Photo: Adobe Stock
There is a strong divide within Republicanism between those who advocate for isolationism and those who support a more active America in foreign affairs.
Historically, isolationists have a strong argument for their position, as it aligns with the Founding Fathers, who, after gaining independence, sought to separate themselves from foreign conflicts, aiming not to follow in the footsteps of Great Britain.
For many presidencies, isolationism was the prevailing view in America. While land expansion inevitably led to warfare and the development of the American West, the idea of staying out of global conflicts remained firm for generations. Some might argue that presidents like James K. Polk and Abraham Lincoln broke precedent by engaging heavily in military action, with the Mexican-American War and the Civil War. Nevertheless, it was World War I that truly caused Americans to question the nation’s direction in foreign affairs.
Woodrow Wilson, originally an isolationist, committed the United States to combat operations in World War I, which ultimately contributed to the Allies’ defeat of the Central Powers. The war was costly, with over 100,000 Americans killed or severely wounded. After the war ended, the United States largely withdrew from Europe, entering a new era of uncertainty regarding its role in global affairs.
It was World War II that permanently changed the makeup of the United States, where nearly half a million American soldiers lost their lives.
Isolationism seemed to fade after World War II, as every sitting American president since Franklin D. Roosevelt has stepped into the role of the world’s most powerful leader. Winston Churchill famously told Roosevelt that the United States would never be the same.
American presidents have faced a choice: either remove themselves from world affairs, hoping peace will prevail, or help shape peace through American strength and ideals. Most have chosen the latter. While some leaders have been more aggressive militarily than others, every president understands the reality: the world is a dangerous place, and the very concepts of freedom and liberty are threats to many foreign adversaries.
From Ronald Reagan’s “Peace Through Strength” ideology to presidents like Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson, communism was actively opposed, and freedom was defended both at home and abroad. While pundits often accuse the United States of acting as the world’s police, it is essential to understand why this role emerged.
First, it is historical lessons learned from both world wars. Second, it is defensive, meant to prevent modern adversaries from becoming the next Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. It is those American generals who shared with President Donald Trump that people hate America, and they can either rid the threat away from American land or risk another 9/11.
Following Reagan’s model, Trump has adopted the “Peace Through Strength” approach, never shying away from the importance of military readiness in terms of both size and capability.
An inactive America is a dangerous world, as evident in the Ukraine invasion. While the concept of isolationism is commendable, it is strategically ineffective for the world’s most powerful nation and seems to adopt a secular humanist approach, viewing the world as a safe and progressing place. Time after time, historical events disprove such a mindset.
Certainly, America does not need to chase conflict, but neither can it afford to ignore the realities of a complex and often evil world. Isolation may seem appealing, but history has taught that retreat usually invites chaos. While many Americans may disagree on how involved the United States should be abroad, we must never forget that freedom is fragile, and evil does exist.
A strong America, guided by freedom, justice, and strength, remains one of the greatest forces for good this world has ever known. It is America that saved the world in World War II, and it is America that the majority of the world looks upon to face evil when the threat exists.