TRANSLATE THIS ARTICLE

Integral World: Exploring Theories of Everything

An independent forum for a critical discussion of the integral philosophy of Ken Wilber

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

SEE MORE ESSAYS WRITTEN BY FRANK VISSER

NOTE: This essay contains AI-generated content
Check out my other conversations with ChatGPT

“America First”

From Isolationism to Global Hegemony

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

Introduction: The Double Edge of a Slogan

Few political slogans in American history carry as much emotional charge and ambiguity as “America First.” At once an appeal to national pride and a cipher for contradictory policies, the phrase has been employed by American leaders to justify starkly different foreign policy approaches—from staying out of foreign wars to projecting military power across the globe. The elasticity of “America First” reflects deep tensions in the American psyche: between isolationism and interventionism, between republican restraint and imperial ambition. This essay traces the historical trajectory and shifting meanings of “America First” as it has been invoked by U.S. presidents, culminating in its controversial revival under Donald Trump.

I. Early Echoes: Isolationist Roots and the Pre-War Tradition

The slogan “America First” is most commonly associated with the America First Committee (AFC), a powerful isolationist movement that emerged in 1940 to oppose U.S. involvement in World War II. However, its ideological roots reach back further.

George Washington, in his 1796 Farewell Address, famously warned against “entangling alliances,” emphasizing the need for America to avoid European power politics. Though he never used the term “America First,” the sentiment he expressed—a preference for neutrality, independence, and national self-interest—has often been retroactively framed in those terms.

Thomas Jefferson echoed this view, championing “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” These early statements helped crystallize an American tradition of non-interventionism, driven not only by geographic separation but also by republican ideals wary of imperial entanglement.

By the early 20th century, this sentiment matured into a populist anti-war movement. When President Woodrow Wilson led the U.S. into World War I, he did so in direct contradiction to his 1916 campaign slogan: “He kept us out of war.” The backlash that followed helped generate an organized resistance to future interventions—paving the way for the America First Committee, founded in 1940.

II. The America First Committee: Isolationism with a Capital “I”

The America First Committee (AFC) represented the slogan's most literal application: a strict, often xenophobic, non-interventionism. With prominent supporters like aviator Charles Lindbergh and future President Gerald Ford, the AFC argued that the U.S. should focus solely on defending its own territory and avoid foreign wars entirely. The AFC saw international entanglements—particularly with Britain and the European powers—as contrary to American interests.

Lindbergh's speeches in 1941, while popular among segments of the public, drew increasing criticism for their undertones of anti-Semitism and their sympathetic stance toward Nazi Germany. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, the AFC dissolved, and “America First” became politically toxic—virtually taboo in mainstream discourse for decades.

Yet the AFC's framing of “America First” as an anti-globalist, nationalist, and militarily defensive stance left an imprint on political rhetoric, especially among conservative and populist circles.

III. Cold War Presidents: Global Hegemony as National Interest

In the wake of World War II, America decisively abandoned the strict isolationist path. Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and their successors presided over the construction of a global security architecture that included NATO, the United Nations, and hundreds of overseas military bases. They justified this expansive posture not as a betrayal of national interest, but as its redefinition.

For these leaders, “America First” no longer meant withdrawing from the world, but leading it. The logic of containment during the Cold War turned international engagement into a strategic imperative. Even when presidents avoided using the slogan directly, the concept of America's unique global role—sometimes called “American exceptionalism”—filled its rhetorical space.

Eisenhower, for instance, warned of the “military-industrial complex,” yet presided over an administration deeply committed to projecting American power abroad. In his view, America's leadership was necessary to avoid global instability and protect democratic values.

John F. Kennedy, in his inaugural address, famously pledged to “pay any price, bear any burden...to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” This expansive commitment was a clear rejection of isolationism. Here, "America First" implicitly meant America as the First among Nations, a benevolent hegemon preserving world order.

The Vietnam War under Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon tested this doctrine. Critics argued that U.S. intervention in Southeast Asia betrayed American ideals and drained national resources. But for Cold War presidents, global engagement was not the opposite of nationalism—it was its most potent expression.

