Content deleted Content added
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
|||
| (39 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Short description|Type of diplomatic policy}}
{{American imperialism}}
'''United States non-interventionism''' primarily refers to the [[Foreign policy of the United States|foreign policy]] that was eventually applied by the [[United States]] between the late 18th century and the first half of the 20th century whereby it sought to avoid alliances with other nations in order to prevent itself from being drawn into wars that were not related to the direct territorial self-defense of the United States. [[Neutral country|Neutrality]] and [[non-interventionism]] found support among elite and popular opinion in the United States, which varied depending on the international context and the country's interests. At times, the degree and nature of this policy was better known as [[isolationism]], such as the [[interwar period]], while some consider the term ''isolationism'' to be a pejorative used to discredit non-interventionist policy.
Due to the start of the [[Cold War]] in the [[aftermath of World War II]] and the rise of the United States as a global [[superpower]], its traditional foreign policy turned towards [[American imperialism]] with diplomatic and military interventionism, engaging or somehow intervening in virtually any [[List of wars involving the United States|overseas armed conflict]] ever since, and concluding multiple bilateral and regional military alliances, chiefly the [[North Atlantic Treaty Organization]]. Non-interventionist policies have had continued support from some Americans
==Background==
Line 20:
After [[Alexander II of Russia|Tsar Alexander II]] put down the 1863 [[January Uprising]] in [[Poland]], French Emperor [[Napoleon III]] asked the United States to "join in a protest to the Tsar."<ref name=Raico>[[Ralph Raico|Raico, Ralph]]. [https://mises.org/daily/5236/Americas-Will-to-War-The-Turning-Point America's Will to War: The Turning Point], [[Mises Institute]]</ref> [[United States Secretary of State|Secretary of State]] [[William H. Seward]] declined, "defending 'our policy of non-intervention—straight, absolute, and peculiar as it may seem to other nations,'" and insisted that "[t]he American people must be content to recommend the cause of human progress by the wisdom with which they should exercise the powers of self-government, forbearing at all times, and in every way, from foreign alliances, intervention, and interference."<ref name=Raico />
President [[Ulysses S. Grant]] attempted to [[
==20th century non-interventionism==
Line 33:
{{Further|Foreign policy of the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration}}
In the [[Aftermath of World War I|wake]] of the First World War, the non-interventionist tendencies gained ascendancy. The [[Treaty of Versailles]], and thus, United States' participation in the [[League of Nations]], even with reservations, was rejected by the Senate in the final months of Wilson's presidency.
Republican Senate leader [[Henry Cabot Lodge]] supported the Treaty with reservations to be sure Congress had final authority on sending the U.S. into war. Wilson and his Democratic supporters rejected the ''[[Lodge Reservations]]''
The strongest opposition to American entry into the League of Nations came from the Senate where a tight-knit faction known as the [[Irreconcilables]], led by [[William Borah]] and [[George W. Norris|George Norris]], had great objections regarding the clauses of the treaty which compelled America to come to the defense of other nations. Senator [[William Borah]], of Idaho, declared that it would "purchase peace at the cost of any part of our [American] independence."<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.historycentral.com/documents/Borah.html | title=William e. Borah, Speech on the League of Nations [November 19, 1919] }}</ref> Senator [[Hiram Johnson]], of California, denounced the League of Nations as a "gigantic war trust."<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.nytimes.com/1919/06/03/archives/johnson-assails-league-of-nations-californian-calls-it-a-gigantic.html | title=JOHNSON ASSAILS LEAGUE OF NATIONS; Californian Calls It a "Gigantic War Trust" in Speech to Senate. SEES AMERICA SWALLOWED Declares the Monroe Doctrine is Left to the Interpretation of Foreign Nations. FEARS VOTES OF ENGLAND Senator Attacks the Shantung "Secret Treaty" and Plan toProtect France. Sees No War Preventive. Danies Monroe Doctrine Safeguard. Asserts League is Deceptive | newspaper=The New York Times | date=3 June 1919 }}</ref> While some of the sentiment was grounded in adherence to Constitutional principles, most of the sentiment bore a reassertion of [[Nativism (politics)|nativist]] and inward-looking policy.<ref>Selig Adler, ''The Isolationist Impulse: Its Twentieth Century Reaction'' (New York: The Free Press, 1957), 201</ref>
