Jon Johanning wrote:
> The only reason there is an "isolationist streak" in the American
> population is that Americans by and large know and care nothing about
> the rest of the world.
That isolationist streak dates to the post-independence period, when most educated Americans voting in the political process got more news about what was happening in Britain and France then about what was happening in other states. It was precisely because they understood the twisted turns of international politics that they thought it better to get involved only when necessary.
A big change for progressivism-- the rise of liberal "imperialism" according to some-- was to see that some issues of international politics-- stopping genocide, promoting democracy of new nations, etc. - made global involvement more than just a game of realpolitick. Of course, many conservatives saw similar involvement as a way to serve global corporate interests, so you've had a tug and pull within the interventionist camp between conflicting values, just as the isolationist camp has been polarized between those who don't give a shit if brown people die in some far off land and those who do care but think US involvement will only make it worse.
The grid of international political views is, at least, a two by two grid, and any time someone simplifies it into simple "interventionist imperialism" versus anti-imperialism is just missing the complex of values motivating voters.
nathan