Individuals from all shades of the political spectrum frequently toy with the idea of isolationism, and why not?

The doctrine seemingly has something to offer to everyone. Used a tad loosely, I take isolationism to be the avoidance of interaction—both economically and militarily—with other countries. For libertarians, though the protectionist elements frequently associated with isolation seem abhorrent to a system of global free trade, the idea of non-intervention in distant conflicts draws them in. For liberals, isolation is a conduit for peacekeeping as well as a way to spur economic development at home, even if it comes with some suboptimal economic outcomes. And for conservatives, isolation seems to be a way to protect culture, tradition, and morality—things oft challenged by global opinion and influence.

In the United States, all three groups co-opt President Washington's farewell address as proof that their form of isolation is correct, each adopting the classically American crowd-pleasing stratagem of blending the “intent” of the Framers with the need to evolve out of the past, in degrees suitable to their political temperaments.

What is clear is that none of these groups (save any mercantilists that happen to still be alive) are willing to adopt more than a handful of isolationist beliefs, and instead rely heavily on making a hard distinction between something like non-interventionism and autarky. All insist you can have the former without the latter, that the way we deal with countries militarily can be separated from the way we deal with them economically.

The fact that there is virtual consensus on that concept troubles me.

One particular historical example fuelling this suspicion of mine is the Iranian Abadan crisis and subsequent British- and American-led coup d'état against the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh. After Iran nationalized its oil resources, previously under British control, the CIA and MI6 organized the overthrow of Mossadegh and a reinstatement of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

Though this is a particularly egregious example, the tale is one repeated with great frequency and only slight variation in imperial history. If an old colonial possession of the west (X) adopts a nation-building policy that conflicts with a western country (Y)'s dominance, Y batters and bullies X until either Y gets fatigued or X succumbs. It’s the closest to a mathematical formula that the study of history has.

What do our modern, piecemeal isolationists say to this dilemma? One might posit that the libertarians (which appears to be the group that most frequently makes the military-economic distinction in isolationism) would not have supported the coup, for it was (albeit disguised) military intervention in a foreign country. But what of the sustenance of free trade?

There is no question that Iran's nationalization of oil resources was an effrontery to the global free trade system. Countries cannot restrict foreign access in that way if free trade is to go on. Even when it is clearly best for its people, it is inefficient and incompatible with capitalism. If the libertarians say that military intervention is to be avoided at all costs, they must also give up the expectation that free trade will continue.

And no slippery slope argument need be made: Had the CIA and MI6 not staged the coup, the economic devastation to England could have been quite severe. Global capitalism does not work if all parties do not cooperate, and without a credible threat of military intervention, there is little reason to believe that cooperation will continue. If ex-colonial possessions possessions had all nationalized their resources one by one to the benefit of their citizens, our economic world would look radically different today.

In a sort of perverse way, the neo-cons, with their radical policy of intervention for capitalism at all costs, have a completely consistent (if incredibly immoral) system.

There is—of course—the other alternative that few of the mainstream elements of any ideology want to adopt, which is to completely abandon the global free market. In fact, only the extreme left would even consider the idea. I don't doubt that some consistent solution lies here, but it requires much more extensive effort and study than what would be required of the three ideologies to amend the way they present foreign policy.

It is very nice and pretty to say foreign policy can simply be broken down into military and economic components, where bad guys like to intervene and reap benefits while good guys don’t intervene and somehow reap equal benefits, but history simply does not comply.

Libertarians, liberals, and conservatives alike face a glaring contradiction and have no easy ideological rectification for the problem of isolationism.

It is their job to find one.