American society in the interwar period was characterized by a division in values between urban and rural areas as Americans in urban areas tended to be liberal while those in rural areas tended to be conservative.{{sfn|Sevareid|1978|p=46}} Adding to the division was that Americans in rural areas tended to be Protestant of British and/or German descent while those in urban areas were often Catholic or Jewish and came from eastern or southern Europe.{{sfn|Sevareid|1978|p=46-47}} The rural-urban divide was seen most dramatically in the intense debate about Prohibition as urban Americans tended to be "wets" while rural Americans tended to be "drys".{{sfn|Sevareid|1978|p=47}} The way that American society was fractured along an urban-rural divide served to distract public attention from foreign affairs.{{sfn|Sevareid|1978|p=47}} In the 1920s, the State Department had about 600 employees in total with an annual budget of $2 million, which reflected a lack of interest on the part of Congress in foreign affairs.{{sfn|Sevareid|1978|p=47-48}} The State Department was very much an elitist body that recruited mostly from graduates of the select "Ivy League" universities, which reflected the idea that foreign policy was the concern of elites.{{sfn|Sevareid|1978|p=48}} Likewise, the feeling that the United States was taking in far too many immigrants from eastern and southern Europe-who were widely depicted in the American media as criminals and revolutionaries-led to laws restricting immigration from Europe.{{sfn|Sevareid|1978|p=46-47}} In turn, the anti-immigrant mood increased isolationism as the picture of Europe as a place overflowing with dangerous criminals and equally dangerous Communist revolutionaries led to the corresponding conclusion that the United States should have little as possible to do with nations whose peoples were depicted as disagreeable and unpleasant.{{sfn|Sevareid|1978|p=46-47}} The same way that Congress had virtually banned all non-white immigration to the United States likewise led an indifference about the fate of non-white nations such as China and Ethiopia. The debate about Prohibition in the 1920s also encouraged nativist and isolationist feelings as "drys" often engaged in American exceptionalism by arguing that the United States was a uniquely morally pure nation that had banned alcohol, unlike the rest of the world which remained "wet" and was depicted as mired in corruption and decadence.{{sfn|Sevareid|1978|p=46}}
The United States acted independently to become a major player in the 1920s in international negotiations and treaties. The Harding Administration achieved naval disarmament among the major powers through the [[Washington Naval Conference]] in 1921–22. The [[Dawes Plan]] refinanced war debts and helped restore prosperity to Germany. In August 1928, fifteen nations signed the [[Kellogg–Briand Pact]], brainchild of American Secretary of State [[Frank Kellogg]] and French Foreign Minister [[Aristide Briand]].<ref>Adler, 213</ref> This pact that was said to have outlawed war and showed the United States commitment to international peace had its semantic flaws.<ref>Adler, 217</ref> For example, it did not hold the United States to the conditions of any existing treaties, it still allowed European nations the right to self-defense, and it stated that if one nation broke the Pact, it would be up to the other signatories to enforce it.<ref>Adler, 214–215</ref> The Kellogg–Briand Pact was more of a sign of good intentions on the part of the US, rather than a legitimate step towards the sustenance of world peace.{{citation needed|date=February 2023}}{{POV statement|date=February 2023}}▼
▲The United States acted independently to become a major player in the 1920s in international negotiations and treaties. The Harding Administration achieved naval disarmament among the major powers through the [[Washington Naval Conference]] in 1921–22. The [[Dawes Plan]] refinanced war debts and helped restore prosperity to Germany. In August 1928, fifteen nations signed the [[Kellogg–Briand Pact]], brainchild of American Secretary of State [[Frank Kellogg]] and French Foreign Minister [[Aristide Briand]].<ref>Adler, 213</ref> This pact that was said to have outlawed war and showed the United States commitment to international peace had its semantic flaws.<ref>Adler, 217</ref> For example, it did not hold the United States to the conditions of any existing treaties, it still allowed European nations the right to self-defense, and it stated that if one nation broke the Pact, it would be up to the other signatories to enforce it.<ref>Adler, 214–215</ref> Briand had sent a message on 6 April 1927 to mark the 10th anniversary of the American declaration of war on Germany in 1917 proposing that France and the United States sign a non-aggression pact.{{sfn|Sevareid|1978|p=48}} Briand was attempting to create a Franco-American alliance to counter Germany as Briand envisioned turning the negotiations for the non-aggression pact into an some sort of an alliance.{{sfn|Sevareid|1978|p=48}} Kellogg had no interest in an alliance with France, and countered with a vague offer for a treaty to ban all war.{{sfn|Sevareid|1978|p=48}} The Kellogg–Briand Pact was more of a sign of good intentions on the part of the US, rather than a legitimate step towards the sustenance of world peace.{{citation needed|date=February 2023}}{{POV statement|date=February 2023}}
