509 | H.W. Brands: America First - Roosevelt vs. Lindbergh and the Long Shadow of WWII
Oct 1, 2024
auto_awesome
Historian H.W. Brands dives deep into the historical tug-of-war between interventionism and isolationism in American politics. He draws parallels between FDR's and Charles Lindbergh's clashing views on WWII and today's debates over Taiwan and Ukraine. Brands explores the roots of the 'America First' movement and discusses Lindbergh's complex legacy, revealing lessons on humility in politics. The conversation evolves into how historical narratives shape current foreign policy, warning against oversimplifying the past in today's context.
The origins of 'America First' reveal a historical disillusionment with foreign entanglements stemming from World War I and its aftermath.
Charles Lindbergh's isolationist perspective emphasized American security through continental defense, rejecting involvement in European conflicts as non-essential.
Contemporary debates on U.S. foreign policy reflect historical discussions about interventionism and isolationism, as seen in today's Ukraine and Taiwan situations.
Deep dives
The America First Debate in Historical Context
The term 'America First' primarily evokes modern political sentiments, yet its origins lie in the pre-war debates around American involvement in World War II. In the 1930s, many Americans favored isolationism due to disillusionment from their previous commitment to World War I, which they believed did not secure democracy as President Wilson had promised. This skepticism towards foreign entanglements led Congress to pass neutrality laws to restrict presidential power in wartime decisions, reflecting a desire to maintain national focus on domestic issues amid the Great Depression. However, as threats from Adolf Hitler emerged, the public gradually shifted towards recognizing the need to confront foreign aggressions, leading to a complex discussion where the motivations behind intervention were debated intensely.
The Rise of Isolationism and Disillusionment
The sentiment of disillusionment in America during the 1930s stemmed from a perception that the country had been misled into involvement in World War I by industrial and political leaders seeking profit. Many Americans believed that their entry into World War I had contributed to a harsher global political climate rather than securing peace. This skepticism was heightened by the economic struggles of the Great Depression, which caused citizens to prioritize addressing domestic challenges over international conflicts. As a result, anti-interventionist sentiment gained traction, leading to a hesitant, often apolitical response to escalating global tensions.
Lindbergh's Geopolitical Perspective
Charles Lindbergh's concept of American security revolved around a 'hemispheric' view, considering North and South America as a definable unit that should remain insulated from European conflicts. He argued that the U.S. should focus on building defenses within its own hemisphere and utilizing advancing military technology to safeguard against external threats without getting involved in European affairs. This perspective challenged the traditional idea of interventionism, as Lindbergh believed that America's security did not necessitate participation in wars that did not directly threaten its national interests. His focus on safeguarding the Americas while rejecting involvement in Europe reflected a broader sentiment among isolationists who viewed European problems as separate and unrelated to U.S. security.
Lindbergh's Complex Legacy
Lindbergh's legacy is complicated by his impressive achievements as an aviator coupled with his controversial political views, including anti-Semitism. His unique position as a celebrity figure allowed him to amplify the isolationist message, although the nuances of his ideology revealed contradictions, particularly regarding race and foreign relations. While he understood aviation and military technology, his narrow worldview limited his grasp of the broader implications of American foreign policy and international cooperation. This paradox is highlighted by his discomfort with the evolution of modernity and his disdain for political engagement, making him a figure both influential yet problematic in the historical discourse on America’s identity and foreign policy.
Lessons on Intervention and National Interest
The historical debate surrounding interventionism versus isolationism offers critical insights into contemporary discussions about U.S. foreign policy. Although voices like Lindbergh's were discredited following World War II, the core arguments about evaluating national interests and international commitments remain pertinent in today's landscape. As issues like the situation in Ukraine and Taiwan arise, there are claims that the principles governing these debates can transcend historical contexts, suggesting that America must carefully assess its long-term commitments abroad. This nuanced understanding emphasizes the importance of engaging in public discourse about foreign policy without being bound to the ideologies of past conflicts, thereby facilitating a more informed and democratic decision-making process.
H.W. Brands, Jack S. Blanton Chair in History at the University of Texas at Austin and author of America First: Roosevelt vs. Lindbergh in the Shadow of War, joins The Realignment. Marshall and H.W. discuss the ways that FDR and Charles Lindbergh's debate over American intervention in WWII parallel today's debates over Ukraine and Taiwan, the origins of the phrase "America First," why non-interventionism shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, why FDR won the "great debate" with the America First Committee, even before Pearl Harbor, and how Lindbergh's story offers lessons for humility when approaching politics and war from the outsider's perspective.
Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts
Save insights instantly, chat with episodes, and build lasting knowledge - all powered by AI.
