to engage the world and those who do not. The real debate is about how to engage the world -- Bush's way, which has left us more isolated, more hated, and less powerful, or a more cooperative way that seeks to meld America's power with that of others to advance our common interests. But that, of course, is not a debate Bush wants to have.

Andrew Bacevich on the same subject - What isolationism? In his speech, the president presented a fiction to avoid a debate on tough policy questions Los Angeles Times 02/02/06:

But who exactly are these isolationists eager to pull up the drawbridges? What party do they control? What influential journals of opinion do they publish? Who are their leaders? Which foundations bankroll this isolationist cause?

The president provided no such details, and for good reason: They do not exist. Indeed, in present-day American politics, isolationism does not exist. It is a fiction, a fabrication and a smear imported from another era.

Isolationism survives in contemporary American political discourse because it retains utility as a cheap device employed to impose discipline. Think of it as akin to red-baiting - conjuring up bogus fears to enforce conformity in the realm of foreign policy. ...

Actually, if you go to Antiwar.com or American Conservative magazine, you can see evidence of the existence of real live isoloationists. But Bacevich's basic point is correct, if a bit overstated. American foreign policy tends to be debated, both in Congress and among foreign policy experts and even the Big Pundits in terms of "liberal internationalism" and "realism".

Actual isolationists normally come from the same basic hyper-nationalist perspective as the neocon unilateralists. But isolationism of the kind advocated by William Howard Taft after the Second World War is not a prominent feature of the foreign policy debate.