Another reason for isolationism was the belief that the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh towards Germany and the question of war debts to the United States.{{sfn|Young|2005|p=187-188}} American public opinion was especially hostile towards France, which was depicted in the words of the Republican Senator [[Reed Smoot]] who in August 1930 called France a greedy "Shylock" intent upon taking the last "pound of flesh" from Germany via reparations while refusing to pay its war debts to the United States.{{sfn|Young|2005|p=187}} In the early 1930s, French diplomats at the embassy in Washington stated that the image of France was at an all-time low in the United States with American public opinion being especially incensed by France's decision to default on its war debts on 15 December 1932.{{sfn|Young|2005|p=188}} French diplomats throughout the interwar period complained that the German embassy and consulates in the United States waged a slick, well funded propaganda campaign designed to persuade the Americans that the Treaty of Versailles was a monstrous, unjust peace treaty while the French embassy and consulates did nothing equivalent to make the case for France.{{sfn|Young|2005|p=192-193}} The effect of German propaganda tended to persuade many Americans it had been a huge mistake to have declared war on Germany in 1917 and it would be wrong for the United States to go to war to maintain the international order created by the Treaty of Versailles.{{sfn|Young|2005|p=188}}
The economic depression that ensued after the [[Crash of 1929]], also continued to abet non-intervention. The attention of the country focused mostly on addressing the problems of the national economy. The rise of aggressive imperialist policies by [[Italian Fascism|Fascist Italy]] and the [[Empire of Japan]] led to conflicts such as the [[Second Italo-Ethiopian War|Italian conquest of Ethiopia]] and the [[Japanese invasion of Manchuria]]. These events led to ineffectual condemnations by the League of Nations. Official American response was muted. America also did not take sides in the brutal [[Spanish Civil War]] and [[United States occupation of Haiti|withdrew its troops from Haiti]] with the inauguration of the [[Good Neighbor Policy]] in 1934. In an attempt to influence American public opinion into taking a more favorable view of France, the Quai d'Orsay founded in 1935 the ''Association our la Constitution aux Etats-Unis d'un Office Français de Renseignements'' based in New York, a cultural propaganda council designed to give Americans a more favorable image of France.{{sfn|Young|2005|p=200}} Better known as the French Information Center, the group created a French Cinema Center to distribution of French films in the United States and by 1939 had handled out for free about 5, 000 copies of French films to American universities and high schools.{{sfn|Young|2005|p=196}} The French Information Center provided briefings to American journalists and columnists about the French point of view with the emphasis upon France as a democracy that had potential powerful enemies in the form of totalitarian dictatorships such as Germany and Italy.{{sfn|Young|2005|p=201}} Such propaganda did not seek to challenge American isolationism directly, but the prevailing theme was that France and the United States as democracies had more in common than what divided them.{{sfn|Young|2005|p=201-202}} By 1939, [[René Doynel de Saint-Quentin]], the French ambassador in Washington reported that image of France was much higher than what it had been in 1932.{{sfn|Young|2005|p=201}}
=== Non-interventionism before entering World War II ===
{{anchor|Non-interventionism shortly before World War II}}
[[Image:Noentanglements.jpg|thumb|A protest march against American involvement in World War II, before the [[attack on Pearl Harbor]]
As Europe moved closer to war in the late 1930s, the [[United States Congress]] continued to demand American neutrality. Between 1936 and 1937, much to the dismay of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Congress passed the [[Neutrality Acts of the 1930s|Neutrality Acts]]. For example, in the final Neutrality Act, Americans could not sail on ships flying the flag of a belligerent nation or trade arms with warring nations. Such activities had played a role in American entrance into World War I.
On 1 September 1939, [[invasion of Poland|Germany invaded Poland]], marking the start of World War II, and the [[United Kingdom]] and [[Third French Republic|France]] subsequently declared war on Germany. In an address to the American people two days later, President Roosevelt assured the nation that he would do all he could to keep them out of war.<ref name=FDRfiresidechatSept9>{{cite web|last1=Roosevelt|first1=Franklin D.|title=120 – Fireside Chat|url=http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15801|publisher=The American Presidency Project, University of California at Santa Barbara|access-date=13 August 2014|format=Text of Radio Address|date=3 September 1939}}</ref>
