New Jersey Jewish News
Commentary
A troubling alliance seizes isolationism
The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, among others, have begun to suggest there are serious voices in
this country speaking of a return to isolationism. At the same time, there are clear voices heard in favor of internationalism, especially in the economic realm.
To understand this debate, two observations must be made. The first is that an isolationist tendency is emerging across party lines. The second is that the Jewish community ought to seriously consider what might be the consequence to Israel should the United States shift away from internationalism.
Since his State of the Union address in January, President George W. Bush has been bandying around the message that the Congress and the American people should beware of growing isolationism. From the administration’s perspective, there is indeed much to lose should there be a true turn inward even in the short term. The Iraq war and the war on terror need decisive public support, especially as the casualty count continues to climb. In addition, the administration has established a clear position of support for broader and deeper foreign investment in the United States and improved trading conditions throughout the world for American businesses. The Dubai ports deal was merely one of the latest arrangements that Washington has sought to foster with friendly governments, especially those with abundant capital resources. A shift in public support on any of these issues would be a slap in the face of the administration and could encumber any of these international overtures.
Yet the outcry against the Dubai deal caught the administration totally off guard. Republican and Democratic members of the House and Senate correctly gauged how deeply the public and the press objected to the deal. Taking into account the public’s legitimate concerns over security, and their own possible vulnerability in November’s congressional elections, Congress launched a bipartisan attack on the administration. In light of this two-pronged onslaught, the president sought a way out of the deal, and Dubai obliged.
(Ironically, few people actually showed much serious concern that only 3 percent to 5 percent of all cargo containers entering these very same ports are actually scanned or physically inspected — a much more serious threat to security!)
There are, however, two very curious and troubling aspects to all of this agitation over a possible deal for Arab ownership — not operation — of at least six major U.S. ports.
The first problem is the bipartisan sources of the isolationist rhetoric. At least as far back as the 19th century the Republicans have a long streak of isolationism. It was dramatic how many Democratic senators and representatives espoused an anti-internationalist message. Even Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), a long-standing supporter for a strong public role for the United States in world affairs, chose isolationist, protectionist rhetoric for his attack on the ports deal. No doubt some of this clamor might have been based on opposition to the Iraq war and an effort to pin more failures on the Republican administration. Nevertheless, the breadth and scope of the isolationist rhetoric sounded exceedingly reminiscent of America in the 1920s and ’30s.
A growing isolationist tendency within both of the parties could have a very detrimental effect on U.S. willingness to stand in support of the State of Israel. If Israel could not rely on U.S. backing and support — although never unequivocal — for its existence and for its place among the community of nations, life for the Jewish state could become almost unbearable.
An America First policy of disengagement from the world, except as it directly impacts on our own borders and security, would also alter our relationship with international organizations, trade groups, and global commercial ventures.
Most observers suggest that it is highly unlikely that a dramatic anti-internationalist policy will overtake the American political leadership. Ultimately, both strategically and economically, the type of isolationism which split America before World War II can never occur today. The world has changed, and America’s linkages with the world in every sphere — both in the public as well as the private — could not tolerate being isolated. The rumblings over the last few weeks, however, certainly began to suggest that America’s long-standing “know-nothing” tradition is once again rearing its ugly head. It is emerging now not only from the usual suspects but from strange new ones and with potential consequences which never existed during its previous incarnation.
Comment | |
All rights reserved