The founders’ isolationist ‘Great Rule’ was for their time, not ours

To the editor: Elizabeth Cobb’s piece on U.S. foreign policy makes a central and useful argument that foreign policy elites have lost the consensus that characterized the post-World War II period. She concludes that a return to the “isolationism” of George Washington is a solution or at least the necessary consequence of disaffection in the electorate. (“For U.S. foreign policy, it’s time to look again at the founding fathers’ ‘Great Rule,’” Opinion, July 4)

Cobb makes two fundamental mistakes. First, the Truman Doctrine has not been a serious description of U.S. policy for more than a quarter of a century. She overlooks the complexities of modern world politics and the efforts of three presidents — Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama — to shape policy around them.

Second, Washington’s “great rule” of avoiding entanglements is unrealistic in today’s world of 9/11, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and a host of other problems. Moreover, the next president will certainly be challenged by real states and global arms threats that make isolation impossible.

While there are disagreements over foreign policy, they do not involve a choice between avoiding entanglements and the Truman Doctrine.

Larry T. Caldwell, Beaumont

The writer is a professor emeritus of political science at Occidental College, where he has taught U.S. national security.

..

To the editor: Cobb gave some interesting history to back her view, but she left out what Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt did as “global police officers.” It shows her bias.

Many of us are frustrated that this administration has allowed Islamic State to spread and grow. If there is no heart to protect our freedom and safety, we will lose both.

We need another Harry Truman as president right now.

Elizabeth Norling, Long Beach

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook