Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (September 6, 1941)
DOROTHY THOMPSON SAYS –
“Interventionists” vs. “isolationists”
In a previous article, I referred to the confusion of thinking that arises from the use of inaccurate, falsely descriptive phrases such as “European War”’ and “Western Hemisphere.” In the same way, we are misled by the words “isolationist” and “interventionist.” The word “isolationist” has come, in the popular mind, to mean the no-war party; the word “interventionist” suggests an action to be taken far from home, for moral or ideological considerations divorced from our actual interests or security.
Actually, there are two viewpoints in America regarding the means by which we should defend ourselves, and regarding our position in the world. If these two viewpoints were made really clear, and were not obfuscated by clichés, the American people as a whole would be better able to make a choice. Let us try to clarify things.
The so-called interventionists, of which I am one, believe that the United States belongs, as a nation, to a world that is already a closed system. There are no more undiscovered and unclaimed territories. Since the building of the Panama Canal and successful navigation, not only through the canals but around the Capes, there are not two oceans, but one.
The division of labor, resulting from the industrial revolution, and the distribution of capital, science and technology all over the globe; the increase in the means and speed of communication; the immense rise in the standard of living of the highly developed peoples, making them dependent even upon foods from distant nations; and the development of industry, which, in its turn, is dependent upon metals and other raw materials from all parts of the earth, all indicate the leading fact of the century, namely that we are bound by a thousand chains to every part of the planet, and directly subjected to shock from major disturbances anywhere in it.
We, who are called interventionists, drawing our conclusions from obvious facts, have therefore long demanded a clear and realistic foreign policy continually imposing the discipline of its logic upon such matters as trade, loans, capital investments, cultural exchanges and armed aggressions; a continual and unremitting intervention, during peace, in all the affairs where we are concerned, which are, demonstrably, in all parts of the planet.
We have been champions of peace by realism – peace by the constant exercise of power. Since we are not imperialists, believing that the modern world of established nationalities demands cooperative organization and not conquest, we have demanded the creation of some form of collective security with our participation; opposition to all attempts on the part of one power or group of powers to monopolize markets or raw materials; collaboration with all other peoples for the more reasonable organization and distribution of surplus commodities on an international rather than a national balance sheet; and collaboration with others progressively to raise the standard of living in all nations to something approximately our own.
Political isolationism has not only been an American slogan; it has been the slogan of scores of nations. It has been in conflict, however, with economic reality. The conflict has resulted in international anarchy, which has resulted in war. And, again, any major war for the purpose of effecting basic changes involves us directly and inevitably.
We, who are called interventionists, predicted this war. We did not create it. We warned that it was coming unless we and others mended our ways, and we desperately attempted to arouse our leaders in Congress and the public to collaborate in means to avert it. The “isolationists,” on the other hand, insisted that we were calamity howlers, and for 20 years have committed us to a lack of policy which helped make the war inevitable.
The war now being here, we, the “interventionists,” are in favor of exercising long delayed foresight and fighting for our rights, our security, our interests, and the kind of world we want to live in, by the use of seapower, and the aid of other people’s armies, on other people’s soil, and outside either our own territory or any contiguous territory. We look upon the Navy as our permanent and basic defense arm, with the Army as merely its aid from time to time.
We wish to maintain such relations with all neighbors contiguous to us on land that it is never necessary for the United States to support permanently a huge standing army. We see no advantage to the United States in further expanding its contiguous territory, and we see profound threats to our liberties and our prosperity in a situation that requires that we become a great landpower with permanent standing forces.
Naval defense means freedom from militarism. It is the only form of defense compatible in the long run with the sort of personal liberty we have historically enjoyed, along with the other English-speaking peoples.
Naval defense means interventionism. That is its logic.
The logic of what calls itself “isolationism” leads to annexationism, huge permanent armies, aggressive imperialism, and also war – but war for different purposes and in a different area.
In the next column, I shall try to show that this is true and that Mr. Lindbergh and Senator Clark, at least, know it.