containment and the like expressed by Historians and Political Scientists based on their readings.

As one who was an adult predominately engaged with and strongly interested in 'national security' but who also worked in various civilian enterprises and lived in several areas of the nation throughout the entire period, the consistent take of American attitudes expressed in such histories is well off the mark IMO.

Much of the historical 'data' is of necessity derived from period writings and media or from interviews or 'oral history' from the anointed of the era. It has been my observation over the years that the majority of academics, writers and media persons, the "anointed," do not well understand the great unwashed in so called middle America and about whom they write. That shows in much current history of the period. They may get the big events about right, sort of have to do that, however, their perceptions of public beliefs and attitudes is general significantly skewed compared to my recollections. The "idealist" approach to foreign policy has always been present amongst the power structure in this nation, all ideologies -- it has almost never been present among the hoi polloi -- tolerated, yes but endorsed or even believed for a second -- no.

Spanier, for example, back in the day was basically a proponent of "exceptionalism" and decried the ignorance and isolationism of the masses who were willing to essentailly ignore Communism as a minor annoyance, which it was. The masses weren't nearly as stupid as he perceived...

All that to say: Some Americans buy into the BS both parties and all politicians and would be demagogues spew. Most do not. Never have, really.

Rather they are in fact amazingly tolerant of the many errors of the anointed...

(and yes, I've read the book. Not the latest iteration but some years ago. )