Non-interventionism is the foreign-policy position that the United States should avoid military intervention abroad, maintain a defensive military, and interact with other nations chiefly through trade, diplomacy, and example. On The Bob Zadek Show, guests advanced the doctrine through arguments about blowback, the Founders’ constitutional design, and the pejorative use of the term “isolationism.”
Blowback and the case against empire
Ivan Eland argued that interventions overseas are counterproductive to U.S. security because they generate terrorist blowback. He contended that the primary reason Osama bin Laden attacked the United States was non-Muslim intervention in Muslim lands, citing U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia and the Reagan-era withdrawal from Lebanon after the Hezbollah bombing of the Marine barracks. Eland said that after 9/11 the United States invaded two Muslim countries and that going into Iraq created a mess still ongoing, with blowback also from Libya, Yemen, and Pakistan. He noted that the number of Al-Qaeda fighters increased after the U.S. got involved in helping the Yemen government, and cited the underwear bomber attempting to bomb a plane going to Detroit as a classic case. Eland summarized the position as empire being the opposite of security, and said that after the U.S. left Lebanon in the 80s, Hezbollah attacks against U.S. targets dissipated dramatically. United Iraq Falls: Ivan Eland on Partitioning for Peace (2014)
Bob Zadek framed the threat of terrorism as a self-inflicted or self-induced wound, associating the message with Ron Paul, who he said was ridiculed. United Iraq Falls: Ivan Eland on Partitioning for Peace (2014)
The Founders and the war powers
Christopher Preble, discussing his book Peace, War, and Liberty: Understanding U.S. Foreign Policy, said the Founders saw the ideal U.S. foreign policy as one in which Americans interacted with others through trade as much as possible, with occasions for war quite rare. They placed war powers in the hands of Congress rather than the executive, believing decisions closer to the people made war less likely, and limited the president’s power by maintaining a small navy and no permanent army. Preble said that for the first hundred years of U.S. history or so, the country fought relatively few wars, and those that were fought along the interior against Native American peoples and against Mexico were declared by Congress, which raised the necessary forces, accomplished objectives, and then stood the forces down. He said the United States grew its influence mostly through its example, and that this restricted the power of the state. On Foreign Policy, will Trump heed the Restraining Constituency or John Bolton? (2019)
Preble also argued that the term “isolationism” is used deliberately as a pejorative, first deployed against critics of U.S. imperialism at the turn of the 20th century and becoming in vogue after World War II, when the attitude of many Americans to avoid involvement in the war was cast as isolationism. He said this is fundamentally wrong, noting that the 1930s featured restrictions on foreign trade and severe restrictions on immigration that tried to create a more isolated America. He argued that privileging the military instrument over other instruments of American power ironically undermines America’s influence and generates more isolationism, and that resistance to American ideas has increased over the last 20 years because many around the world believe the United States is doing things at the barrel of a gun. On Foreign Policy, will Trump heed the Restraining Constituency or John Bolton? (2019)
Preble said the Founders believed the United States should be a proponent and example of republican democracy, personal freedom, and free trade, encouraging that behavior worldwide by example rather than at the point of a gun. He said that when the United States created a constitutional government where the people were the power and the government served the interests of the people, that was a fairly new concept, and that a number of countries over the ensuing hundred and fifty years wanted to emulate the United States because it grew prosperous and powerful and demonstrated by example that it delivered benefits to a greater number of people. He also said the United States eventually became an advocate of freer trade, seeing the benefits of trade both to enhance human prosperity and as an instrument of peace, because people who trade with one another build up trust and reduce the likelihood of conflict. On Foreign Policy, will Trump heed the Restraining Constituency or John Bolton? (2019)
The “Switzerland test”
John Glaser described the “Switzerland test,” a blog post by his Cato Institute colleague Trevor Thrall proposing that if Switzerland does something, maybe the United States should think about doing it, and if Switzerland doesn’t, it should avoid it. Glaser said Switzerland has a foreign policy of robust diplomacy, free trade, and cultural exchange with the world, but no military commitments abroad: it does not guarantee the defense of other countries, does not insert itself into the center of far-off conflicts like in North Korea, does not have bases all over the world, and does not engage in preventive warfare. He said the United States should have a foreign policy that emphasizes robust diplomacy where it can be useful, free trade, cultural exchange, and immigration, but not one that is militarist in disposition. Non-Aggression in a Nuclear Era (2018)
Glaser said Americans are obsessed with the status of being the “indispensable nation,” which leads the country not only to go abroad in search of monsters to destroy but also to be extremely reluctant to back out of existing commitments. He cited prospect theory in psychological research, which holds that what you currently have is harder to give up than even the prospect of future gains, and said the United States is reluctant to give up the role of global cop because it is psychologically deflating. He argued the United States is really safe, geographically isolated, has a nuclear deterrent, and is rich and powerful, and that it is not connected to U.S. security specifically that the country goes abroad in search of monsters to destroy as a matter of routine. Non-Aggression in a Nuclear Era (2018)
Bob Zadek, in the same episode, described a fantasy of the United States stepping down from its role as leader in anything other than a model of how a free country might operate, offering itself as a model and helping other people achieve that model, but otherwise being disinterested in the affairs of other countries except to build a strong defense, with defense interpreted narrowly. Non-Aggression in a Nuclear Era (2018)
Positive non-interventionism and free cities
In a discussion of free cities, a guest described Hong Kong under British colonial rule as having John Cowperthwaite, a British appointee and classical liberal, whose policy was called positive non-interventionism, which effectively allowed the people in Hong Kong to live their lives as they saw fit. The guest said Hong Kong was able to rise to become a tremendous success and one of the leading manufacturing and then financial centers in Asia. The guest also said Hong Kong, along to a certain extent with Singapore, inspired China to implement special economic zone reforms, and that China over the last 40 or so years has lifted approximately 800 million people out of poverty according to the World Bank. The End of Nation-States? (2018)
Across episodes: the same question over time
The excerpts show the same question argued across episodes without a clear development: Ivan Eland in 2014 made the blowback case against intervention in Muslim lands, John Glaser in 2018 offered the Switzerland test and prospect theory as a framework for restraint, and Christopher Preble in 2019 grounded non-interventionism in the Founders’ constitutional design and the pejorative history of “isolationism.” The later treatments add vocabulary and historical framing rather than changing the underlying position, and no excerpt shows a guest revising an earlier argument.
What the sources do not cover
The excerpts do not state the outcome of any specific bill, the holding of any case, or which amendment any war-powers dispute turned on. They do not give founding dates for the Cato Institute or the Independent Institute, nor do they name the statutes governing trade or immigration in the 1930s. The excerpt on free cities breaks off mid-sentence, so the account of Shenzhen’s first year as a special economic zone is incomplete. No excerpt addresses non-interventionism as applied to a specific ongoing conflict beyond those named.