There’s been a lot of fear-mongering recently about Isolationism, the policy of remaining separate from the affairs of other countries in favor of focusing on internal issues. Some pundits go so far as to invoke the spectre of North Korea, the classic hermit kingdom which has shut out the rest of the world since the cease-fire that ended the Korean War (we’ll ignore that North Korea is not as isolated as conventional thinking tells us; several documentaries and current events have taught us that they are indeed a player on the world stage – even sending their citizens to other countries to work and funnel money back to the motherland).
The point is that whenever a presidential candidate (say, Bernie Sanders) brings up the fact that maybe – just maybe – the United States should not be meddling in the affairs of every country on the face of the earth, they’re immediately lambasted as being “isolationist”.
Isolationism and Non-Interventionism
What people like Bernie Sanders are talking about, however, is not isolationism but a different policy entirely, namely, “non-interventionism.” What is that, you ask? I’ll tell you.
The basic definition of non-interventionism is a policy of foreign affairs where a nation does not interfere with the affairs of other countries, but, and this is key, retains diplomatic and trade relations with them. Most importantly, they do not engage in wars unless in self-defense.
In other words, an isolationist country completely withdraws itself from the rest of the world, both diplomatically and militarily. A non-interventionist country only withdraws itself militarily while remaining a player on the world stage. As such, we would still have a seat in the United Nations and still be involved in world issues. We would just no longer be directly involved in every country’s internal affairs.
Sounds good, right? So why, then, is this stance being misrepresented and mocked? In a word, money.
Money Is the Root of All Imperialism
Yes, again. We revisit our good old friend, money. This isn’t really a secret to anyone at this point but much of our foreign policy is bankrolled by multiple “defense contractors”, collectively known as the “Military Industrial Complex”, or by the more appropriate moniker: “America’s War Machine”.
Every time America invades another country under the pretext of “spreading freedom”, these companies profit. This is despite the fact that the Army itself has said multiple times that it doesn’t need any more tanks; they’re being pumped out of the factories and sent straight to the deserts of Nevada to rust away. But the contracts keep coming, because all that matters is profit.
The Military Industrial Complex owns politicians on both sides of the aisle, though they do own more Republicans than Democrats. Not that it matters. The Overton Window on war is so far to the right that the only argument allowed on mainstream networks is whether we should have a full-scale invasion of a country or if we should just do drone strikes. Nowhere is the concept of not doing anything addressed.
But I digress. The point is that non-interventionism is painted as isolationism because of these corporations. It isn’t rocket science. If you stand to make billions of dollars by keeping America involved in wars in every country on the planet, of course you’d be against any attempt to stop those “interventions”. And as we’ve learned from Manufacturing Consent, the mainstream media acts as the obedient servant to power, happily pushing out their agenda.
So What Do We Do About It?
Unfortunately on this issue there isn’t much we can do. We can spread the word about the differences between the two policies. We can counter the misinformation about them when we hear it. And, of course, we can vote for and support progressive candidates. Bernie Sanders is a good start. He’s the best candidate running, and he’s going to need all the help he can get to fight through the veritable colossus standing against him. He also knows the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism.
But even he can’t do it by himself. It’s going to take more than just the White House to change things. We’re also going to have to take back both houses of Congress. Fortunately, we have a whole slew of new progressives running. I’m going to link a few below. Check them out, and support them if you can. Every bit helps.
Candidate List:
- Shahid Buttar, running against Nancy Pelosi in CA. If you hate how she’s been dragging her feet on impeachment, he’s our best bet to get rid of her.
- Lauren Ashcraft, running to replace Carolyn Maloney in NY, a millionaire who’s campaign contributions flow from the financial center. If you want to stop the big banks from gambling with your retirement accounts, Lauren’s a good place to start.
- Nathanial Mulcahy, running to replace Seth Moulton in MA. Seth Moulton receives money from Raytheon, one of the players in the Military Industrial Complex. Help remove him.
- Albert Lee, running to replace Earl Blumenauer in OR. Earl, while not the worst establishment Dem, still stands in the way of several policies that would benefit the people, such as Medicare for All & Housing for the Homeless.
- Donna Imam, running to replace John Carter in TX. John Carter is a Republican. Do I really need to explain why he needs to go? He takes money from Raytheon & other defense contractors.
There are many, many more progressives running throughout the country. See if there are any in your district, and support them. It’s the only way to take back our country from the oligarchs. And for the love of god, remember the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism.