During the formation of the United States, many of the founders greatly feared a government that could wield excessive authority over its citizens.  These fears led them to draft a constitution and a system of government whose primary intent was to limit the powers of the central state as much as possible.  After gaining independence from the British, there was widespread sentiment among the founders that America should stand for something different than its former colonizers.  For the most part, the founders believed in a very limited government that did not overly involve itself in the affairs of its states or individuals, except for the most basic purposes of protecting life, liberty, and property.  They also believed that the U.S. should adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy, meaning it should not antagonize other countries, fight aggressive wars, commit itself to entangling alliances, or otherwise meddle in the internal affairs of other nations.  The founders recognized that many once great civilizations, such as the Roman Empire, had collapsed in large part due to their pursuit of empire and an imperialist foreign policy. Instead, this founding generation of Americans in large part believed that the only way a nation could maintain its liberties and prosperity at home was to avoid the temptation to become an imperial presence abroad.  As John Quincy Adams put it, “But she [America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”

The principle of non-interventionism was one held by many of the founders for several reasons.  Being particularly sensitive to government overreach and authoritarian rule, the founders realized that war is the most effective tool for a central state to wield exorbitant power over its own population.  During wartime, governments are able to exert controls that would be seen by its people as severe and excessive during peacetime. As a result, war is a great opportunity for those in power to expand their authority in ways that would not otherwise be possible.  “The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home,” said James Madison.  “It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad,” said Madison as well.  From Thomas Jefferson, “War is as much a punishment to the punisher as to the sufferer.”

The founders did not believe in the infallibility of the United States, or its leaders’ ability to promote goodness abroad.  Instead, they believed that all governments, no matter how well intentioned their officials may seem, are based on the exertion of power and force upon unwilling recipients.  The state always claims to fight wars for moral reasons.  We want to save the people from their dictatorial ruler, they will say, or gift them with superior moral values of freedom and democracy.  This is how governments get their people on board and win the public support of the population necessary to sustain an imperialist policy. However, this supposed well-meaning is almost always used as a means by which the state can exert and sustain its own power and authority.  “Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak,” said John Adams.

The non-interventionist position also holds that war and antagonism are not effective methods of dealing with turmoil or adversarial circumstances abroad, even for those who believe in their own moral superiority.  The potential benefits are almost always significantly outweighed by the costs, both human and economic. “War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses,” said Thomas Jefferson.  While foreign enemies or rivals will inevitably exist, the use of government force in the form of war or other types of intervention are almost never comparable to the efficacy of peaceful relations, free commerce, and voluntary cooperation. “All wars are follies, very expensive and very mischievous ones,” said Benjamin Franklin.

The tradition of supporting a non-interventionist foreign policy was particularly strong among the founding generation of Americans, which led to a long period in which the U.S. managed to stay out of foreign conflict.  As a result, America was able to avoid many of the pitfalls that nations who adopt a more aggressive posture overseas and pursue an imperialist foreign policy as opposed to a peaceful one tend to fall into. The U.S. saw tremendous economic prosperity, growth in living standards, and maintained a limited government that did a fairly good job of preserving the liberties of its people throughout the nineteenth century.  During this period where America abided by a non-interventionist foreign policy, didn’t fight aggressive wars, stayed out of entangling alliances, and interacted with the world in a peaceful manner, the U.S. became the most prosperous and freest country in the history of the world.

The non-interventionist tradition has lived on through many philosophical and political schools of thought.  Traditional conservatism in the post World War II era largely advocated an anti-war position, which was adopted by various Republican politicians like Senator Robert Taft.  In the 1960s and 1970s, the anti-war position gained a great deal of popularity among the American left in response to the catastrophes of the Vietnam War. Today, the non-interventionist tradition is carried forward by libertarians, some traditionalist conservatives and some far left Democrats and socialists, although both major parties are dominated by the prevailing mainstream thinking that believes in American Empire, which they generally refer to in more benign sounding phrases like “American global leadership.”

In today’s mainstream American culture, it is very rare to hear any of the ideas of non-interventionism discussed.  There are no Presidents, congressmen, public officials, corporate media news channels like Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC, or newspapers like the New York Times or Washington Post, who will even consider these ideas, much less promote them, with very few exceptions.  It is more or less assumed that America should be and always has been an imperial presence around the world. However, the very system of government that these establishment elites generally profess to endorse, one based on freedom and the protection of individual liberties and human rights, was also founded on the principle of foreign non-interventionism by men who largely believed America should avoid all of the imperial impulses that are so prevalent among our current political and media classes.