The war in Europe split the American people into two camps: non-interventionists and interventionists. The two sides argued over America's involvement in this World War II. The basic principle of the interventionist argument was fear of German invasion. One of the rhetorical criticisms of interventionism was that it was driven by the so-called [[merchants of death]] - businesses who had profited from World War I lobbying for involvement in order to profit from another large war. By the summer of 1940, France suffered a stunning [[Battle of France|defeat by Germans]], and Britain was the only democratic enemy of Germany.<ref>Adler, ''Isolationist Impulse'', 259.</ref><ref>''The Annals of America'', vol. 16, (Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 1968),6, N.B. The Annals of America is a multivolume collection of primary sources grouped by year.</ref> In a 1940 speech, Roosevelt argued, "Some, indeed, still hold to the now somewhat obvious delusion that we … can safely permit the United States to become a lone island … in a world dominated by the philosophy of force."<ref>''The Annals of America'', vol. 16, 8.</ref>
Line 61 ⟶ 65:
As 1940 became 1941, the actions of the Roosevelt administration made it more and more clear that the United States was on a course to war. This policy shift, driven by the President, came in two phases. The first came in 1939 with the passage of the Fourth Neutrality Act, which permitted the United States to trade arms with belligerent nations, as long as these nations came to America to retrieve the arms, and pay for them in cash.<ref name="ReferenceA" /> This policy was quickly dubbed, 'Cash and Carry.'<ref>Adler, ''Isolationist Impulse'' 257.</ref>
The second phase was the [[Lend-Lease]] Act of early 1941. This act allowed the President "to lend, lease, sell, or barter arms, ammunition, food, or any 'defense article' or any 'defense information' to 'the government of any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States.'"<ref>Adler, ''Isolationist Impulse'' 282.</ref> American public opinion supported Roosevelt's actions. As United States involvement in the [[Battle of the Atlantic]] grew with incidents such as the sinking of the {{USS|Reuben James|DD-245}}, by late 1941 72% of Americans agreed that "the biggest job facing this country today is to help defeat the Nazi Government", and 70% thought that defeating Germany was more important than staying out of the war.<ref>{{cite book |title=Selling War: The British Propaganda Campaign against American "Neutrality" in World War II |url=https://archive.org/details/unset0000unse_u8p5 |url-access=registration |author=Cull, Nicholas John |year=1995 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/unset0000unse_u8p5/page/185 185], 241 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-508566-2}}</ref>
After the [[attack on Pearl Harbor]] caused America to enter the war in December 1941, isolationists such as [[Charles Lindbergh]]'s [[America First Committee]] and [[Herbert Hoover]] announced their support of the war effort.<ref name="nytafc19411209">{{Cite news |url=http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1941/12/09/105168813.html?smid=tw-nytarchives&smtyp=cur&pageNumber=44 |title=Isolationist Groups Back Roosevelt |date=1941-12-09 |newspaper=The New York Times |page=44}}</ref> Isolationist families' sons fought in the war as much as others.{{r|lubell1956}}
Propaganda activities conducted by German embassy staff such as [[George Sylvester Viereck]], assisted by isolationist politicians such as [[Hamilton Fish III]], were investigated and dampened by federal prosecutors before and after U.S. joined WWII. In 1941, Fish was implicated in the America First Committee franking controversy, whereby isolationist politicians were found to be using their free mailing privileges to aid the German propaganda campaign. William Power Maloney's grand jury investigated Nazi penetration in the United States and secured convictions of Viereck and George Hill, Fish's chief of staff.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Maddow |first=Rachel |title=Prequel An American Fight Against Fascism |pages=243, 250–251}}</ref>[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/130/945/1474108/]
=== Non-interventionism after World War II ===
Line 73 ⟶ 79:
Norman A. Graebner argues:
:Differences over collective security in the G.O.P. were real in 1952, but Taft tried during his pre-convention campaign to moderate his image as a "go-it-aloner" in foreign policy. His whole effort proved unsuccessful, largely because by spring the internationalist camp had a formidable candidate of its own in [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]. As the personification of post-1945 American commitment to collective security, particularly in Europe, General Eisenhower had decided to run because he feared, apparently, that Taft's election would lead to repudiation of the whole collective security effort, including NATO.<ref>{{cite book|author=Norman A. Graebner|title=The National Security: Its Theory and Practice, 1945-1960|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KZntlLPTnH8C&pg=PA249|year=1986|page=249|publisher=Oxford University Press, USA |isbn=978-0-19-802103-2}}</ref>
