Current Events & Trends: American Isolation: Will history repeat itself?

All who are familiar with U.S. history in the 1930s and early 40s know that prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, many members of Congress tended to be isolationist in their approach to foreign wars, particularly the conflict in Europe. However, President Franklin Roosevelt certainly helped Britain, as much as the political climate at the time would permit him. 

But is America now beginning to enter another isolationist phase? Gideon Rachman reported in the Financial Times: "The death of the leader of al-Qaeda allowed Barack Obama in effect to call an end to the 'War on Terror' as the organising principle of US foreign policy. The withdrawal of American troops from Iraq at the end of the year sent the same message and set the stage for a similar pull-out from Afghanistan over the next three years" ("Our Age of Mounting Indignation," Dec. 30, 2011).

Weary of knotty problems and troublesome conflicts on a global scale, could America eventually decide to go it alone? Philip Stephens, also a columnist for the Financial Times, stated: "For its part the US is retrenching. It has grown tired of wars and has been piling up deficits and debts. Barack Obama has announced big cuts in the Pentagon's budget. America will be more sparing in its deployment of military might. Europe will have to look after itself and much of the greater Middle East will be left to itself" ("How a Self-Sufficient America Could Go It Alone," Jan. 13, 2012).

One of the reasons some observers and citizens in the United States may contemplate a more isolationist approach is Washington's track record in its association with international bodies.

The American Spectator'sreview of The New Road to Serfdom by Daniel Hannan, a Conservative Member of the European Parliament for Southeast England, stated: "In his chapter on America's position in the world, Hannan points out how just about every international body or agreement that America seeks to join is poisonous to her republic. International judges seek to undermine the Constitution, while the 'human rights' establishment celebrates anti-American dictators. In every area, these global institutions eschew the American ideal of actually doing something about a problem in favor of the bad European habit of confusing declamation with action—except when it comes to actions that undermine American sovereignty" ("Two Roads Diverged," December 2010-January 2011).

Columnist Stephens tells why America is probably the only viable candidate for a more isolationist approach to the world's problems. "It [America] is the most secure...It is rich in natural resources. New technology in oil and gas extraction has transformed the energy industry. The US is headed for self-sufficiency in energy, and by some accounts could become a significant net exporter" (ibid.).

Although the United States' economy is increasingly becoming more integrated into the global economic framework, its potentially isolationist tendencies are not that far from the surface, and there are now some signs of their possible emergence out of the woodwork. After all, America's first president, George Washington, did warn the country to stay clear of foreign and especially European entanglements.

Still, as Philip Stephens concludes: "A world of everyone for themselves would leave everyone poorer." We look forward to a coming true utopian age promised in the Bible—ending our troubled relationships first with God and then with one another. To learn more, read our free Bible study aid booklet The Gospel of the Kingdom. (Sources: Financial Times [London], The American Spectator.)