A New Isolationism

The events of the last few years have brought about many changes in American intellectual life, not the least of which has been a rapid and radical reconsideration of the desirability and possibility of isolationism as a proper basis for American foreign policy. This work, when it was first published in mid-1972, was a pathbreaking one in that respect: it was written by Dr. Robert W. Tucker, who holds a joint position as Professor of Political Science at the Johns Hopkins University and at the University’s School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, D.C.

“In this essay,” writes Tucker, “I argue that a new isolationism for the United States is quite possible in the sense that is could be undertaken without sacrifice of or jeopardy to physical security, material well-being, or the integrity of our institutions.” But he quickly undercuts misrepre-sentations of what isolationism would mean: “Isolationism is not to be identified with ‘quitting the world,’ something we have never done and will never do. It is not to be identified with the absence of all significant relationships but, rather, with the absence of certain relationships. As a policy, isolationism is above all generally characterized by the refusal to enter into alliances and to undertake military interventions. This was the essential meaning of an isolationist policy in the past, and it remains the essential meaning of an isolationist policy today.”

Moreover, Tucker’s thoughtful analysis is opposed to the analysis of the New Left, which holds that without imperialism or interventionism, American institutions would collapse. On the contrary, Tucker holds that “sustained foreign involvement—and particularly one holding out the constant prospect of military intervention—poses a grave threat to America’s institutions and well being.” He mentions the isolationism of Robert Taft and points out that to Taft, “a war to preserve democracy elsewhere meant the destruction of democracy in the United States and the creation of a socialist dictatorship.”

But this resurrection and identification of the true isolationist tradition is not Tucker’s only contribution. A New Isolationism is, in fact, a well-thought-out work examining most of the major problems which confront those who advocate isolationism. His analysis is in six sections: “Fears of a New Isolationism,” “The Meaning of Isolationism,” “The Possibility of a New Isolationism: Strategic Realities and Economic Necessities,” “The Broader Dimensions of Security,” “The Price of Isolationism” and “Prospects for a New Isolationism.” He analyzes the effects of nuclear weapons on alliances and deterrence, the alleged necessities for alliances with other nations and the dependence of America on foreign raw ma-terials and markets. In this last respect Tucker shows that American dependence on other nations is not as great or fundamental as it is often thought to be, and that, in any case, there is no reason to assume that foreign trade would be, on net, adversely affected by a policy of non-interventionism. Tucker argues that neither Asia nor Europe are as essential to American prosperity as is usually thought; he argues in favor of gradual withdrawal of American troops from Europe, coupled with “sub-stantial American efforts to aid in the establishment of a credible Euro-pean nuclear force.”

Tucker’s defense of isolationism is a sharp and tough-minded one, a useful supplement to both left-and-right revisionism and the a priori isolationism of the Rothbardian school. But I want to recommend it to libertarians for a stronger reason: so far there have been two great conflicts dividing libertarians in our tiny movement, the anarchism/limited government debate and the dispute over foreign policy. Of the two, the dispute over foreign policy is far more important, for it gravely affects the political positions which libertarians will take over the next few crucially important years. Yet there has been virtually no writing done by any libertarians on this issue. I am tempted to add: no one has bothered to read much on the issue, either, except for some of the more scholarly associates of Rothbard and the libertarian-oriented Anthony Sutton.

So these are the great advantages of this tiny book: it carefully sets out the context and defends one side of the debate, the position of isolationism. It asks what the economic effects would be, what the political and strategic results are likely to be, and if isolationism has a promising future or not. You don’t have to agree with Rothbard to find the book useful, nor with the left-revisionists on foreign policy. The book makes its own case in a direct and pointed way that cannot be ignored. Read it if for no other reason than that it contains a defense of isolationism—already so dear to the hearts of libertarians on a theoretical level—as a practical possibility, as a desirable direction for American foreign policy to take. And I remind our readers that this is not merely an abstract issue: as Vietnam showed, it can be a matter of life and death. The issue deserves careful consideration; A New Isolationism accordingly deserves a careful reading.

Reviewed by R. A. Childs, Jr. / Political Philosophy [127 Pages] / BFL Price $2.25