Hillary Clinton and the left's New Isolationism

In the presidential candidacy of Sen. Rand Paul, many globally-minded conservatives fear, the right's worst isolationist instincts have their best chance to take hold in the GOP and the country alike.

In thinking this way, conservatives comfortable with military interventionism are following a dangerous instinct. Because by far, the most potent and persuasive form of isolationism is not to be found on the right. Conservatives are so strongly inclined not to countenance the appeal of President Obama's foreign policy that they have become willfully ignorant of the New Isolationism ascendant on the left.

And in Hillary Clinton, this New Isolationism may have already found its greatest champion. If conservatives fail to apprehend the reason why, they face a much heavier lift in 2016 than they could possibly imagine. And from there on out, things could get a lot worse.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

Liberal opposition to the war in Iraq was strong, and some far-left critics questioned the war in Afghanistan, too. But under Obama, progressive opposition to interventions short of full-dress invasion has basically disappeared. The anti-war left ain't what it used to be. And, as Peter Beinart recently suggested, that's caused a strange and stark reconfiguration of popular opinion on the mainstream left.

Beinart invites us to closely consider the substance and symbolism of Hillary Clinton's presidential announcement video. Although notable for its direct application of identity politics, it is even more striking for the balance it strikes between domestic and international issues. In fact, there is no balance at all; aggressively progressive domestic themes are paired with utter silence on what was supposed to be Clinton's greatest actual credential: foreign policy.

Of course, we shouldn't make too much of the video alone. Clinton will have ample opportunity to weigh in on the world as she forges through the campaign gauntlet.

Then again, why would she?

On the left today, the quest for social justice at home completely eclipses all other priorities. It's as if “We are the world" no longer expresses global solidarity but American preeminence. Here, the promise of our perfectible union takes on such an inspiringly outsized importance that the rest of the planet can recede into a troubled but very distant background.

Last time around, Clinton used her now-infamous "3 a.m. phone call" ad to question Barack Obama's aptitude in a dangerous world. How times have changed. Today, the Clinton brand stands for the power and privilege of isolating Americans themselves from America's interventions around the world. Sure, we might have to bomb this or that country into chaos. But from the standpoint of "Everyday Americans" thirsting for equal access to resources and recognition, what difference does it make? They're on a need-to-know basis, and they don't need to know.

Here's where conservatives must pay close attention. Americans like it this way. We don't want the gory details. We want experts we can trust to keep our anxious, harried minds away from the endless stress case of global management. We didn't really want to know about the CIA's black sites. We don't really want to know what Hillary Clinton is doing when she's not out there fighting everyday for working families.

Americans have never had a lot of patience for protracted conflict in an uncertain world. Love it or hate it, the New Isolationism that Team Clinton is prepared to promote carries a broad, inherent appeal. Americans have always fretted about the security of their station in life. Especially these days, they increasingly look to government for reassurance that the burden of fretting about foreign policy can be gently lifted away. It would be remarkable if the left finally mainstreamed a greater concern for domestic "safe spaces" than for the safety of America — or democracy, or freedom, or the world. But it would not be shocking.