America Alone is Not America First

Written By B.J. Dichter, Posted on March 12, 2025

The Counterargument to Isolationist Puritanism

There are plenty of things Rep Thomas Massie says that I agree with. Only the most rigid ideologues refuse to admit when their opponents are correct, or their allies are mistaken and require constructive criticism. However, many of us who lean in the libertarian direction have run short on patience for the puritan “America Alone” philosophy peddled by people like Rep Thomas Massie, Tucker Carlson, and even deceptive radical leftists like Glenn Greenwald. It’s worth pointing out one glaring problem: “America Alone” is not “America First.” In fact, I would argue “America Alone” could be called “China First.”

We’ve all seen the troubling events coming out of Syria this week. No one’s shocked anymore, and it’s hard not to feel the weight of it: indiscriminate slaughter of our fellow human beings that echoes genocides of the Yazidis and Christians throughout the Middle East in recent memory. Sure, we sympathize with the argument that America cannot police the world alone—it’s exhausting and expensive. And yes, we’re all weary of watching taxpayer money disappear into organizations like the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which seems to operate mainly as a money laundering scheme for the political class. Whoever came up with the label “USAID” deserves the crown for the most intentionally deceptive branding—a masterpiece of misdirection more effective than a Romulan Warbird’s cloaking device.

Here’s the challenge: America remains the dominant force in the world. For anyone who has ventured beyond their comfortable suburban neighbourhood in an elegant gated community or high end luxury apartment, it’s evident—there’s a challenging, sometimes harsh reality out there. Yet somehow, isolationism (ignore your problems and threats and they will go away) philosophy is permeating the politics of the worlds dominant super power again. History offers some stark warnings on this perspective. Consider the British Empire. Once the global dominant force, decided or was forced to step back from its prominent role on the world stage. The results were less than stellar.

 

Has the British Empire flourished since its retreat? Not exactly. It’s been struggling ever since, welcoming millions of people who hold alien values that clash with its own traditions and now facing economic challenges that would have been unimaginable during its heyday. Attempting to restrict uncivilized practices like cousin or other incest marriage in parts of Britain today, would likely result in mass protests from tens of thousands of illegal aliens or recent arrivals who hold anti-Western, anti-Enlightenment values.

The reality is, if America steps back, another foreign nation, not necessarily an ally, is likely to step forward to fill the void. The question isn’t whether a vacuum will form. The real question is: who benefits? China? Russia? Or perhaps Turkey, yes, Turkey, a NATO and EU member currently elevating questionable leaders within its borders. Remember ISIS?

Many historians agree the end of the British Empire’s was the Suez Canal Crisis when President Eisenhower and the U.S. secured a UN resolution challenging Britain’s response to the canal’s nationalization by Egypt and even blocked England’s IMF loan application. That situation didn’t just embarrass Britain and terminate the British empire; it strengthened Egypt’s Nasser and handed more influence to the Soviets in one swift move. This forced isolationist appeasement philosophy had already been permeating British and commonwealth politics for some time.

1. George Eulas Foster: Although a Canadian politician, Foster coined the term “splendid isolation” in 1896, indicating his approval for Britain’s minimal involvement in European affairs. While not directly advocating for giving up territory, his phrase encapsulated a sentiment of diplomatic detachment that some British politicians shared.

2. Neville Chamberlain: As Prime Minister in the late 1930s, Chamberlain pursued a policy of appeasement towards Nazi Germany, which some historians interpret as a form of isolationism. He favored diplomatic means and offering concessions to Germany in an attempt to avoid war and maintain peace in Europe. While not directly advocating for giving up territory, this approach reflected a desire to avoid international conflicts.

3. Clement Attlee: As Prime Minister from 1945 to 1951, Attlee led a pro decolonization Labour government that moved quickly to address Indian independence. Under his leadership, Britain granted independence to India, Pakistan, Burma (Myanmar), and Sri Lanka, effectively beginning the process of dismantling the British Empire.

The worldview of the “America Alone” group, including Massie is not new to geopolitics and it would be catastrophic. It extends beyond Massie’s frequent sharing of Muslim Brotherhood propaganda on his X account. Interestingly, even Saudi Arabia, not typically known for progressive policies, has expressed concerns about the global influence wielded by Tucker Carlson’s financial supporters, Qatar and not just because of Saudi interests but global stability. When Saudi Arabia raises concerns about someone else’s potentially destabilizing Islamist influence led by The Muslim Brotherhood, they might be an authority on the matter as opposed to an arm chair geo-political clown amplified on Joe Rogan’s podcast.

None of us actively seeks conflicts around the world, no reasonable person does. However, saying you don’t like war is what Scott Adams describes calls a “half-pinion.” It’s not a complete thought; it’s an unfinished statement. No one in the civilized Western world wants to squander resources or risk lives in violent conflict but the world doesn’t operate on wishful thinking, and ignoring reality doesn’t make violent adversaries disappear. I’m not sure how anyone sees America Alone as anything but, “ignore your problems they will go away” thinking.

Western perspectives on global motivations sometimes overlook that tensions with radical Islam that have historical roots dating back centuries to the Barbary Pirates after Islam’s expulsion from Spain. These tensions continue today and will likely persist unless western nations currently in rapid decline addresses the fundamental ideological differences. Fortunately, there are signs of hope: Donald Trump and his administration, alongside nations like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, have established foundations for promising initiatives like the Abraham Accords and the India Middle East Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC). These efforts aim to reduce extremist influence while providing economic alternatives to China’s expanding interests.

Yet, the “America Alone” advocates, Massie, Tucker Carlson, and their colleagues seem less enthusiastic about these developments. They maintain their isolationist viewpoint while perhaps not fully considering historical precedents. The British Empire attempted a similar approach, withdrawing from its global commitments, with catastrophic results. Today, Britain is importing the garbage much of the Middle East was eager to export. The result? Pro terrorism rallies across all of “Great Britain,” one of the weakest western nations on the planet teetering on developing nation status.

It’s unfortunate that the America Alone misfits are blind to the realities and lessons of history tied to their isolationist philosophy. However, since I—and many others—haven’t forgotten who the bad guys were during World War II, nor the hundreds of thousands of soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice to liberate Europe, I doubt Tucker Carlson would describe me as a great modern historian like some of the mid-century German apologists within the America Alone camp.

---

Order Now!
Honking For Freedom – The Trucker Convoy That Gave Us Hope HonkingForFreedom.com

Twitter | Locals | Rumble | Instagram
www.BenjaminjDichter.com

Audio
Freedom Coffee Podcast