At a C-Span questionand-answer session on 30 January 2011, former US president George W Bush mentioned three closely linked “isms” that have appeared periodically in modern US history: isolationism, protectionism and nativism.
He presented them as historical temptations that run counter to US principles. He saw them as inwardturning responses to national anxiety, modernisation or involvement in global affairs.
Isolationism is a national doctrine or strategy that calls for a country to remain politically and militarily detached from foreign commitments, permanent alliances and conflicts abroad. An isolationist approach prioritises geographic self-protection, domestic affairs and economic or diplomatic independence.
Protectionism is an economic policy that involves restricting trade between states through high tariffs on imported goods, restrictive import quotas and government regulations intended to protect domestic industries and labour markets from overseas competition.
In sociology and political science, nativism is understood as a form of political and cultural nationalism that favours native-born residents over immigrants. It generally manifests as systematic opposition to foreign people, beliefs or cultural influences, often driven by fears that immigration might threaten national identity, demographic stability, social cohesion or economic security. The presence of these “isms” in modern US administrations is historically and politically documented. Franklin D Roosevelt: In the early to mid-1930s, isolationism was reflected in many Neutrality Acts passed by Congress and signed by Roosevelt. These indicated the strong public desire to avoid involvement in conflicts in Europe and Asia.
Protectionism was reflected in the high tariff rates associated with the Smoot-Hawley era, which remained in place during the Great Depression before the administration turned to reciprocal trade agreements under the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 to reduce trade barriers.
Harry Truman: Protectionism appeared in disagreements over domestic trade, including the retention of certain agricultural import quotas and protective tariffs to safeguard domestic industries after the war. This occurred even though Truman’s broader policy favoured international economic arrangements such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
Richard Nixon: In 1971, the Nixon administration introduced the “Nixon shock”, imposing a temporary 10% import duty to address balanceof-payments deficits and shield US manufacturers from foreign competition. It ended the US dollar’s direct convertibility into gold.
Jimmy Carter: Protectionism took the form of trade restrictions and measures to protect agricultural products. One prominent example was the 1980 Soviet grain embargo, introduced in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The embargo used economic leverage as a punitive trade measure.
Ronald Reagan: His administration adopted protectionist measures to safeguard domestic manufacturing. These included voluntary export restrictions imposed on Japanese car manufacturers, high tariffs on Japanese semiconductors and import quotas for foreign steel.
George HW Bush: Protectionism was reflected in protection for domestic sectors, including import quotas for steel and disputes over semiconductor pricing with Asian markets, even as free-trade agreements advanced through preliminary negotiations on the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Bill Clinton: Protectionism was reflected in measures to safeguard domestic industries. Examples included unilateral quotas and high tariffs on certain imports, disputes over Canadian softwood lumber and steel safeguard measures.
George W Bush: In March 2002, protectionism was evident when the administration introduced temporary tariffs of up to 30% on imported steel. The measure provoked threats of international retaliation before it was withdrawn.
Barack Obama: Protectionism was reflected in the “Buy American” clauses included in the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and in the imposition of high tariffs on Chinese tyre imports in 2009 to pro-tect domestic manufacturing workers. Donald Trump: Isolationism was reflected in Trump’s “America First” foreign policy, which often questioned the value of traditional alliances, criticised Nato, withdrew the US from multilateral agreements such as the Paris climate accord and the Iran nuclear deal, and sought to reduce troop levels overseas.
Protectionism was evident in the introduction of tariffs on imports worth billions of dollars, particularly steel, aluminium and goods from China. The measures led to trade wars and the renegotiation of multi-lateral trade arrangements into more restrictive bilateral ones, with Nafta replaced by the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).
Nativism was reflected in anti-immigration statements and restrictive policies, including a travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority countries, the construction of a wall along the southern border and strict limits on asylum claims.
Administrations led by John F Kennedy, Lyndon B Johnson, Gerald Ford and Joe Biden’s periods in office were shaped by other political and economic “isms”.
Kennedy: The Kennedy administration’s geopolitical policy involved opposition to global communism. This was reflected in its Cold War policy of containment, the establishment of the Green Berets as a counterinsurgency force, the Bay of Pigs invasion and the high-risk confrontation during the Cuban missile crisis. Johnson: His escalation of the Vietnam War drained federal resources, divided the Democratic Party, sparked anti-war protests and overshadowed the social achievements of the Great Society.
