When you hear of Massachusetts, Boston is often the first city that comes to mind, and for good reason. After all, it is the cradle of the American Revolution. It’s where key events like the Boston Tea Party and the Battle of Bunker Hill took place, shaping the future of America. But there’s much more to explore beyond the bustling streets of Beantown in the Bay State. The latter is home to a wealth of other cities and towns that offer just as much depth and charm without the crowds. This is especially true for history lovers, as Massachusetts is renowned for its rich maritime heritage, industrial roots, and pivotal moments in American history. Below, you will find a list of 10 historic cities that are great alternatives to Boston, and they’re perfect for history buffs seeking something a little different.   1. Salem Market House, built in 1816 in Derby Square, Salem, Massachusetts. Source: Flickr   The historical significance of Salem stretches far beyond the 1692 witch trials to which the city is most famously tied. In fact, the name “Salem” is derived from the Hebrew word for “peace,” which speaks more about the origins of this place. During the American Revolution, Salem was a strategic maritime hub. Its shipbuilding prowess aided in the capture or destruction of over 600 British vessels. This is how important it was in naval warfare.   When visiting Salem, the first place to head to is obviously the Salem Witch Trials Memorial. It commemorates the innocent lives lost during the witch hunt. Another spot to visit is the Witch House. This is the home of Jonathan Corwin, and it offers insights into the witch trials and 17th-century life.   To learn about Salem’s role as a bustling seaport in the 18th century, the Salem Maritime National Historic Site will be the right spot for that. You’ll see historic wharves and the iconic tall ship Friendship of Salem.   The House of the Seven Gables and the Peabody Essex Museum are also essential places to visit in Salem. With fewer crowds than in Boston, you’ll enjoy a more immersive experience in Salem in both colonial architecture and maritime history.   2. Worcester Union Station, in Worcester, Massachusetts. Source: Wikimedia Commons   On top of being the second-largest city in Massachusetts, Worcester is known as the “Heart of the Commonwealth” because of its central location within the state. The city is also known for its rich past that spans from the Industrial Revolution to modern times. The construction of the Blackstone Canal in the 19th century facilitated the transformation of Worcester into a thriving industrial city.   If you’re passionate about learning about the history of Worcester, then you should head first to the Worcester Historical Museum. This is where you will find information about the industrial roots and cultural movements of the city. Also, you can step back in time at Salisbury Mansion, an 18th-century colonial home.   The Worcester Art Museum features over 38,000 pieces of art. For a peaceful escape, consider Green Hill Park. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial and vast green spaces are the highlights of this park. Worcester combines historical depth, cultural attractions, and outdoor spaces in a less hectic, more affordable alternative to Boston.   3. Springfield Court Square, Springfield, Massachusetts. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Sports enthusiasts will love this city. After all, it’s known as the birthplace of Basketball. At the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame, you’ll have the chance to explore the evolution of the game through interactive exhibits and memorabilia. The Springfield Armory National Historic Site played a pivotal role in supplying firearms during the Revolutionary War and beyond. This site houses one of the most comprehensive collections of historic military arms.   If you’re looking for a more whimsical experience, head to The Amazing World of Dr. Seuss Museum. The latter celebrates the legacy of Springfield native Theodore Geisel, who was better known as Dr. Seuss. You’ll see engaging displays and interactive exhibits that bring his beloved characters to life.   Needless to say, the Springfield Museums complex should also be on your bucket list when you’re in the city. The complex features five unique museums focusing on art, history, science, and other interesting areas.   4. Lowell Lowell City Hall, Lowell, Massachusetts. Source: Wikimedia Commons   This iconic city of Massachusetts was named after American industrialist Francis Cabot Lowell. It’s also known as the “Cradle of the American Industrial Revolution” thanks to its major role in textile manufacturing. Lowell has, in fact, played a big part in shaping America’s early industrial era. If you’re interested in learning more about Lowell’s industrial past, then you can head to Lowell National Historical Park. This is where you’ll see restored windmills and interactive exhibits. As for the Whistler House Museum of Art, it honors the birthplace of artist James McNeill Whistler.   The Kerouac Park is also an interesting place to visit in the city. This one is dedicated to the Beat Generation author Jack Kerouac, a Lowell native. Annual events, such as the Lowell Folk Festival, celebrate the diverse heritage of the city, including African-American, Cambodian, and Portuguese communities.   