In the U.K. election thread, the discussion veered off into the realm of discussing interventionist foreign policy vs. the desire for less intervention among Europe's populace. This got me thinking about how societal attitudes toward interventionism develop and are affected by the world's power balance.
My argument is that Western citizens view interventionism in a way that is dependent on their own country's power. It's easy to see that Americans generally support more military interventionism in the world today than most Europeans do. Some claim this is a cultural thing, but I think it goes beyond that.
America has gone through several periods of alternating between interventionism and isolationism.
Our interventionist periods are generally well known. The Monroe Doctrine was one of the first major policies set forth by us to address interventionism and helped underline our suspicions concerning European interventionism at the time. Manifest Destiny was the mindset for our expansion across the continent while displacing Native Americans. Eventually, we went to war with Mexico. Half a century later, we entered an interventionist period where we annexed Hawaii and went to war with Spain -- acquiring land in the Caribbean and the Pacific in the aftermath.
All the while during this, Europe was interventionist as well, but the significance of their interventionism was that they were much more more powerful relative to the world than they are today, in terms of militaries. By WWI, things were changing significantly. America was recognized as a major military power with its contributions to WWI, but understandably, we were reluctant to get involved in a European war yet again with WWII.
It's hard to fathom this now, but FDR had to try hard to sell getting involved in WWII to the American public. There was strong opposition to it stemming from memories of WWI. After WWII, things changed dramatically when it came to the world's power balance militarily. The Cold War established that only 2 countries truly stood at the top of the power spectrum: the U.S. and Russia. China and the U.K. were still significant, but not quite at the same level of power.
This was very different from the paradigm of the colonial period. From about 1500 to 1800, Europe was, without question, home to the most militarily powerful nations on the planet. The U.S. slowly rose in power during the 1800s, but it wasn't really until after WWI that the world's balance of power changed to the point of altering people's preferences in policy.
Nowadays, most Europeans seem to prefer less interventionism as compared to Americans, but again, I think this is only because of the current power balance. If America was less powerful, then our people would probably lean more towards isolationism. Since Europe has been waning in military power for the last several decades relative to Russia and China, it's understandable that they would be more isolationist instead.
Generally speaking, the most isolationist countries tend to be the smallest ones, most likely because of their lack of military power.
One of our earliest Vice Presidents seemed to sum up the consequences of a large military well -- "A standing army is like a standing member. It's an excellent assurance of domestic tranquility, but a dangerous temptation to foreign adventure." -- Elbridge Gerry
So, I guess my question is... Is the level of interventionism in a society's foreign policy less based on culture and more based on relative level of military power?
My argument is that Western citizens view interventionism in a way that is dependent on their own country's power. It's easy to see that Americans generally support more military interventionism in the world today than most Europeans do. Some claim this is a cultural thing, but I think it goes beyond that.
America has gone through several periods of alternating between interventionism and isolationism.
Our interventionist periods are generally well known. The Monroe Doctrine was one of the first major policies set forth by us to address interventionism and helped underline our suspicions concerning European interventionism at the time. Manifest Destiny was the mindset for our expansion across the continent while displacing Native Americans. Eventually, we went to war with Mexico. Half a century later, we entered an interventionist period where we annexed Hawaii and went to war with Spain -- acquiring land in the Caribbean and the Pacific in the aftermath.
All the while during this, Europe was interventionist as well, but the significance of their interventionism was that they were much more more powerful relative to the world than they are today, in terms of militaries. By WWI, things were changing significantly. America was recognized as a major military power with its contributions to WWI, but understandably, we were reluctant to get involved in a European war yet again with WWII.
It's hard to fathom this now, but FDR had to try hard to sell getting involved in WWII to the American public. There was strong opposition to it stemming from memories of WWI. After WWII, things changed dramatically when it came to the world's power balance militarily. The Cold War established that only 2 countries truly stood at the top of the power spectrum: the U.S. and Russia. China and the U.K. were still significant, but not quite at the same level of power.
This was very different from the paradigm of the colonial period. From about 1500 to 1800, Europe was, without question, home to the most militarily powerful nations on the planet. The U.S. slowly rose in power during the 1800s, but it wasn't really until after WWI that the world's balance of power changed to the point of altering people's preferences in policy.
Nowadays, most Europeans seem to prefer less interventionism as compared to Americans, but again, I think this is only because of the current power balance. If America was less powerful, then our people would probably lean more towards isolationism. Since Europe has been waning in military power for the last several decades relative to Russia and China, it's understandable that they would be more isolationist instead.
Generally speaking, the most isolationist countries tend to be the smallest ones, most likely because of their lack of military power.
One of our earliest Vice Presidents seemed to sum up the consequences of a large military well -- "A standing army is like a standing member. It's an excellent assurance of domestic tranquility, but a dangerous temptation to foreign adventure." -- Elbridge Gerry
So, I guess my question is... Is the level of interventionism in a society's foreign policy less based on culture and more based on relative level of military power?
