www.pomed.org · 1611 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 300 · Washington, DC 20009
"American Isolationism: Is It a Myth or a Reality?"
Wilson Center and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Monday, September 15, 2014
Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, 6th Floor Auditorium
On Monday, September 15, the Wilson Center hosted a panel discussion titled "American
Isolationism: Is It a Myth or a Reality?" Former foreign affairs correspondent and news anchor
for CNN, Jill Dougherty, moderated a panel discussion between Jane Harman, President and
CEO of the Wilson Center, Ambassador Ivo Daalder with the Chicago Council on Global
Affairs, and Bruce Jentleson, Professor of Public Policy and Political Science at Duke
University. The panel offered their thoughts and perspectives on the Chicago Council's report
entitled "Foreign Policy in the Age of Retrenchment: Results of the 2014 Chicago Council
Survey of American Public Opinion and US Foreign Policy."
Jane Harman opened the event with remarks on the importance of surveys such as the Chicago
Council's. Although the media and talking heads of our nation often tell us that Americans are
ignorant of foreign policy issues, overly sensitive to emotional rhetoric rather than strategy, the
findings of the 2014 Chicago Council survey suggest otherwise. Americans have more robust
expectations for U.S. foreign policy than "Don't do dumb stuff, plus drones," Harman said. She
concluded with a message for Congress: duck and blame, that is avoiding meaningful
conversations about foreign policy and blaming the administration when something goes wrong,
is not a good strategy. Harman said she wants to see lawmakers held accountable to this fact
during the upcoming election cycle.
Dina Smeltz, co-author of the report, stepped up to the podium to review the key findings of the
2014 survey. Smeltz reiterated that despite the widespread belief that the American public
fluctuates between isolationism and interventionism, the survey results actually indicate that
Americans hold the same beliefs and principles for foreign policy that they did 40 years ago:
Americans prefer a foreign policy that relies on multiple means of engagement, avoiding military
entanglement overseas, while ensuring we remain strong militarily and economically. Smeltz
proceeded by highlighting a few key statistics which supported this conclusion: support for
military action is high when the public senses a direct threat, such as preventing a nuclear Iran
(69%); and even higher when the military action poses little risk to American lives, with 71%
supporting airstrikes against terrorists and further 71% supporting intervention to stop genocide.
However, Americans prefer a diplomacy-first approach to foreign policy, with 77% supporting
diplomatic efforts to stop Iranian enrichment, and at least half of Americans are ready to talk
with leaders of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, the Taliban, Hezbollah, and Hamas.
Jill Dougherty began the panel discussion with a question to Ivo Daalder: what is this we are
seeing, she asked, referring to the results of the survey indicating much less isolationist sentiment
than expected. Daalder replied that the results indicate Americans have a common sense
approach to foreign policy. They are supportive of the use of force when there is minimal risk.
This is coming out of period in which two long wars challenged the American conceptualization
of how effective ground troops can be against certain threats.
Transitioning to Bruce Jentleson, Dougherty asked what we can take away from American
sentiment towards the use of force? Jentleson replied that Americans are not trigger happy, but
the results definitely indicate they are not gun shy either. He expressed confidence in the
American public's understanding that military force is effective at acheiving military objectives,
rather than the commonly held belief that Americans think force can solve most problems.
Remarking on the immediate challenge raised by ISIL, he said that we do have to be careful
about overreacting, because force will not solve all foreign policy problems. The instability that
permitted the rise of ISIL has longstanding roots that long predate the emergence of that terrorist
state.
Dougherty then asked Jane Harman and Ivo Daalder to comment on some particularly surprising
findings: that Democrats are trending towards interventionism, while Republicans are trending
towards isolationism; and that cyber threats top the list of threats which Americans believe to be
the among most critical. Dougherty then transitioned to Harman for her remarks on economics.
Harman said it is a positive thing that Americans hold economic power over military power,
adding that in terms of foreign policy this plays out in a desire to see more free trade agreements
between nations. Harman then changed subjects to ISIL and commented that when it comes to
foreign policy, Americans have to see it as a network of interconnected issues, rather than a
linear game. Harman referred to inconsistency in policies towards the Middle East versus
Ukraine, for example. She added that any policy that seeks to counter ISIL must have Muslims at
its heart—for it is Muslim populations begin most subjugated by ISIL, and any policy the U.S.
implements will fail without their support.
Jill Dougherty then turned to the audience for questions. One of these questions was especially
pertinent to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East: the gentleman asked the apnel what they
thought about the apparent juxtaposition of stable American public sentiments, yet frequent
polarization and gridlock in Washington. Harman replied that she does not believe the attitudes
of the current Congress are patient enough to pull off the needed long-term commitments the U.S.
must make in the Middle East. She reaffirmed that Congress is playing the 'duck and blame the
president' game, and reiterated that the public needs to hold Congress accountable for this.
Daalder added that it would be a mistake for anyone to assume that the public's seemingly
supportive mandate for the use of force is not highly conditional on results. He said what often
appears as the American public becoming less supportive of foreign engagements is more
accurately described as a failure of the country to address or solve a problem before it escalates
to a level at which point Americans find engagement too risky to be acceptable. Harman added
in that the legislature is not having the much needed debates to set the sustainable parameters for
these engagements now, and the consequence is that we find ourselves in long-term problems
with short-term strategies.