In these troublesome times, as the costs of occupation take their toll on both this generation and our children’s children, and as the repercussions of foreign involvement threaten our global standing and security, an increasing constituency of both the left and right are beginning to wonder whether America was ever intended to be an internationally-active force.  Citing numerous embarrassments in Middle-Eastern policy, exportation of jobs resulting from a [1] botched free trade, and the [2] flagrant disregard of our trading partners’ injustices, these isolationists, while not incorrect about the problems of foreign involvement, forget that our Founding Fathers never intended us for autarky or isolationism.

When Alexander Hamilton wrote [3] Federalist Paper #11, he argued that one of the most important reasons for a United States of America was influencing international trade, particularly to keep Americans from becoming pawns of imperialist economic and military powers.  He wrote: “The importance of the Union, in a commercial light, is one of those points about which there is least room to entertain a difference of opinion, and which has, in fact, commanded the most general assent of men who have any acquaintance with the subject. This applies as well to our intercourse with foreign countries as with each other.”  In his view, there were many topics about which Americans could remain divided, but the importance of our united foreign policy was not one of them.

He argued that rivalries between foreign countries–at that time particularly Britain and France–would lead a divided America not only toward commercial impotency, but eventually war.  Because states’ international trading rights would be divided unequally within a weak American confederacy, Hamilton’s–and indeed, America’s fear was that the states would not be able to maintain a safe Atlantic, or eventually even inter-state trade.  Without a union, as individual states formed their alliances and trading agreements with a series of nations oftentimes at violent rivalry with one another, America would be reduced to passive trade, our commerce and the blessings of our ingenuity castrated, our ability to negotiate on favorable commercial terms discarded, and worst of all, our ability to avoid unnecessary wars lost.  “A nation, despicable by its weakness, forfeits even the privilege of being neutral,” Hamilton wrote.

But with a union, what could we expect?  “By a steady adherence to the Union we may hope, erelong, to become the arbiter of Europe in America, and to be able to incline the balance of European competitions in this part of the world as our interest may dictate.”  And with a strong navy, “if to this consideration [a strong Atlantic naval presence] we add that of the usefulness of supplies from this country, in the prosecution of military operations in the West Indies, it will readily be perceived that a situation so favorable would enable us to bargain with great advantage for commercial privileges. A price would be set not only upon our friendship, but upon our neutrality.”  Clearly, Hamilton’s vision of a powerfully-international United States of America accounted for the ambitions of mankind, that our very safety and success lie not solely within our borders, but also with influencing those beyond them.  His cry still rings loudly today: “Let Americans disdain to be the instruments of European greatness! Let the thirteen States, bound together in a strict and indissoluble Union, concur in erecting one great American system, superior to the control of all transatlantic force or influence, and able to dictate the terms of the connection between the old and the new world!”

George Washington also noted the importance of America’s international influence in [4] his timeless farewell address, but included some indispensably wise stipulations.  First, if we are to engage in foreign affairs, we must be careful to avoid all special trading rights and privileges, as special rights are always bought at the price of our independence.  Our foreign policy should instead seek to define the natural, market-guided rights of our merchants, so as to avoid conflicts.  And second, we should avoid all permanent alliances, instead forging temporary alliances strictly under the most desperate of circumstances, which gives us the ability to judge a nation by its behavior instead of its name.  Washington’s message is clear: if we must engage the world, we must do so with utmost prudence.

While these are certainly trying times, and the American soul wishes, even yearns for that day when Americans will deal solely with American problems, reality insists that because of trade, the world’s problems are American problems.  This is no time for naivety: rival nations have always been at the door, the hearts of their leaders–pagan and barbaric–are bent on domination, expansion, and profit at the expense of the foreigner.  This is simply the heart of man.  And if we assume for one second that by refusing to take stances beyond our borders, that we will be safe, that the belligerent and envious forces of humanity will simply go away, then we do not deserve liberty within our borders.  For even Jesus Christ [5] once commanded His apostles: “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.”  It seems, then, that neither the Christian nor the atheist has any room for emotional, humanistic fantasy.

So where did our foreign policy take a turn for the worse?  It seems that some of American policy’s critics are correct in that we have [6] too many troops stationed overseas, we are too involved in global politicking through the [7] morally-bankrupt UN, and we are too interested in the domestic affairs of too many other nations.  We are [8] militarily allied with too many countries, we invest [9] too much money in foreign aid, and we materially support [10] too many governments through our world bank.  But at the same time, we cannot pretend that the proliferation of nuclear weapons by genocidal Jihadists is not our problem, or that [11] a tide of Islamically-motivated global terrorism will simply stop itself, especially when our [12] immigration laws import citizens from every country.  Nor do we have the luxury of pretending that the [13] values of international communism are not [14] threatening our very sovereignty through the UN, or that our CIA and its primary function–the gathering of intelligence–is unnecessary.  Some international affairs must be abandoned out of moral clarity and wisdom, and will result in a stronger America.  But others would be abandoned out of weakness and naivety, and will result in our forced servitude to the uncivilized.

In conclusion, America was never a morally-neutral autarky, and she was never intended to be.  America was intended to be an evangelistic and contagious beacon of light, a safehaven for timeless principles not only functionally superior to the Old World, but in many cases [15] Biblically inspired.   But our interactions with other nations in recent years have been too ambitious, too unwise for sustainability or pride.  And if we are  ever to reclaim the glory our founding fathers intended, perhaps it’s time to rethink our foreign policy.  Not by ending international relations, but by restoring them to their moral and prudent boundaries.  Financial sustainability aside, it’s just the right thing to do for both ourselves and our grandchildren.