Eisenhower won the nomination and secured Taft's support by promising Taft a dominant voice in domestic policies, while Eisenhower's internationalism would set the foreign-policy agenda.<ref>Patterson, p. 577</ref> Graebner argues that Eisenhower succeeded in moving the conservative Republicans away from their traditional attacks on [[United States foreign aid|foreign aid]] and reciprocal trade policies, and collective security arrangements, to support for those policies.<ref>Graebner, p 249</ref> By 1964 the Republican conservatives rallied behind [[Barry Goldwater]] who was an aggressive advocate of an anti-communist internationalist foreign policy. Goldwater wanted to [[rollback|roll back]] Communism and win the Cold War, asking "Why Not Victory?"<ref>{{cite book|author=J. Peter Scoblic|title=U.S. vs. Them: Conservatism in the Age of Nuclear Terror|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=48FroLdbMG8C&pg=PT46|year=2008|publisher=Penguin |page=46|isbn=978-1-4406-3901-2}}</ref>
==Non-interventionism in the 21st century==
During the [[presidency of Barack Obama]], some members of the United States federal government, including President Obama and Secretary of State [[John Kerry]], considered intervening militarily in the [[Syrian Civil War]].<ref name=textObamaAug31>{{cite news|title=Text of President Obama's Remarks on Syria|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/text-of-president-obamas-remarks-on-syria.html?ref=middleeast&_r=0|access-date=9 September 2013|newspaper=The New York Times|date=31 August 2013}}</ref><ref name=Hillnextweek1>{{cite news|last=Kasperowicz|first=Pete|title=A closer look at next week... Spending, Syria, ObamaCare|url=
A writer for ''[[The New York Times]]'' referred to this as "an isolationist streak," a characterization international relations scholar [[Stephen Walt]] strongly objected to, calling the description "sloppy journalism."<ref name="NYTtheebrenan" /><ref name=WaltMay12013>{{cite news|last1=Walt|first1=Stephen M.|title=Sloppy journalism at the New York Times|url=https://foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/05/01/sloppy_journalism_at_the_new_york_times?wp_login_redirect=0|access-date=8 August 2014|work=Foreign Policy|date=1 May 2013|archive-date=9 August 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140809175359/http://www.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/05/01/sloppy_journalism_at_the_new_york_times?wp_login_redirect=0|url-status=dead}}</ref> According to Walt, "the overwhelming majority of people who have doubts about the wisdom of deeper involvement in [[Syria]]—including yours truly—are not 'isolationist.' They are merely sensible people who recognize that we may not have vital interests there, that deeper involvement may not lead to a better outcome and could make things worse, and who believe that the last thing the United States needs to do is to get dragged into yet another nasty sectarian fight in the Arab/Islamic world."<ref name="WaltMay12013" />
Line 86 ⟶ 92:
A July 2014 poll of "battleground voters" across the United States found "77 percent in favor of full withdrawal from Afghanistan by the end of 2016; only 15 percent and 17 percent interested in more involvement in Syria and Ukraine, respectively; and 67 percent agreeing with the statement that, 'U.S. military actions should be limited to direct threats to our national security.'"<ref name=KasselFPJuly2014>{{cite news|last1=Kassel|first1=Whitney|title=What Would Nietzsche Do?|url=https://foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/29/what_would_nietzsche_do_us_military_intervention_iraq_afghanistan|access-date=8 August 2014|work=Foreign Policy|date=29 July 2014}}</ref>
{{
Polls indicate growing impatience among Americans with the war in Ukraine,<ref>{{Cite web |title=Americans show signs of impatience with Ukraine war |url=https://www.brookings.edu/articles/americans-show-signs-of-impatience-with-ukraine-war/ |access-date=2023-07-09 |website=Brookings |language=en-US}}</ref> with 2023 polls showing just 17% of Americans think their country is "not doing enough" to support Ukraine. This percentage is the lowest since the war began.<ref>{{Cite web |title=US Polling and Politics on Ukraine War is Changing |url=https://www.kyivpost.com/post/18417 |access-date=2023-07-09 |website=[[Kyiv Post]] |date=19 June 2023 |language=en}}</ref>
==Conservative policies==
Line 95 ⟶ 101:
Former Republican Congressman [[Ron Paul]] favored a return to the non-interventionist policies of [[Thomas Jefferson]] and frequently opposed military intervention in countries like [[Iran]] and [[Iraq]].
