In the Beltway foreign policy bubble, the word “leadership” is typically associated with flexing military muscle overseas or intervening into global problems head-first. “Resolve” is defined as staying the course in the face of adversity, no matter how treacherous the situation is or how misguided the mission.
But there is no term deployed with such vigor by the foreign policy establishment as “isolationist.” Isolationist, isolationism, or other variations of the word are almost always meant by those levying it as an insult. If you oppose keeping thousands of U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Syria indefinitely, prize steely-eyed diplomatic solutions over launching Tomahawks, or dare to question a single precept of U.S. strategy over the past 30 years, you better brace yourself — you’re an “isolationist.”
The fine men and women of the Quincy Institute, a new foreign policy think tank seeking to bring more clarity and restraint to a foreign policy community that could use more of both, are experiencing this slander as we speak.
Founded by Boston University professor Andrew Bacevich, historian Stephen Wertheim, Carnegie Endowment senior fellow Suzanne DiMaggio, and foreign policy writer Eli Clifton, the Quincy Institute is the collaborative product of an emerging left-right alliance of restrainers, realists, and progressives hoping to evolve U.S. foreign policy in a less hubristic direction.
The bipartisan nature of this vision is evident in the fact that both the libertarian-leaning Koch Brothers and liberal billionaire George Soros have supported the organization. Its mission statement is as sensible as it is refreshing: “The Quincy Institute is an action-oriented think tank that will lay the foundation for a new foreign policy centered on diplomatic engagement and military restraint.”
Who can argue with that?
Well, it turns out a lot of people can. The intervene-first, ask-questions-later crowd wants this fruitful initiative to fail. And so, as they have done for years, hawks from both parties are shooting the isolationist attack-line toward the new institute and anyone who supports restraint in foreign affairs.
Pro-war pundit Bill Kristol, known for a record of advocating for foreign policy failures, was the first one out of the gate.
75 years of a US-led liberal international order, based on a US forward presence and backed by US might, with regional and bilateral alliances and relatively free trade, has enabled remarkable peace and prosperity. But let’s go back to the 1920’s and 30’s! https://t.co/eFF3yb7Ty2
— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) July 1, 2019
Then it was the Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano’s turn. Referencing “new think tanks” but taking care to avoid the Quincy Institute by name, Carafano scoffed at those who want to wind down generation-long military entanglements in places like Afghanistan. They are “carpers” content with “doing nothing,” choosing to sit in the bleachers rather than be the quarterback.
“Even in this age of great power competition,” Carafano writes, “these ‘new’ isolationists would prefer America step off the playing field and wave from the sidelines.”
There’s not one acknowledgment in their criticisms as to why so many believe getting out of these absurdly expensive wars would actually be a boon for an emerging era of great power competition rather than a bust. But who needs evidence when you can just wield the good ole “isolationist” pejorative to shut down the conversation?
Those brandishing this lazy tactic need to consult a dictionary and look up what the word “isolationist” really means. They’re entitled to their own positions and are free to promote them. But those of us advocating for more realism are allowed to do the same. If you want to engage in a rigorous debate about America’s role in the world, it can be done without ad-hominem attacks.
And if you think low-blows are going to work, you are sadly mistaken. The American people deserve a robust foreign policy conversation, but they don’t want or need more mindless and thoughtless punches below the belt.
Daniel DePetris (@DanDePetris) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. His opinions are his own.