Ford: His foreign policy, influenced by Henry Kissinger who was secretary of state, placed a priority on geopolitical stability and diplomacy between the great powers. It continued the policy of Detente with the Soviet Union as well as seeing the Helsinki Accords signed.
Biden: Going against the traditional teachings of free-market economics, Biden’s economic policy included federal intervention and infrastructure investment through the American Rescue Plan, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Chips and Science Act.
Whenever isolationism, protectionism and nativism grow in the US, their effects influence global markets, regional security arrangements and cross-border human mobility.
If the US imposes high tariffs on a major exporter, neighbouring or allied countries that are not targeted by the tariffs, including Vietnam, Mexico and India, might see an increase in foreign direct investment as multinational companies redirect their supply chains to avoid restrictions. Neighbours such as Canada and Mexico can take advantage of their integrated supply chains, which are covered by regional trade agreements such as USMCA, to secure concessions unavailable to companies outside the agreements.
When global supply chains are disrupted, costs rise for foreign manufacturers that rely on inputs or exports linked to the US economy. Small or developing economies may struggle when drawn into retaliatory tariff cycles, resulting in slower GDP growth, lower export revenue and structural exclusion from the market. Allies, such as the EU, Japan and South Korea are forced to accelerate their move towards self-reliance, strengthen their own defence capabilities and establish independent regional alliances. The gap created by US retrenchment enables other regional powers to extend their geopolitical influence and soft power in global governance.
Countries in Eastern Europe and East Asia that have relied on the US umbrella or military deterrence face greater security threats from aggressive regional actors.
The US’s reduced commitment to global health, humanitarian aid, peacekeeping and climate initiatives has left world institutions with insufficient resources.
Stringent US visa policies and anti-immigrant sentiment can lead skilled workers, researchers and students to remain in their home countries or move to more welcoming destinations such as Canada, Australia or Western Europe, encouraging innovation to take place overseas.
In neighbouring countries in Central America and the Caribbean, harsh deportation measures and restrictive border policies can reduce vital remittance payments and place social and economic strain on transit states along migration routes.
Xenophobic statements and policies damage goodwill, make cross-border security cooperation more difficult and create diplomatic tensions between the US and neighbouring governments.
The repeated emergence of isolationism in US history suggests that the American constitutional system was founded on a suspicion of involvement in foreign affairs. It also reveals a tension in US foreign policy between the desire for geographic security and protection from foreign conflicts, on the one hand, and the pursuit of international leadership, on the other.
When isolationism gains ground, it can signal weariness or disillusionment with the costs of maintaining global dominance. It also raises the question of whether American liberty is better preserved by setting an example at home or by taking active measures abroad.
Protectionism reveals the ideological struggle in the American capitalist system between free-market globalism and economic nationalism. Protectionism shows how responsive the democratic system is to domestic economic disruption.
Nativism reveals a contradiction in American identity between civic nationalism, which holds that the country is defined by democratic values, ideals and laws open to everyone, and ethnic or cultural nationalism, which asserts that America belongs to an established group of native-born people. The periodic re-emergence of nativism shows how the American democratic experiment is tested by demographic anxiety and whether its principles of inclusivity, equality and immigrant assimilation can endure during periods of social and cultural change.
When the US adopts isolationism, protectionism and nativism as guiding principles for its foreign and economic policies, it tends to isolate itself from traditional partners in three areas.
If the US casts doubt on established security commitments or threatens to withdraw from multilateral treaties, its allies begin to question the reliability of American promises.
Unilateral protectionism weakens global economic institutions responsible for enforcing shared rules, such as the World Trade Organisation. When the US avoids following rules based on consensus, its partners may respond by establishing regional trade agreements that exclude the American market.
American power has depended on military strength and its appeal as an open, welcoming and normalising leader — a quality known as soft power. Nativist policies and insular rhetoric damage this global prestige, making it difficult for leaders of democratic allied countries to move closer to Washington without facing domestic political consequences.
Bush’s warning about these “isms” suggests that the American system depends on a delicate balance. The recurring tendencies test the nation’s resilience, thus it becomes clear that the US’s values of freedom, prosperity and pluralism are not permanently secured.
Instead, they are shaped by how the country balances openness to the world with an inward-looking attitude of self-protection. Lubabalo Cengani is a master’s graduate in political studies from Nelson Mandela University. He is an emerging researcher and writes in his personal capacity.