Bitterness Rising (The Hidden Brooks)

In which Mr. Brooks takes a look at the national mood and sees that we're really not as isolationist as some (i.e., the White House) would have us believe. (The column It's Not Isolationism, But It's Not Attractive is fully available to Times Select subscribers.)

A polling analyst, Ruy Teixeira, has taken the closest look at the data over at his Web site, Donkey Rising. Teixeira argues that instead of seeing a turn to isolationism, what we are seeing in poll after poll is public opinion returning to normal post-World War II levels, after the unusual 9/11 blip.

Much of the isolationist talk started when a Pew survey found that 42 percent of Americans believe that the U.S. should mind its own business internationally, a 12-point rise over three years. But Teixeira points out that the 42 percent number puts Americans back where they were throughout the Clinton years, when Americans supported more foreign interventions than ever before.

Meanwhile, the rest of the evidence shows high engagement in foreign affairs. Public support for multilateral action remains phenomenally strong. Support for foreign aid is higher than it's been. International issues like global terrorism remain among Americans' top concerns.

Attitudes toward economic globalization are, if anything, more positive than they have been historically. In 1953, 54 percent of Americans favored free trade. In 2000, 64 percent of Americans said free trade was good for the U.S. In 2004, 64 percent said globalization was good for the U.S. and 65 percent agreed international trade was good for "your standard of living."

In the late 1940's, Americans were asked if the U.S. should be active abroad or stay out of world affairs. Back then, during the heyday of American internationalism, 69 percent said the U.S. should be active abroad. Today, the share of people who say that is the same: 69 percent.

Still, Brooks sees a troubling trend in views toward the Arab world:

Thus the chief effect of Iraq is not to move the U.S. toward isolationism; it has been to shift American opinion from one form of internationalism to another.

George Bush's brand was based on the premise that Arabs aren't very different from anybody else, and can be brought into the family of democratic nations. This brand is, sadly, fading.

The rising internationalism is based, by contrast, on Arab exceptionalism. This is the belief that while most of the world is chugging toward a globally integrated future, the Arab world remains caught in its own medieval whirlpool of horror. The Arab countries cannot become quickly democratic; their people aren't ready for pluralistic modernity; they just have to be walled off so they don't hurt us again.

People won't express such quasi-racial views directly to pollsters, but the attitude shows up in the mammoth reaction to the Dubai ports deal, in the spike of people who want the U.S. to eliminate its dependence on Middle East oil, in the reaction to the cartoon riots. A similar attitudinal shift is evident in Europe — in spades.

As I tried to argue in a column about the ports deal, this reaction is a crude overgeneralization, but it's there. As the election season progresses, voters are going to pull candidates in a gritty, bloody-minded direction. No more uplifting talk about freedom. Soon the contest will be over who can be toughest on the crescent menace.

America isn't growing more isolationist. Americans are going to be happy to integrate with the world, just not with the Arab world.

I'm still sitting on the fence regarding the Dubai ports deal. I share some of Mr. Brooks' worry that the strong tide of resentment over this deal is indeed based on xenophobic worry. And I'm frankly not that fussed about having another foreign company (albeit one more directly owned by a foreign government) take over the management reins from another foreign company while still having our federal government manage security and customs. What does worry me is the way this whole thing seemed to go through the upper levels of our government with very little oversight by other bodies--especially when a law within the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) statute seems to require a 45-day review period (see this previous post for more background on the deal). Without that congressional oversight period would, it's no wonder that American public (including myself) raises skepticism.