Questioning Pew's Isolationist Finding

I think Daniel Larison is right to cry foul on the use of the term "isolationist" in the just-released Pew survey blogged about below. Before we accept the finding that there has been a surge in isolationist sentiment among the American people uncritically, it's worth unpacking just what sentiment the public is actually expressing. Larison:

No doubt, there was a higher percentage that answered that the U.S. should “mind its own business and let other countries get along the best they can on their own,” but the alternative was to answer that the U.S. “is the most powerful nation in the world, we should go our own way in international matters, not worrying about whether other countries agree with us or not.” Given that choice between something that sounds reasonable and something that sounds idiotic, a great many non-”isolationists” would prefer the former response. Essentially, the survey offered two choices. On the one hand, the respondent can choose arrogant hegemonism and disregard the interests of all other nations, or he can choose something less obviously obnoxious.

What's more, the Council on Foreign Relation's just released Digest of International and U.S. Attitudes unearthed a more nuanced set of questions which, I think, offers a more useful basis for analysis:

Americans prefer a system of world order based on a multilateral approach over one based on hegemony or bipolarity. The Bertelsmann Foundation asked nine countries worldwide in 2005 to identify the best framework for ensuring peace and stability, offering four options. In the United States, the most popular option was “a system led by a balance of regional powers,” which was endorsed by 52 percent of Americans, while a third of respondents chose “a system led by the United Nations.” For other nations, the more common position was a system based on the United Nations. Among Americans, as with all other respondents, small minorities favored “a system led by a single world power” (6 percent) or “a system led by two world powers” (4 percent).

Large majorities of Americans reject a hegemonic role for the United States. In 2006, CCGA and WPO presented three options for the U.S. role in the international system. The least popular choice argued, “As the sole remaining superpower, the United States should continue to be the preeminent world leader in solving international problems.” Just 10 percent chose this option. Likewise, the position, “The United States should withdraw from most efforts to solve international problems” also received low levels of support (12 percent). By far, the preferred option was a multilateral approach, which reasoned, “The United States should do its share in efforts to solve international problems together with other countries.” Seventy-five percent favored this position. Interestingly, Americans concur with publics of most other nations on this; in thirteen out of fifteen countries polled, majorities preferred that the United States adopt a multilateral approach to world affairs, with an average of 56 percent of respondents endorsing it.

To a striking degree, the way we discuss international engagement in the United States hinges on the military dimension. If you're leery about military interventionism, you're therefore an isolationist (or a quitter and a defeatist). It doesn't matter if you favor free trade, international institutions, alliances, etc. It boils down to a willingness to use force. It's a unserious paradigm, but, apparently, the prevailing one.

(AP Photos)