From 1895 through 1904, the United States joined a number of European powers in expanding its global sphere of influence. After a victory over Spain in the Spanish-American War, the subsequent acquisition of American colonies in the Caribbean and Pacific established the United States as an international power in its own right. However, by the Campaign of 1904, growing concern over the impact of expansionism on American democratic values led the Democratic National Convention to include in its platform a strongly worded plank denouncing imperialism.
Even though William McKinley easily won reelection by defeating William Jennings Bryan, a growing number of national political figures criticized the government’s ambitions abroad. Influential progressives argued that the country faced too many problems at home to afford to squander its wealth and the lives of its young men on dreams of empire. Through the 1908 presidential election, Republicans vigorously defended expansionism by arguing that the country needed to protect important new markets for American business and industry. Democrats continued to declaim against these undemocratic and grasping imperial ambitions.
By the opening salvos of World War I in August 1914, the American public had tilted away from expansionism and toward isolationism. During the Campaign of 1916, incumbent president Woodrow Wilson ran for reelection as the proven peace candidate. Wilson rode the campaign slogan “He Kept Us Out of War” to victory. Events subsequently overtook Wilson, and in 1917, the United States joined the war against Germany and its allies.
In the war’s aftermath, Wilson lobbied hard for U.S. membership in the new League of Nations. While the 1920 Democratic platform supported membership in the League of Nations, the Republican platform expressed strong opposition to the league on grounds that it threatened American sovereignty. Bitter from the high casualties suffered in a seemingly senseless foreign war, wary of political upheaval in Russia, and suspicious of foreign entanglements, the American public moved further toward isolationism throughout the 1920s and 1930s. World War I had taught Americans the dangers of “entangling alliances”; neutrality and isolation prevailed in both public sentiment and national policy.
Despite growing concern in the mid-1930s over the emergence of fascism in Germany and Japanese aggression in Asia, both major party platforms of 1936 continued to express strong opposition to foreign alliances or commitments. But by the 1940 party conventions, Nazi Germany had conquered most of Western Europe and part of Scandinavia while also seizing most of Northern Africa, leaving Britain to stand alone against Hitler, while Japan continued its war of aggression in China. Germany and Japan had amassed substantial military might and demonstrated a clear willingness to use it. Even though the U.S. Navy possessed a sizable fleet, the United States seemed weak compared with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. The Republican platform blamed the New Deal policies of the Roosevelt administration for leaving the nation unprepared to defend itself from new threats abroad. And yet, the Republican platform continued to express strong opposition to American participation in foreign wars.
Interestingly, the Democratic platform included a plank pledging that the Roosevelt administration would not involve the United States in a foreign war. Both Republican and Democratic platforms advocated materiel support to free nations in their efforts to resist aggression. But Republican candidate Wendell Willkie, under pressure from his party’s isolationist wing, attacked Roosevelt for his lend-lease arrangement with Britain.
Roosevelt continued to publicly insist on his preference for neutrality while quietly but resolutely working behind the scenes—through the provision of materials as well as the combat deployment of the U.S. Navy in the North Atlantic—to assist Britain in their efforts against the Nazis after the fall of France. Ultimately, this issue was decided for him by the Japanese attack on American naval forces at Pearl Harbor, ending American isolationism.
Isolationism has been remarkably absent from most contemporary presidential campaigns. While candidates have disagreed over the manner in which the United States should pursue its interests in world affairs—most notably in the areas of arms control, the promotion of human rights, and the need for military intervention—no major party candidate has advocated withdrawing from global commitments in the post–World War II era. Democrats have historically been more likely to prioritize human rights (particularly Jimmy Carter in the Campaign of 1976 and the Campaign of 1980) and to advocate arms-control treaties and multilateral actions; however, Democrats have occasionally championed greater levels of military spending as well (most notably, Carter in the Campaign of 1980, but also John Kerry in 2004). Republicans have been more likely to prioritize military spending over domestic programs (particularly Ronald Reagan in the Campaign of 1980 and the Campaign of 1984, George W. Bush in the Campaign of 2004, and John McCain in the Campaign of 2008).
