The recent passage of the latest Ukrainian aid package exposed some cracks and fissures inside the Republican Party in Washington. The measure passed, but not with any sort of unanimity within the GOP. Aid for Israel similarly sailed through, but there were defectors on the side of the Democrats. Among the non-MAGA, more moderate Republicans, one word that keeps cropping up lately is "isolationism." But is that truly what we are seeing? I was no fan of the Ukraine bill, so does that make me an isolationist? At the New York Post, Niall Ferguson has published a lengthy op-ed on the subject. It's filled with dark imagery, summoning up The Lord of the Rings and the unholy alliance between Sauron, Saruman, the orcs, and others in an epic battle against the forces of good. This is presented as a parallel to Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea threatening the forces of the West, with a need for America to once again play the roles of Frodo and Gandalf lest darkness rule the land.
I was reminded of Tolkien by a post from the conservative broadcaster Mark R. Levin: “Appeasement is escalation. Our enemies are on the move. Our allies are being encircled and attacked or soon attacked. . . . Conservatism and MAGA are not about isolationism or pacifism. . . . It is up to us, patriotic Americans, to step into the breach and get this done now.”
The significance of Levin’s intervention is that it puts him on a collision course with the isolationist elements within the Republican Party, such as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who threatened to oust House Speaker Mike Johnson if he pressed ahead with a bill to restore aid to Ukraine.
“We are going to stand for freedom and make sure that Vladimir Putin doesn’t march through Europe,” Johnson declared. “We have to project to Putin, Xi, and Iran, and North Korea, and anybody else that we will defend freedom.”
I believe Ferguson could have made a more persuasive and convincing argument if he didn't devote so much space to simply hurling insults. He lumps Marjorie Taylor Greene and Tucker Carlson together as Vladimir Putin’s “useful idiots,” comparing them to Hitler and Stalin's apologists in the runup to the Second World War. I have no problem with historical comparisons since they are frequently useful, but when you go from zero to Hitler that quickly, you're not looking for a fruitful debate.
With that said, let's consider how the term "isolationism" is currently being defined and ponder whether or not we fully grasp the potential threats we face from today's dark forces. I do not deny for a moment that Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea have been forging a new Axis of Evil. I've been talking (and writing) about that for years. The evidence is all around us, and Ferguson points to a number of appropriate examples.
One major sticking point is the way that isolationism in the GOP is currently being defined by how limitless your support for Ukraine is. If you voted for or supported the Ukraine aid bill, you're one of the good guys wearing the white hats. If not, you're tagged with the dreaded isolationist label. However, you will notice that you receive absolutely no "anti-isolationist" credit for supporting aid to Israel in its war against Iran's proxies. These same critics feel that financial aid and military hardware for Taiwan is fine and "sends the right message." But you are cautioned to not become too aggressive about it lest we be drawn into a war with China. You can see what a mixed bag this is and how isolationism is conveniently defined in whichever way it best suits the critic at the moment.
Let's take the three situations individually. The Ukraine war is what it is. Russia might have been dissuaded from invading by a more forceful role being displayed in Washington, but it's too late to fret over that now. Is it really an isolationist view to question the wisdom of sending yet more military aid to Ukraine in a war they are clearly losing at the moment? Is it isolationist to argue in favor of a negotiated peace to at least end the killing and destruction even if it comes at the cost of Ukraine losing some territory in the east? I would argue that it's not.
Support for Israel is neither hawkish nor isolationist. Unlike Ukraine, they are fighting a war they can win and they're not asking America or anyone else to fight it for them. That situation needs to be monitored closely, of course, but it shouldn't be tied in with the debate over Ukraine. At the same time, the ties between Hamas and Iran can't be ignored because the new Axis of Evil extends its reach throughout the region and action against them may very well be required at some point.
China is the biggest question mark at the moment. They are spreading fuel, military aid, and wealth among our enemies. There is no doubt about that. They have also vastly expanded their military forces, particularly involving their navy and their satellite programs. But they are not actively fighting anyone at the moment. I would conservatively put the odds of them making a move on Taiwan prior to 2027 at roughly 50-50. It could happen, but they could also stick with public posturing as long as they aren't worried about their own security being threatened. So what should America's position be in that situation if you're attempting to prove you're not an "isolationist?" China is part of the new Axis of Evil and they are a powerful threat to be sure. Should we be preparing to go to war if they move on Taiwan militarily? Should we take a position similar to the one we have with Israel and stay on the sidelines while sending a stream of aid to try to let Taiwan defend itself against its vastly more powerful neighbor? If so, what if Taiwan falls, as many military analysts believe they would? What options remain then aside from clucking our tongues at China or launching World War 3?
As you can see, isolationism is an easy claim to make, but it's much harder to prove or even define. I don't want a war with either Russia or China, though I wouldn't be opposed to permanently crippling Iran. North Korea's president is all bluster and we should safely be able to ignore him for the time being. I put no stock in claims that Vladimir Putin will continue a march across Europe if he defeats Ukraine. He would be attacking our NATO allies if he did. Mad Vlad is crazy, but he's not that crazy. As for China, I have no idea what the best approach is at this point. If I were that smart I'd probably be running for president myself. If you think that makes me an isolationist, so be it. But that's not how I see it.
