When isolationism ruled the land
In January 1938, Rep. Louis Ludlow, an Indiana Democrat, proposed a constitutional amendment strongly supported by the public: “Except in the event of an invasion of the United States or its territorial possessions and attack upon its citizens residing therein, the authority of Congress to declare war shall not become effective until confirmed by a majority of all votes cast thereon in a nationwide referendum.”
Although narrowly defeated, 209-188, it might have passed without President Franklin Roosevelt's last-minute opposition.
During Barack Obama's sinuous progress toward a Syria policy, he has suggested, without using the word, that isolationism is among his afflictions. But the term “isolationism” is being bandied as an epithet, not to serve as an argument for U.S. military interventions but as a substitute for an argument. To understand the debate that roiled America before World War II is to understand why today's reservations about interventionism are not a recrudescence of isolationism.
In “Those Angry Days,” her new history of the intense nationwide controversy about whether America should enter World War II, Lynne Olson concludes that “by December 1941, the American people had been thoroughly educated about the pros and cons of their country's entry into the conflict and were far less opposed to the idea of going to war than conventional wisdom has it.”
Events, especially the fall of France, were most educational. Before this, however, isolationism was broadly embraced as a rational response for an America situated between two broad oceans.
“Of the hell broth that is brewing in Europe,” wrote Ernest Hemingway in 1935, “we have no need to drink.” America's military — what little there was: the Army's size was 17th in the world, behind Portugal's — largely agreed. The Neutrality Acts banned U.S. arms sales to countries at war and denied Roosevelt the power to apply the prohibition only against aggressor nations.
FDR's enormous domestic policy blunder — his attempt to pack the Supreme Court, for which he was resoundingly rebuked in the 1938 midterm elections — made him extremely tentative about attempting to lead public opinion regarding U.S. involvement in Europe. Others were not bashful.
Yale University incubated the America First organization. An undergraduate, Kingman Brewster, later Yale's president and U.S. ambassador to Britain, was a founder. Other Yale student-members included future Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, future President Gerald Ford, and Sargent Shriver, future head of the Peace Corps under his brother-in-law President John Kennedy, who as a Harvard undergraduate sent $100 to America First.
Olson says that in 1940, when the interventionist Wendell Willkie, the Republicans' presidential nominee, campaigned, isolationists pelted him with “everything from rotten eggs, fruits, vegetables, rocks, and light bulbs to an office chair and wastebasket,” and “The New York Times ran a daily box score of the number of items thrown and those that found their target.” Montana's Burton Wheeler, a senator since 1923, compared Lend-Lease for Britain with FDR's program for plowing under crops to raise prices. He said Lend-Lease “will plow under every fourth American boy.”
It is preposterous to equate today's mild debates about foreign policy with the furies unleashed by, and against, real isolationism. Yet again, ignorance of history causes us to disparage the present.
George F. Will is a columnist for The Washington Post and Newsweek.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Steelers film session: Harrison on the field often
- Steelers are vowing to fix the costly penalties, lack of self-discipline
- Mental health facility won’t take Franklin Regional stabbing suspect as patient
- Prosecutors float possibility of jail time for former Justice Melvin
- Body found in Allegheny River near Clemente Bridge
- 20 improbable Pirates wins in 2014
- Controller recommends hiring to reduce 911 center overtime
- Charter school founder’s court hearing must remain open
- Healthy again, Penguins’ Dupuis eager for game action
- Gunfire plagues New Kensington
- Fundraising under way for Indiana County newborn struck by stray bullet