The demise of the Soviet Union during the administration of George H. W. Bush led to widespread support among both political parties for a dramatic reduction in military spending and a reallocation of the “peace dividend” to domestic programs. However, the U.S. commitment to continued involvement in world affairs has never been in question. Military interventions to promote human rights in Somalia and Bosnia occurred during the Clinton administration and had strong bipartisan support, although these actions were later criticized by Clinton’s political opponents. Similarly, President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Afghanistan, and later Iraq, in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks had strong bipartisan support as well. By the Campaign of 2004, much of that support had crumbled, and Democratic nominee John Kerry argued that the war in Iraq was a mistake. Kerry continued to support the war in Afghanistan, however, again demonstrating the bipartisan commitment to internationalism that pervaded this era.
In the Campaign of 2008, Democratic nominee Barack Obama campaigned for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and a buildup of forces in Afghanistan. Republican nominee John McCain wanted to maintain U.S. troop levels in both conflicts and suggested a possible invasion of Iran if the United States became convinced that Iraq was nearing development of a nuclear weapon. After being elected, Obama pursued troop reductions in Iraq and dramatically increased U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and he engaged in a multilateral military effort with other NATO countries to protect Libyan civilians from retaliation by the Qaddafi regime.
The most vocal advocates for isolationism in recent decades have been third-party candidates. Specifically, in the Campaign of 2000, Pat Buchanan and the Reform Party advocated refocusing U.S. foreign policy on the basis of national defense, rather than pursuing American interests overseas. Similarly, the liberal Green Party and the conservative Constitution Party supported an isolationist foreign policy, an agenda that has consistently also been pursued by the Libertarian Party. The libertarian perspective was best exemplified by Ron Paul, a Republican hopeful in the Campaign of 2008 and the Campaign of 2012. A self-declared libertarian, Paul would withdraw the United States from all military involvement overseas as well as from all multilateral organizations and treaties. Paul would limit military spending to what is needed to secure the nation’s boundaries. Paul’s viewpoint is unique within the Republican Party. Mitt Romney campaigned on strengthening the role of the U.S. military abroad, including the possible use of military force against Iran. While Obama withdrew U.S. troops from Iraq and pledged a 2013 withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, he also has enthusiastically supported the use of drones in air strikes, and his administration has been involved in several high-profile assassinations of suspected terrorists overseas. At present, in the 2015–2016 campaign season, Lincoln Chaffee appears to most closely resemble the non-interventionist attitudes of Ron Paul. Cong. Paul’s son, Sen. Rand Paul, has adopted a foreign policy stance that can be characterized as more “realist” in its substance than that of his father. The emergence of ISIL/ISIS has sparked an intense debate fueled by questions about the proper American response to militant Islamist movements abroad, with almost all Republican candidates critical of President Obama’s policies in this regard. Donald Trump in particular has assumed a tough stance toward ISIL/ISIS, commenting on 60 Minutes that we should confront “ISIS in Iraq” and saying, “You got to knock them out. You got to knock them out. You got to fight them. You got to fight them.” Mr. Trump also has expressed admiration for Russia’s apparent willingness to fight the extremists in Syria, observing, “Russia wants to get rid of ISIS. We want to get rid of ISIS. Maybe let Russia do it. Let them get rid of ISIS. What the hell do we care?” Remarks such as these are neither isolationist nor interventionist, but rather at best an unrefined variation of political realism. Given the current mood among almost all the candidates competing for the 2016 major party nominations, it would thus appear that isolationism, given the general mood of the electorate, is less likely to gain support among serious presidential contenders.
See also American Exceptionalism; Neoconservatives; War and Peace Issue
Cole, Wayne S. Roosevelt and the Isolationists, 1932–45. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1983.
Cooper, John Milton. The Vanity of Power: American Isolationism and the First World War, 1914–1917. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1969.
Desvarieux, Jessica, and Imtiyaz Delawala. “John McCain Criticizes 2012 GOP Field for Isolationism.” ABCNews.com, June 19, 2011.
Dueck, Colin. “GOP Isolationist? No, Just More Jacksonian.” Real Clear Politics, June 20, 2011.