IV. Reagan and the Resurgence of National Pride

Ronald Reagan did not explicitly resurrect the slogan “America First,” but his rhetoric echoed many of its emotional registers. His emphasis on “peace through strength,” the revival of the military, and a robust foreign policy all suggested a vision of America as the indispensable global leader—but also as a country that had to recover its greatness after the perceived malaise of the 1970s.

Reaganism married global assertiveness with nationalist symbolism. While he rejected isolationism, his administration often framed international action as a defense of American dignity and supremacy, not as altruistic globalism.

The ambiguous legacy of Reagan—a global leader who also sounded like a nationalist—prefigured later tensions in the Republican Party. It created space for both neoconservative interventionism and populist retrenchment to claim the mantle of patriotism.

V. Post-Cold War Confusion: Clinton to Obama

After the Cold War, the U.S. stood alone as the world's sole superpower. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama each navigated the blurred lines between unilateralism, multilateralism, and domestic concerns.

Clinton emphasized globalization, NATO expansion, and economic integration (e.g., NAFTA and the WTO), framing America's global engagement as a path to prosperity at home.

George W. Bush, particularly after 9/11, invoked stark nationalistic imagery—“either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”—while launching a deeply interventionist foreign policy. Though he rarely used the phrase “America First,” his policies reflected a unilateralist tendency, especially in the invasion of Iraq.

Obama tried to recalibrate. His administration emphasized diplomacy, multilateralism, and the "pivot to Asia," while also overseeing drone warfare and military interventions. He presented a vision of restrained leadership, grounded in realism and liberal values.

Throughout this period, the slogan itself remained largely absent from presidential speech. Its historical baggage, especially from the pre-WWII era, kept it dormant. But the tensions between nationalism and globalism never went away.

VI. Donald Trump: The Revival of “America First”

Donald Trump revived “America First” as the central slogan of his foreign and domestic policy. But his usage was both a return to pre-WWII isolationist rhetoric and a departure into something new—transactional nationalism.

Trump's “America First” was explicitly aimed at:

Ending “forever wars”
Reversing global trade agreements
Pressuring allies to pay more for defense (e.g., NATO)
Building a border wall and curbing immigration
Rejecting multilateralism in favor of bilateral deals

Trump's advisors, notably Steve Bannon, linked the slogan to a broader populist revolt against global elites. In this framing, “America First” was not just about avoiding foreign wars, but about reclaiming national sovereignty from international institutions, corporations, and “globalist” ideologies.

Critics noted the historical baggage of the slogan—its echoes of the AFC, xenophobia, and anti-Semitism. Others pointed out that Trump's version of “America First” often contradicted itself: He both promised military retrenchment and oversaw escalations (e.g., drone strikes, confrontation with Iran); he criticized foreign entanglements while selling arms abroad and cozying up to autocrats.

Nonetheless, the slogan stuck, precisely because of its malleability. It allowed Trump to sound like an isolationist, a nationalist, and an assertive hegemon—depending on the audience.

Conclusion: A Slogan for All Seasons

The slogan “America First” is a rhetorical mirror, reflecting the ever-shifting tensions between isolationism and global dominance, republican restraint and imperial ambition, economic nationalism and military interventionism. Across different presidencies, its meaning has swung like a pendulum.

For the America First Committee, it meant “stay out of the war.”

For Cold War presidents, it meant “lead the free world.”

For Trump, it meant “take care of our own first.”

Each version appeals to a different understanding of national interest—one defensive, the other expansive. Yet the slogan's power lies in its ambiguity. It taps into a primal political urge: to protect the homeland, assert identity, and define America's role on its own terms.

In that sense, “America First” is not a coherent doctrine but a floating signifier, absorbing the anxieties and aspirations of its time. Its legacy reveals not a fixed ideology, but a story of a nation perpetually torn between withdrawal and engagement, between mythic self-containment and the burdens of power.