Follow us on social

What it means when someone calls you an 'isolationist'

What it means when someone calls you an 'isolationist'

When war-boosters like Max Boot don’t have a comeback, they turn to smears

Analysis | Washington Politics

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “isolationism” as “a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations.”

In a recent article exploring the foreign policy positions of Donald Trump’s potential running mates, Washington Post columnist Max Boot described the Quincy Institute, the publisher of Responsible Statecraft, as “an isolationist think tank” when referencing a comment Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) made at a QI conference earlier this year.

Except you won’t find any policy paper, analysis, commentary or public statement from the Quincy Institute promoting “a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations.” Nor will you find any such content on Responsible Statecraft.

In fact, the policy positions the Quincy Institute promotes are just the opposite; they are rooted in rigorous, multilateral engagement with countries around the world — at times through formal or informal alliances — to solve problems through diplomacy, while eschewing, where and whenever possible, the now very common American push for a military first approach.

It’s the latter point about the utility of U.S. military power in solving problems that causes heartburn for so many American national security establishmentarians like Max Boot. But we’ll get back to that.

Given Boot’s false characterization of the Quincy Institute, QI leadership asked editors at the Washington Post to issue a correction. But they refused. “The column's characterization of the institute reflected the writer's considered opinion and thus does not lend itself to correction as a factual error,” a Post editor said.

Instead, the Post offered QI the opportunity to respond to Boot’s article by writing a letter to the editor. In it, Quincy Institute CEO Lora Lumpe noted that while QI “challenges the United States’ overreliance on the use of military force, we do not in any way favor American retreat from the world.” Lumpe then went through a litany of QI policy positions that in no way resemble any kind of “isolationism” and concluded: “The institute should appear ‘isolationist’ only to those who believe that the only meaningful way for the U.S. to engage in the world is by waging war.”

I don’t know what a “considered opinion” is but it’s pretty clear that Boot’s description of the Quincy Institute is based on a factual error. The burden of proof is on him to show how QI advocates isolationism. In her LTE, QI’s Lora Lumpe provided ample evidence to the contrary, which should just be another nail in the coffin.

But the truth is that while correcting the record is perfectly appropriate in this and other similar cases, there’s never going to be enoughwell actually-ing” to satisfy those throwing about the “isolationism” smear against those in pursuit of international peace. Critics of the Quincy Institute, and its ideological allies, don’t care whether what they espouse is actually isolationist. They use the charge to try to undermine restraint in U.S. foreign policy because most often, they don’t have much by way of substantive arguments to counter it.

And it’s well documented that there are a variety of constituencies in Washington and beyond — whether they’re newspaper columnists, lawmakers, lobbyists, think tank “experts,” or weapons company executives — that stand to lose both politically and financially should the United States start trimming fat off the Pentagon budget, cooperate with Beijing, or end the war in Ukraine.

The darker side of this coin is that these critics know that the isolationism charge is meant to link the accused to the isolationist movement from the 1930s, which itself had an undercurrent of anti-semitism and rhymes with Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Nazi Germany.

So in that sense, those screaming “isolationist” at restrainers and proponents of peace aren’t that different from others (or in many cases, the very same people) calling advocates of diplomacy with Iran and critics of Israeli government policy “anti-semites.”

The people who level these accusations know that the military first approach of the last 20-plus years has yielded disastrous results not just for U.S. interests, power and prestige, but also for those around the world whose lives, families and communities have been ruined by misbegotten American military adventures. They can’t make that case. But they can call you an “isolationist.”

The irony here is that many of these same people who go around calling proponents of diplomacy “isolationist” are themselves advocates of lobbing sanctions on any country that dares say anything bad about the United States. Wouldn’t Merriam-Webster then call that isolationism?


Palestinians inspect their destroyed homes after an Israeli air strike on a house belonging to the Hassan family, in the Nuseirat camp in the central Gaza Strip, on May 19, 2024. Anas-Mohammed / Shutterstock.com

Analysis | Washington Politics
Recep Tayyip Erdogan Benjamin Netanyahu
Top photo credit: President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Shutterstock/ Mustafa Kirazli) and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Salty View/Shutterstock)
Is Turkey's big break with Israel for real?

Why Israel is now turning its sights on Turkey

Middle East

As the distribution of power shifts in the region, with Iran losing relative power and Israel and Turkey emerging on top, an intensified rivalry between Tel Aviv and Ankara is not a question of if, but how. It is not a question of whether they choose the rivalry, but how they choose to react to it: through confrontation or peaceful management.

As I describe in Treacherous Alliance, a similar situation emerged after the end of the Cold War: The collapse of the Soviet Union dramatically changed the global distribution of power, and the defeat of Saddam's Iraq in the Persian Gulf War reshuffled the regional geopolitical deck. A nascent bipolar regional structure took shape with Iran and Israel emerging as the two main powers with no effective buffer between them (since Iraq had been defeated). The Israelis acted on this first, inverting the strategy that had guided them for the previous decades: The Doctrine of the Periphery. According to this doctrine, Israel would build alliances with the non-Arab states in its periphery (Iran, Turkey, and Ethiopia) to balance the Arab powers in its vicinity (Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, respectively).

keep readingShow less
Havana, Cuba
Top Image Credit: Havana, Cuba, 2019. (CLWphoto/Shutterstock)

Trump lifted sanctions on Syria. Now do Cuba.

North America

President Trump’s new National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) on Cuba, announced on June 30, reaffirms the policy of sanctions and hostility he articulated at the start of his first term in office. In fact, the new NSPM is almost identical to the old one.

The policy’s stated purpose is to “improve human rights, encourage the rule of law, foster free markets and free enterprise, and promote democracy” by restricting financial flows to the Cuban government. It reaffirms Trump’s support for the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, which explicitly requires regime change — that Cuba become a multiparty democracy with a free market economy (among other conditions) before the U.S. embargo will be lifted.

keep readingShow less
SPD Germany Ukraine
Top Photo: Lars Klingbeil (l-r, SPD), Federal Minister of Finance, Vice-Chancellor and SPD Federal Chairman, and Bärbel Bas (SPD), Federal Minister of Labor and Social Affairs and SPD Party Chairwoman, bid farewell to the members of the previous Federal Cabinet Olaf Scholz (SPD), former Federal Chancellor, Nancy Faeser, Saskia Esken, SPD Federal Chairwoman, Karl Lauterbach, Svenja Schulze and Hubertus Heil at the SPD Federal Party Conference. At the party conference, the SPD intends to elect a new executive committee and initiate a program process. Kay Nietfeld/dpa via Reuters Connect

Does Germany’s ruling coalition have a peace problem?

Europe

Surfacing a long-dormant intra-party conflict, the Friedenskreise (peace circles) within the Social Democratic Party of Germany has published a “Manifesto on Securing Peace in Europe” in a stark challenge to the rearmament line taken by the SPD leaders governing in coalition with the conservative CDU-CSU under Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

Although the Manifesto clearly does not have broad support in the SPD, the party’s leader, Deputy Chancellor and Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil, won only 64% support from the June 28-29 party conference for his performance so far, a much weaker endorsement than anticipated. The views of the party’s peace camp may be part of the explanation.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.