According to a new poll conducted by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News, average Americans are becoming increasingly wary of Uncle Sam’s prominent role in global affairs. Almost half of those surveyed want Washington to be “less active on the global stage.” Only one-fifth of respondents want to see a more robust military presence in other countries.
When compared to a decade ago, this is a major change in sentiment. Just before the September 11th terrorist attacks, one poll showed only 14 percent of Americans wanting a less active role in the world. And that was before the lustful scream for vengeance following the collapse of the Twin Towers. After ten years of the War on Terror’s legacy of death, destruction, and debt, the swell of anti-interventionism isn’t a surprise. The American government, with all its military might, failed at creating a democracy in the Middle East.
The price paid for the desert excursion was dear: families lost loved ones, the national budget burst with red ink, basic rights were violated. There was no real “Mission Accomplished.” Sectarian violence in Iraq and Afghanistan carries on. The failure to tame the Cradle of Civilization is blaringly obvious to anyone not wearing Beltway goggles.
It’s no shame to admit loss. And carrying on in the face of insurmountable odds is a fool’s errand. Still, the powermongers in the District haven’t had their fill of overseas adventurism. They are screaming bloody murder over the commoners’ growing apprehension to perpetual war. Writing in the celebrity gossip rag Business Insider, Tom Nichols, a professor at U.S. Naval War College, declares America’s growing isolationism will send the world down the road of destruction. Nichols admonishes “the ‘Blame America First’ crowd and ‘bring the boys home’ isolationists” for allowing America to leave the world as a place where “countries are torn apart like the victims of a jackal pack.”
He is just one of many wagging his finger at the “little people” for not giving their full faith over to American might. And really, why should they? The people who pay the price of a mistake are more likely to correct it before more damage is done. The greater public seems to be finally coming to terms with the fact that government can’t efficiently operate a global empire. They’re starting to think that every tyrant damned on television isn’t sneering down on their homes, ready to invade and conquer. As Justin Raimondo writes,
“[I]f every tinpot dictator is Hitler, then perpetual war is our inevitable future. In the face of such a bleak prospect, the average American may be forgiven for thinking we should just pull up the drawbridge and say to heck with it.”
The rise of skepticism to American imperium is definitely a good thing. But public opinion is finicky. It can often change at the drop of a hat. Should there be another successful terrorist attack, general sentiment could reverse. There could be another rallying call to deploy U.S. troops abroad and vanquish the terrorist threat once and for all. With seven billion individuals on the planet, such a mission is ultimately impossible. As David Henderson, echoing the “knowledge problem” formulated by Friedrich Hayek, points out, governments are continually handicapped by their inability to possess all knowledge. Armchair generals will never know all the facts on the ground. Culture and deeply-entrenched values are not something that can be taught to grunts with assault rifles.
The reality of nation-building is finally revealing itself. While public opinion is beginning to value peace over war, it’s never a wise idea to rely heavily on mass feeling. The theory of democracy rests on the notion that people aren’t fit to govern themselves, but perfectly fine to govern each other; that you don’t own yourself but rather billions of shares to billions of different people. It’s an incredible contradiction, and supposes a decent amount of intelligence shared amongst people. It’s not the least bit true – one minute of watching popular television is all the proof needed – but the myth remains.
Even so, there is a great deal of truth to be found in base level opinion. It’s fun to skewer the unwashed masses with Menckian contempt. It’s easy to tell yourself that you are intellectually and morally superior to the busybody drones who fill your commute. And it takes no effort to mock those content with a blue-collar job and a simple family life. Still, even the narrowest of views can pinpoint right and wrong in the most complex matters. The growing unease over U.S. intervention looks to be a product of common sense: the war is lost. It wasn’t winnable in the first place; our sons and daughters shouldn’t continue to lose their lives fighting for an aimless cause.
Political elites are often the most contemptuous of society’s underlings. They constantly speak of admiration for “democracy” and the opinion of those who cast votes. The rub comes in when the masses want something different then their overseers. Politicians and bureaucrats love the excuse of acting on the will of the people. When that will changes, they carry on the same agenda in the name of good leadership.
In a choice between cosmopolitan elites and God and country bumpkins, I gladly choose the latter. At least they don’t pretend to know much outside of what’s familiar. Political leaders are stuck in a vacuum of conceit. They are the epitome of Hayek’s knowledge problem: convinced they know more about the world then everyone else. It might be true the D.C. bubble wonks have a broader view of global affairs then cornfield folk, but their moral and ethical convictions are miles away from normal convention. The lower class, both in economic and social terms, at least understands that theft and murder are wrong. High-minded bureaucrats scoff at such antiquated notions, and wish to form their own morality for everyone to live by.
Conservative stalwart Bill Buckley once quipped,
“I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.”
Buckley was no outsider to elite political circles. But he at least understood that egos uninhibited do more damage than good. It’s a shame he never understood the intelligence behind non-interventionism until late in his life. Once again, basic sensibleness won out over pride and conceit. The Wilsonian task of making world safe for democracy is not something to be accomplished by one government. Normal people get it. Our leaders still think otherwise.