Or so the results of my Christian Science Monitor “neocon quiz” tell me. Here is isolationism according to CSM:

The term isolationist is most often used negatively; few people who share its beliefs use it to describe their own foreign policy perspective. They believe in “America first.” For them, national sovereignty trumps international relations. Many unions, libertarians, and anti-globalization protesters share isolationist tenets.

Isolationists…

Are wary of US involvement in the United Nations
Oppose international law, alliances, and agreements
Believe the US should not act as a global cop
Support trade practices that protect American workers
Oppose liberal immigration
Oppose American imperialism
Desire to preserve what they see as America’s national identity and character

It is interesting that isolationist was the only category that required explanation, as if the others were self-evident. It is strange that there is still the need to categorise this oldest and most enduring American foreign policy tradition with such a pejorative and potentially misleading label, as if there were no other words to describe it. It seems pretty clear that conservatism as embodied by Sen. Taft held to a foreign policy view that was fully in the tradition of U.S. policy to date, so why not simply call what they call “isolationism” conservatism? The CSM’s example of an earlier “isolationist” is Coolidge, who is something of a conservative avant la lettre (he more or less adhered to the Constitution, which is a small victory in itself in the 20th century), but he was also responsible for such a silly Carteresque treaty as the Kellogg-Briand accord “outlawing” war. Listing Coolidge as an “isolationist” is thus fairly misleading, and it stems from the internationalist polemic of the interwar years that has subsequently dominated historical memory in this country. Thus the two decades of the greatest expansion of American influence and activity overseas up till that point and the rise of America, alas, to global power status are absurdly cast as some sort of ‘turning inwards’ and ‘retreat from the world’ because our Senate wasn’t daft enough to subscribe to the League of Nations. A real model for conservative, noninterventionist or neutral foreign policy, which is what “isolationism” really is, would be Van Buren.

The main things I would criticise about this quiz are the characterisations of certain individuals: thus Colin Powell is made out to be a realist (he certainly didn’t act the part in recent years) and Ronald Reagan is considered a neocon. Whatever else one might say about Ronald Reagan’s puerility (Lukacs) or his undesirable optimism or his watered-down, pro-market liberalism (Dreher), and despite the fact that neocons first began rising to prominence in the GOP and government during the Reagan years, I think it is an insult to President Reagan to describe him this way (and it was probably calculated to be an insult).

Hat tip to A.C. Kleinheider.