After [[Russian invasion of Ukraine|Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine]], the Republican Party has been divided on Ukraine's aid, believing that it is not in the interests of the United States to get involved in a "[[proxy war]]" against Russia.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Stanley |first=Tim |date=2023-06-15 |title=Taiwan matters more to US Republicans than Ukraine –
==Supporters of non-interventionism==
===Politicians===
====Deceased====
* [[Howard Buffett]] (1903–1964), U.S. Representative from [[Nebraska]]<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.antiwar.com/stromberg/s042401.html|title=The Old Cause|date=April 24, 2001|accessdate=October 5, 2021|author=Stromberg, Joseph R.|work=Antiwar.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://mises.org/wire/howard-buffett-anticommunist-and-anti-interventionist|title=Howard Buffett: Anticommunist and Anti-interventionist|date=July 27, 2020|accessdate=October 5, 2021|author=Daher, Trevor|work=Mises Institute}}</ref>▼
* [[Calvin Coolidge]] (1872–1933), 30th U.S. [[President of the United States|President]], 29th U.S. [[Vice President of the United States|Vice President]], 48th U.S. [[Governor of Massachusetts]], 46th U.S. [[Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts|Lt. Governor of Massachusetts]]<ref>{{cite web|url=https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1508&context=master201019|title=Coolidge against the world: Peace, prosperity, and foreign policy in the 1920s|work=James Madison University|author=Joel Webster|access-date=February 1, 2020}}</ref>▼
* [[Mike Gravel]] (1930–2021), former US senator from Alaska (
* [[Herbert Hoover]] (1874–1964), 31st U.S. [[President of the United States|President]], 3rd [[United States Secretary of Commerce]] ▼
* [[William Langer]] (1886–1959), U.S. Senator from North Dakota<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/this-day-in-politics-099535/|title='Wild Bill' dies, Nov. 8, 1959|date= November 8, 2013|work=Politico}}</ref>▼
* [[Louis Ludlow]] (1873–1950), U.S. Representative from Indiana pushed for the [[Ludlow Amendment]]<ref>{{cite web|url=https://blog.history.in.gov/a-solemn-consecrated-act-of-the-people-themselves-rep-louis-ludlow-and-the-power-to-declare-war/|title=Louis Ludlow and the Power to Declare War|date=January 14, 2020|work=Indiana State Library}}</ref>▼
* [[Henrik Shipstead]] (1881–1960), U.S. Senator from [[Minnesota]], also a member of the [[America First Committee]]<ref>{{cite web|url= https://historynewsnetwork.org/blog/13436|title=Henrik Shipstead Against the UN|date=August 1, 2005|accessdate=May 12, 2022|author= Liberty, Power|work= History News Network}}</ref>▼
* [[Robert A. Taft]] (1889–1953), U.S. Senator from [[Ohio]], [[Senate Majority Leader]], 1940, 1948 & 1952 Republican presidential candidate<ref>{{cite web|url=https://mises.org/library/robert-taft-and-his-forgotten-isolationism|title=Robert Taft and His Forgotten "Isolationism"|date=March 8, 2014|accessdate=October 5, 2021|author=Bresiger, Gregory|work=Mises Institute}}</ref>▼
====Living====
* [[Justin Amash]], former U.S. Representative from [[Michigan]],<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-justin-amash-one-to-watch-from-michigan/2013/04/19/4beebecc-a858-11e2-a8e2-5b98cb59187f_story.html|title=George Will: Justin Amash, one to watch from Michigan|date=April 19, 2013|newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://reason.com/video/justin-amash-reason-weekend|title=Rep. Justin Amash on Trump, Ryan, and the 'Stupidity' of How the Government Spends Your Money|date=April 9, 2018|work=Reason Magazine}}</ref><ref name="Will the Real GOP Non-Interventionists Stand up?">{{cite web|url=https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/rand-paul-war-real-gop-non-interventionists-justin-amash/|title=Will the Real GOP Non-Interventionists Stand up?|date=August 29, 2017|work=The American Conservative}}</ref> [[2020 Libertarian Party presidential primaries|2020 Libertarian presidential candidate]]
* [[Eric Brakey]], former U.S. [[Maine Senate|State Senator]] from [[Maine]], 2018 Republican U.S. Senate candidate<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.libertyfighters.uk/uk/the-question-no-one-asked-what-did-russia-get-for-hacking-our-electorates/|title=The question no one asked: What did Russia get for hacking our electorates?|date=March 13, 2017|work=LibertyFighters.uk}}</ref>
▲* [[Howard Buffett]], U.S. Representative from [[Nebraska]]<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.antiwar.com/stromberg/s042401.html|title=The Old Cause|date=April 24, 2001|accessdate=October 5, 2021|author=Stromberg, Joseph R.|work=Antiwar.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://mises.org/wire/howard-buffett-anticommunist-and-anti-interventionist|title=Howard Buffett: Anticommunist and Anti-interventionist|date=July 27, 2020|accessdate=October 5, 2021|author=Daher, Trevor|work=Mises Institute}}</ref>
