Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Battle between isolation, intervention remain at the heart of America

American flag behind a fence
AntaresNS/Getty Images

Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework," has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.

It is useful to think about the presidential election with a framework that emphasizes the old tension between isolationism and interventionism.


In many ways, the Republicans represent the isolationist camp, and the Democrats represent the interventionist camp. Of course, the exact words that are used to label the camps will not be satisfactory to everyone: right vs. left, libertarian vs. progressive, individualist vs. communitarian. Yet the old isolationist/interventionist theme has divided the nation for nearly 250 years.

Since its founding, America has struggled with the desire among some to be isolated from the rest of the world and the desire among others to be integrated with the rest of the world. We were, in the early years of the republic, quite isolated from the rest of the world by virtue of our geographic location. The colonists left the Old World to get away from it and were determined, and the revolutionaries among them wanted to create a new kind of country.

Both world wars brought into sharp focus our pull toward isolationism because the public did not want to be engaged in European conflicts. We entered World War I in 1917 and World War II in late 1941, and in each case our presidents, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, had to work for years to prepare Congress and the people themselves for U.S. involvement in overseas wars.

Our tension between isolationism and intervening to make the world safe for democracy is quite evident today, since we struggle over what America should do regarding Russia and Ukraine, Israel and the Palestinians, Iran, China, North Korea and NATO.

A second tension is between conservative versions of capitalism — which favor free markets, modest forms of regulation and minimum forms of redistribution of wealth and income — and versions of a mixed economy and social democracy that rely on major forms of government intervention into the private sector.

Progressives and liberals in the United States, ranging from President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris to Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass. and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), stand for a strong interventionist government regarding both domestic and foreign policy. Conservative politicians ranging from former President Donald Trump to Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) favor an America that, though it should defend countries like Israel, should not get too involved in the affairs of most countries and should be minimally interventionist in economic policy as well.

Government, for the conservatives and Trumpians, is not designed to implement major economic or social programs. It is, however, interventionist when it comes to protecting individuals from intrusions by the government, notably regulation of guns and programs that would, in their view, violate the basic gender or sexual identity of a person, especially young people. At its most extreme, some MAGA supporters support a strongman leader who would psychologically and physically force opponents to conform.

The battle between isolationism and interventionism is confusing to say the least. While conservatives generally are in favor of less intervention in the economy when it comes to providing equal opportunity for all, they tend to be interventionist when it comes to various social issues, including their belief that the government should intervene in women’s reproductive rights.

The overall tension typically relies on two different models of citizenship. The isolationist camp favors a view of persons as independent from each other with capacities to be self-determining beings. The interventionist camp favors a view of persons as fundamentally social beings, who, though they are capable of being self-determining, must rely on a strong interventionist federal government for the means — ranging from food and housing to information technology and health care — to realize their potential.

The debate will certainly not be solved soon and certainly will continue well beyond this election. It would be helpful if the media brought this historic tension to the fore. Hitting the public, especially in debates, with policy contrasts one after another is useful but also exhausting for citizens. The battle needs to be elevated to a more illuminating level.

However, there is one component of the isolation-vs.-intervention theme that is not debatable: No one should intervene in the rule of law or free and fair elections. Any candidate who suggests otherwise imperils our democratic republic and should not be trusted with our sacred vote.

We all should be partisan about only one thing: democracy.

Read More

Kids' Healthcare Can't Withstand Medicaid Cuts

The risk to children’s hospitals, which rely heavily on Medicaid funding, is often unrecognized. Children’s health needs greater investment, not less.

Getty Images, FS Productions

Kids' Healthcare Can't Withstand Medicaid Cuts

Last year, my daughter’s elementary school science teacher surprised me with a midday phone call. During a nature center field trip, my eight year old fell off a balance beam and seriously hurt her arm. I picked my daughter up and drove straight to the children’s hospital, where I knew she would get everything she needed. Hours later, we were headed home, injury addressed, pain controlled, appropriate follow-up secured, and her arm in a cast after x-rays revealed fractures across both forearm bones.

That children’s hospital, part of a regional academic medical center, is thirty minutes away from our home. Its proximity assures me that we have access to everything my kids could possibly need medically. Until this year, I took this access for granted. Now, as the structure of the classroom yields to summer’s longer, more freeform days, some of the nation’s most important programs scaffolding kids’ health could collapse under the pressure imposed by proposed legislative budget cuts. As a pediatric doctor and as a parent, slashing Medicaid concerns me the most.

Keep ReadingShow less
An occupational therapist sits with a young boy at a table as they work on some of his motor skills.​

The Massachusetts Developmental Disabilities Council is amplifying the voices of people with IDD and autism, sharing powerful stories of how Medicaid makes their lives in the community possible—and what’s at stake if it's cut.

Getty Images, FatCamera

Federal Medicaid Cuts Will Harm Americans with Disabilities

My brother Todd, a diehard Red Sox fan with a massive sweet tooth, was an incredibly social person. This was especially notable because he did not speak, used a wheelchair, and needed constant support throughout his day due to his cerebral palsy. Growing up with Todd taught me early on that people should get what they need to live meaningful and self-determined lives. Thanks to Medicaid, Todd received personal care assistance, in-home therapies, and employment services. These supports enabled him to graduate from his local public high school, work part-time as an adult, and live a full and social life. Those same Medicaid services also allowed our mother, who was a single parent for over three years, to work full-time to provide for her six children.

Unfortunately, those services are now under direct threat. In late May, the House of Representatives passed the Trump administration’s reconciliation bill in a narrow, partisan vote (215-214). The bill is now being debated in the Senate and could be passed and signed into law before the July 4th holiday. Among many other measures, if enacted, the bill would implement the largest cut to Medicaid in its history, totaling over $800 billion. Cuts of this magnitude could strip 10 to 13 million people nationwide of longstanding and essential healthcare services they depend on, threatening their health, independence, and quality of life.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Strikes Iran Nuclear Sites: Trump’s Pivot Amid Middle East Crisis

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. Dan Caine discusses the mission details of a strike on Iran during a news conference at the Pentagon on June 22, 2025, in Arlington, Virginia.

(Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

U.S. Strikes Iran Nuclear Sites: Trump’s Pivot Amid Middle East Crisis

In his televised address to the nation Saturday night regarding the U.S. strikes on Iran, President Donald Trump declared that the attacks targeted “the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror.” He framed the operation as a necessary response to decades of Iranian aggression, citing past attacks on U.S. personnel and Tehran’s support for militant proxies.

While those justifications were likely key drivers, the decision to intervene was also shaped by a complex interplay of political strategy, alliance dynamics, and considerations of personal legacy.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Medical Community Tells Congress That Telehealth Needs Permanent Federal Support
person wearing lavatory gown with green stethoscope on neck using phone while standing

The Medical Community Tells Congress That Telehealth Needs Permanent Federal Support

WASHINGTON–In March 2020, Stephanie Hendrick, a retired teacher in Roanoke, Virginia, contracted COVID-19, a virus that over 110 million people in the U.S. would contract over the next couple of years.

She recovered from the initial illness, but like many, she soon began experiencing long COVID symptoms. In the early months of the pandemic, hospitals and medical centers prioritized care for individuals with active COVID-19 infections, and pandemic restrictions limited travel and in-person treatment for other medical conditions. Hendrick’s options for care for long COVID were limited.

Keep ReadingShow less