Fox News host Mark Levin has been critical of individuals who oppose his views on foreign policy, labeling them as “isolationists.” Yet, it seems he doesn’t grasp the term’s history and the broader American narrative of anti-imperialism and resistance to interventionism.
During a recent broadcast, Levin expressed concern about Republicans and conservatives questioning President Donald Trump’s stance on Iran. He stated, “We have a strong isolationism, reminiscent of the 1930s, asserting itself in the Democratic Party. It’s alarming that some Republicans are now fearful of this.” He painted the Democratic Party as isolationist, claiming they’re not aligned with American or Israeli interests, or even those of Gulf Arab nations. In his view, there’s a lack of Republican leaders willing to step up.
Levin also implied that the GOP may lean more toward isolationism once Trump isn’t in office, suggesting that any benefits from the ongoing conflict could vanish quickly.
His guest, Keith Kellogg, a former special envoy to Ukraine, echoed Levin’s sentiments. Interestingly, while lamenting Americans’ short historical memory, he invoked simplistic comparisons to the 1930s and British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s dealings with Hitler, as if American and world history began at that time.
It seems both Levin and Kellogg might be unaware of the rich American history predating the 1930s, or they simply prefer not to engage with it. After all, acknowledging earlier anti-imperialist sentiments might label them as “isolationists” themselves.
Most people think “isolationism” first appeared in American dialogue in the run-up to World War II, particularly with figures like Charles Lindbergh and the America First movement. However, its roots can actually be traced back to the late 19th century. The term emerged from the views of Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan, a staunch advocate for American imperialism, who pushed for overseas naval bases to support American trade and territorial expansion under President William McKinley.
Many Americans at that time weren’t entirely convinced about expanding the empire and worried about potential costs. For instance, Southern sugar producers feared competition from new territories like Puerto Rico and the Philippines. Historian Louis Gould noted that anti-imperialists came from diverse economic and political backgrounds, similar to those involved in the America First movement before WWII. Notable figures included William Jennings Bryan, Benjamin Harrison, and Andrew Carnegie.
Perhaps the best-known of these opponents was Mark Twain, who, alongside Carnegie and others, formed the American League Against Imperialism in 1898 as a response to the Spanish-American War. Twain later reflected on his earlier imperialist beliefs, realizing the true intent was conquest rather than liberation. He articulated this shift, explaining the need to let other nations govern themselves instead of imposing American rule.
As Twain grew more vocal against U.S. foreign policy, he faced criticism for appearing unpatriotic, which was upsetting to many who once viewed him as a quintessential American. But critics like Twain never ceased to love their country; they simply opposed certain expansionist policies. The term “isolationist,” then, remains a derogatory label used to simplify and ridicule opposing views.
Historian Walter McDougall has suggested that the idea of a long-standing isolationist tradition is more of a myth perpetuated by interventionists. More recently, the term gained traction as a label against those questioning America’s military actions in the Middle East post-9/11. Ron Paul faced similar accusations during the 2008 Republican primaries for proposing a more restrained foreign policy, while his opponents linked him to the isolationists of the 1930s.
Rand Paul has faced similar charges over the years, particularly during the 2015 Republican primary. Yet, many critiques misrepresented what he articulated, as he emphasized the need for a well-defined strategy if military action became necessary.
What we see today in the discourse surrounding U.S. involvement abroad mirrors earlier debates. Pro-war advocates often use the label “isolationist” to sideline legitimate discussions, perhaps without fully understanding its historical implications. It might be more useful for Levin to directly engage with his critics, acknowledging that there are those in the country who believe military interference in foreign affairs is unwise.
Conversations about U.S. foreign policy have always been complex and significant. Levin’s tendency to disregard past anti-intervention perspectives, branding dissenters as “isolationists” since the onset of the Iran conflict, seems counterproductive. It often feels lazy and unjust.