▲* [[Calvin Coolidge]], 30th U.S. [[President of the United States|President]], 29th U.S. [[Vice President of the United States|Vice President]], 48th U.S. [[Governor of Massachusetts]], 46th U.S. [[Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts|Lt. Governor of Massachusetts]]<ref>{{cite web|url=https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1508&context=master201019|title=Coolidge against the world: Peace, prosperity, and foreign policy in the 1920s|work=James Madison University|author=Joel Webster|access-date=February 1, 2020}}</ref>
* [[Tulsi Gabbard]], former U.S. Representative from Hawaii (2013–2021)<ref>{{cite web |last1=Martinez |first1=Remso |title=Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Stands Firm on Anti-Regime Change Stance |url=https://www.theadvocates.org/2019/05/rep-tulsi-gabbard-stands-firm-on-anti-regime-change-stance/ |website=www.theadvocates.org |date=17 May 2019 |publisher=The Advocates |access-date=15 March 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Gabbard |first1=Tulsi |title=Tulsi Gabbard Opposes 'Regime Change Wars' — But She's Not Anti-war |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tulsi-gabbard-regime-change-wars_n_5da68baee4b02253a2fa51b0 |website=www.huffpost.com |date=16 October 2019 |publisher=Huffington Post |access-date=15 March 2022}}</ref>
* [[Gary Johnson]], 29th [[Governor of New Mexico]] (
▲* [[Mike Gravel]], former US senator from Alaska (1969-1981), Entered the [[Pentagon Papers]] into Public Record in 1971, Democratic Presidential Candidate in 2008 and 2020. Founder of the [[The Gravel Institute|Gravel Institute]] think tank<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ayesh |first=Orion Rummler,Rashaan |date=2019-05-05 |title=Mike Gravel: Everything you need to know about the 2020 candidate |url=https://www.axios.com/2019/05/04/mike-gravel-everything-you-need-know-about-2020-candidate |access-date=2022-11-28 |website=Axios |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=About – Gravel Institute |url=https://gravelinstitute.org/about/ |access-date=2022-11-28 |language=en-US}}</ref>
▲* [[Herbert Hoover]], 31st U.S. [[President of the United States|President]], 3rd [[United States Secretary of Commerce]]
▲* [[Gary Johnson]], 29th [[Governor of New Mexico]] (1995-2003), 2012 and 2016 Libertarian Presidential Nominee<ref>{{Cite web |title=Gary Johnson presidential campaign, 2016/Foreign affairs |url=https://ballotpedia.org/Gary_Johnson_presidential_campaign,_2016/Foreign_affairs |access-date=2022-11-28 |website=Ballotpedia |language=en}}</ref>
▲* [[William Langer]], U.S. Senator from North Dakota<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/this-day-in-politics-099535/|title='Wild Bill' dies, Nov. 8, 1959|date= November 8, 2013|work=Politico}}</ref>
▲* [[Louis Ludlow]], U.S. Representative from Indiana pushed for the [[Ludlow Amendment]]<ref>{{cite web|url=https://blog.history.in.gov/a-solemn-consecrated-act-of-the-people-themselves-rep-louis-ludlow-and-the-power-to-declare-war/|title=Louis Ludlow and the Power to Declare War|date=January 14, 2020|work=Indiana State Library}}</ref>
* [[Thomas Massie]], U.S. Representative from Kentucky<ref>{{cite web|url=https://libertyconservativenews.com/thomas-massie-stands-against-neoconservative-intervention/|title=Thomas Massie Stands Against Neoconservative Intervention|date=June 24, 2019|work=Liberty Conservative News}}</ref><ref name="Will the Real GOP Non-Interventionists Stand up?"/>
* [[Ron Paul]], former U.S. [[United States House of Representatives|Representative]] from [[Texas]], [[Ron Paul 1988 presidential campaign|1988]], [[Ron Paul 2008 presidential campaign|2008]], & [[Ron Paul 2012 presidential campaign|2012]] Republican presidential candidate;<ref>{{cite news|last=Trygstad|first=Kyle|title=Ron Paul to Retire from Congress|work=[[Roll Call]]|date=July 12, 2011|url=http://www.rollcall.com/news/Ron-Paul-retire-207207-1.html?ET=rollcall:e10569:80081152a:&st=email|access-date=September 22, 2012|archive-date=July 8, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190708183144/http://www.rollcall.com/news/Ron-Paul-retire-207207-1.html?ET=rollcall:e10569:80081152a:|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref> Paul's stance on foreign policy is one of consistent non-intervention,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst091602.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20020923122526/http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst091602.htm|archive-date=2002-09-23 |title=Entangling Alliances Distort our Foreign Policy|last=Paul|first=Ron|work=Texas Straight Talk|publisher=House of Representatives|date=2002-09-16}}</ref><ref name=patriotism>{{cite news|title=Patriotism|url=http://archive.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul388.html|work=[[Congressional Record]]|publisher=House of Representatives|author=Paul, Ron|date=2007-05-22|access-date=2007-10-23}}</ref> opposing [[wars of aggression]] and [[entangling alliances]] with other nations.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/foreign-policy-rp.html|title=The Foreign Policy of Ron Paul|author=Rockwell, Lew|publisher=Lew Rockwell|date=2007-05-21|access-date=2007-11-06}}</ref>
