The Col. Gentile collection and debate

[AmericanPride]

How then is the narrative of American isolationism reconciled with the country's history of expansionism?

[selil]

How then is the narrative of American isolationism reconciled with the country's history of expansionism?

Fredrick Jackson Turner explains that pretty well. Manifest destiny being only part of the American experience versus the Europeans experience. As an example much of American expansionism was purchased (Louisiana Purchase, Alaska), or brought in under treaty (Texas, Samoa, USVI), or acts from responses to acts of war (Philippines). Yes I'm being very general. However, the expansion characteristics were very different than European.

Just don't ask an American Indian about this.

Talking with my wife (who schools me on FJ Turner often or I wouldn't have a clue).. Europe has a tendency to identify America by what they see on the East Coast (e.g. New York or Miami). Asia has a tendency to identify America with what they see on the West Coast (e.g. LA, San Fran, Seattle). Americans as citizens have a tendency to regionalize their politics (e.g. Texas). The result is a heterogenous mixture of politics that can create behavior that outsiders consider contradictory yet is quite consistent.

It is interesting that Europeans expand by conquering and holding. America is unique in that we gave back the Philippines, gave back Panama, Puerto Rico and Samoa are one vote from being separate national entities. Contrast that to Europe's experience in Africa and other places.

And, yes let me add I know I am far afield from my own area of study and base much of this on the few dozen books I've read on the topic. I think the idea is consistent with the historical evidence but as you said Kagan and others engage in a substantive counter narrative. I know I don't have their credentials but this idea of American isolationism and the aberration of the cold war seems to make more sense than American imperialism and world policing. I know I don't have the intellectual evidence to prove my case. Others might I don't know.

[AmericanPride]

Selil,

I agree that the Cold War was an 'aberration' in American history, but with a slightly different take. I reject the idea was isolationist -- we regularly and vigorously pursued expansion abroad at the expense of a number of different peoples and countries. But I would agree that the Cold War represented a shift from non-participation (neutrality) in European-dominated politics to direct intervention and eventually mastery (or at least a semblance of it) of foreign politics.

[Steve Blair]

How then is the narrative of American isolationism reconciled with the country's history of expansionism?

As Selil mentioned, it has much more to do with a geographic focus. Kagan seems inclined to confuse rhetoric with action, and in most cases the public as a whole was opposed to expansion outside what was defined in their minds as our geographic sphere. The war with Mexico was opposed by a significant segment of the population (mainly what was then called the Old Northeast) on both economic and moral grounds, as was perceived imperialism in the Philippines and other locations. We meddled in other locations from time to time, but we very seldom stayed (as opposed to the European experience). It's important when looking at this stuff to draw a clear line between the rantings in newspapers of the period and the actual opinions of the populace (when they can be determined) and actions of policy-makers. Many of our foreign "adventures" were triggered by a perception that a European power might be trying to establish a foothold close by.