Anderson: The issue of isolation versus intervention has divided America for centuries

It is useful to think about the presidential elections from a framework that emphasizes the old tension between isolationism and interventionism.

In many ways, Republicans represent the isolationist camp and Democrats represent the interventionist camp. Of course, the exact words used to label the camps will not satisfy everyone: right versus left, libertarian versus progressive, individualist versus communitarian.

However, the isolationist/interventionist issue has divided the nation for almost 250 years.

Since its founding, the United States has struggled with the desire of some to be isolated from the rest of the world and the desire of others to integrate into it. In the early years of the republic we were quite isolated from the rest of the world due to our geographical location.

Both world wars highlighted our inclination toward isolationism because the public did not want to get involved in European conflicts. We entered World War I in 1917 and World War II at the end of 1941, and in each case our presidents, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, had to work for years to prepare Congress and the people themselves for the participation of the United States. United in wars abroad.

Our tension between isolationism and intervention to make the world safe for democracy is quite evident today. We are debating what the United States should do regarding Russia and Ukraine, Israel and the Palestinians, Iran, China, North Korea, and NATO.

A second tension is between conservative versions of capitalism (which favor free markets, modest forms of regulation, and minimal forms of wealth and income redistribution) and versions of a mixed economy and social democracy that depend on significant forms of government intervention in the private sector. sector.

Progressives and liberals in the United States, from President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris to Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., advocate a strong interventionist government on domestic and foreign policy. .

Conservative politicians, from former President Donald Trump to Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, favor a The United States, although it should defend the countries, like Israel, should not get too involved in the affairs of most countries and should be minimally interventionist in economic policy.

Government, for conservatives and Trumpians, is not designed to implement large economic or social programs. However, it is interventionist when it comes to protecting individuals from government intrusions. Some MAGA supporters want a strongman leader who will psychologically and physically force his opponents to conform.

The battle between isolationism and interventionism is confusing. While conservatives generally favor less intervention in the economy, they tend to be interventionist when it comes to various social issues, including their belief that the government should intervene in women’s reproductive rights.

The general tension is usually based on two different models of citizenship. The isolationist field favors a vision of people as beings independent of each other, with capacities to be self-determined beings. The interventionist camp favors a view of people as fundamentally social beings who, although capable of self-determination, must depend on an interventionist federal government for the means to realize their potential.

Without a doubt, the debate will continue long beyond these elections. It would be helpful if the media brought this historical tension to light. Hitting the public, especially in debates, with political contrasts one after another is useful but also exhausting for citizens. It is necessary to raise the battle to a more enlightening level.

However, there is a component of the isolation versus intervention issue that is not debatable: no one should intervene in the rule of law or in free and fair elections. Any candidate who suggests otherwise endangers our democratic republic and should not be trusted with our sacred vote.

We should all be partisan around one thing: democracy.

Dave Anderson wrote this for The Fulcrum.