* [[Rand Paul]], U.S. [[United States Senate|Senator]] from [[Kentucky]], 2016 Republican presidential candidate, the son of Ron Paul<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/04/rand-pauls-foreign-policy-situation-room-or-dorm-room-rich-lowry/|title=Rand Paul's Foreign Policy: For the Situation Room or the Dorm Room?|date=April 15, 2014|work=National Review}}</ref><ref name="Will the Real GOP Non-Interventionists Stand up?"/><ref>{{cite web|url=https://nationalinterest.org/feature/rand-paul-found-his-voice-can-he-find-non-interventionist-13866|title=Rand Paul Found His Voice: Can He Find Noninterventionist Voters?|date=September 17, 2015|work=The National Interest}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-two-non-interventionists_b_594f1cdde4b0326c0a8d0918|title=The Two Non-Interventionists|date=June 29, 2017|work=HuffPost|access-date=July 4, 2019|archive-date=June 28, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190628132250/https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-two-non-interventionists_b_594f1cdde4b0326c0a8d0918|url-status=dead}}</ref>
* [[Bernie Sanders]], U.S. Senator from Vermont, 2016 and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate<ref>{{Cite web |title=Responsible Foreign Policy |url=https://berniesanders.com/issues/responsible-foreign-policy/ |access-date=2022-11-28 |website=Bernie Sanders Official Website |language=en}}</ref>
▲* [[Henrik Shipstead]], U.S. Senator from [[Minnesota]], also a member of the [[America First Committee]]<ref>{{cite web|url= https://historynewsnetwork.org/blog/13436|title=Henrik Shipstead Against the UN|date=August 1, 2005|accessdate=May 12, 2022|author= Liberty, Power|work= History News Network}}</ref>
▲* [[Robert A. Taft]], U.S. Senator from [[Ohio]], [[Senate Majority Leader]], 1940, 1948 & 1952 Republican presidential candidate<ref>{{cite web|url=https://mises.org/library/robert-taft-and-his-forgotten-isolationism|title=Robert Taft and His Forgotten "Isolationism"|date=March 8, 2014|accessdate=October 5, 2021|author=Bresiger, Gregory|work=Mises Institute}}</ref>
===Government officials===
Line 145 ⟶ 153:
* Adler, Selig. ''The Isolationist Impulse: Its Twentieth Century Reaction''. (1957).; says it's based on economic self-sufficiency and the illusion of security, together with Irish and German ethnic factors.
* Aregood, Richard, Richard Shafer, and Eric Freedman. "American Isolationism and The Political Evolution of Journalist-Turned-US Senator Gerald P. Nye." ''Journalism Practice'' 9.2 (2015): 279–294.
* Artiukhov A. A. [https://www.elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_49468420_19397103.pdf The Conceptual Characteristics of the Notion “Isolationism” at the Current Historical Stage] / A. A. Artiukhov // Meždunarodnyj Naučno-Issledovatel'skij Žurnal [International Research Journal]. – 2022. – № 8 (122). – [https://research-journal.org/en/archive/8-122-2022-august/10.23670/IRJ.2022.122.54 DOI 10.23670/IRJ.2022.122.54].
* Cole, Wayne S. ''America First: The Battle Against Intervention, 1940–1941'' (1953), the standard history.
* Cooper, John Milton
* Divine, Robert A. ''The Illusion Of Neutrality'' (1962) scholarly history of neutrality legislation in 1930s. [https://archive.org/details/illusionofneutra030798mbp/page/n13 online free to borrow]
* Doenecke, Justus D. "American Isolationism, 1939-1941" ''Journal of Libertarian Studies,'' Summer/Fall 1982, 6(3), pp. 201–216.
Line 162 ⟶ 171:
* Kertzer, Joshua D. "Making sense of isolationism: foreign policy mood as a multilevel phenomenon." ''Journal of Politics'' 75.01 (2013): 225-240.
* Kupchan, Charles A. ''Isolationism: A History of America's Efforts to Shield Itself from the World'' (Oxford University Press, USA, 2020). [https://books.google.com/books?id=P7_1DwAAQBAJ&dq=Kupchan+Isolationism&pg=PP1 online]; also see [https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/article/789552/summary online review]
* Maddow, Rachel. ''Prequel An American Fight Against Fascism'' (Crown, 2023).
* Nichols, Christopher McKnight. ''Promise and Peril: America at the Dawn of a Global Age'' (Harvard University Press, 2011).
* Romanov V. V., Artyukhov A. A. (2013) [https://www.elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_21336929_23442819.pdf The Notion of "Isolationism" in U.S. Foreign-Policy Thought: Conceptual Characteristics] / V. V. Romanov, A. A. Artyukhov // Vestnik Vâtskogo Gosudarstvennogo Gumanitarnogo Universiteta. – № 3-1. – pp. 67-71.
* Smith, Glenn H. ''Langer of North Dakota: A Study in Isolationism, 1940–1959'' (1979). Senator [[William Langer]] ▼
* {{cite book |last1=Sevareid |first1=Eric |title=Between the Wars |date=1978 |publisher=Berkley Books |location=New York |isbn=978-0-425-03971-7}}
▲* {{cite book |last=Smith
* {{cite book |last1=Young |first1=Robert J. |title=An Uncertain Idea of France Essays and Reminiscence on the Third Republic |date=2005 |publisher=Peter Lang |location=New York |isbn=978-0-8204-7481-6}}
* Weinberg, Albert K. "The Historical Meaning of the American Doctrine of Isolation." ''American Political Science Review'' 34#3 (1940): 539–547. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/1949358 in JSTOR]
| |||