5. New Bedford New Bedford Historic Downtown, Massachusetts. Source: Wikimedia Commons   New Bedford is a bustling coastal city of Massachusetts located along the Acushnet River. The historical significance of this remarkable city dates back to the 19th century when New Bedford was one of the world’s most significant whaling ports. Back then, it used to drive much of the global whaling industry.   You can explore a handful of historical attractions in the city, such as the renowned New Bedford Whaling Museum, which offers you a glimpse into the maritime heritage of this Massachusetts city. Another interesting spot to visit is the New Bedford Whaling National Historical Park, with plenty of tours of historic sites.   As for the Abolition Row Park, it commemorates New Bedford’s role in the Underground Railroad. The Nathan and Polly Johnson House marks Frederick Douglass’ first residence after escaping slavery. For art lovers, you’ll find a vibrant cultural scene in New Bedford, with plenty of galleries and performances at the Zeiterion Performing Arts Center.   6. Cambridge City Hall, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Cambridge is actually part of the greater Boston metropolitan area, and it’s globally recognized for hosting some of the top educational institutions. These include Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Hult International Business School, and Lesley University.   The city was originally settled in 1630 as Newtowne and was renamed in 1638 after the prestigious University of Cambridge in England. This reflected the academic roots of Cambridge with the founding of Harvard College in 1636. You should absolutely visit Harvard University as part of a historical exploration of Cambridge. This university remains one of the city’s most iconic institutions. You’ll be able to stroll through Harvard Yard, explore the Harvard Art Museums, and discover the Harvard Museum of Natural History.   But it’s not all about Cambridge’s academic prestige. The city also boasts numerous historical landmarks, such as the Longfellow House, once General George Washington’s headquarters during the Siege of Boston. It now serves as a museum celebrating the poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow and Revolutionary War history.   As for Mount Auburn Cemetery, it is the first rural cemetery in the country and offers a peaceful and historically significant spot where you can enjoy natural beauty and see the resting places of notable figures.   7. Quincy Church of The Presidents, Quincy, Massachusetts. Source: Wikimedia Commons   This city is located just 10 miles south of Boston, and it provides you with a rich history and coastal charm. It’s known as the “City of Presidents” as it was the birthplace of two US presidents, John Adams and his son, John Quincy Adams. That’s why it’s home to the Adams National Historical Park, which includes the family homes of the presidents. Quincy is also home to Peacefield, the Adams family estate.   History lovers will enjoy exploring the Presidents Trail, which weaves through 12 historic sites connected to Quincy’s Revolutionary War and presidential legacy.   The city also has deep ties to shipbuilding and naval history. Visit the USS Salem at the US Naval Shipbuilding Museum to learn more about Quincy’s maritime past. It’s also a good idea to marvel at the scenic views of Boston Harbor and the nearby Blue Hills Reservation, where you can indulge in some outdoor activities, such as hiking and skiing.   With easy access to Boston, you’ll be able to explore Quincy’s rich presidential history, cultural sites, and coastal beauty very conveniently.   8. Lynn Public Library, Lynn, Massachusetts. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Nowadays, visitors flock to Lynn to explore the past of this Massachusetts city at Lynn Heritage State Park. This is where they can learn about the industrial history of the city through exhibits and scenic waterfront views. After all, Lynn is located along the Atlantic Ocean and Massachusetts Bay in southern Essex County. Founded in 1629, it became a major center for shoe manufacturing in the 19th century, which helped fuel the industrial boom of the city.   Lynn was once notorious for crime, which earned it the nickname “City of Sins.” However, it transformed its image over the years.   One of the largest municipal parks in the US is the Lynn Woods Reservation, which boasts over 2,000 acres of hiking trails, historic ruins, and beautiful landscapes. The High Rock Tower is another must-see, and it offers panoramic views of Lynn and the Atlantic Ocean.   As for the Lynn Museum & Arts Center, it showcases the diverse heritage of the city, including its role in abolitionism and labor movements.   9. Fall River The Hiker statue, Fall River, Massachusetts. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Located at the mouth of the Taunton River, along the eastern edge of Mount Hope Bay, Fall River rose to prominence as the leading textile manufacturing hub in the US. The legacy of the city is preserved in sites like Battleship Cove, which is home to the world’s largest collection of World War II naval vessels, including the famed USS Massachusetts. You can explore these historic ships up close, which will help you understand and learn about the details of naval history.   The Lizzie Borden House offers a glimpse into one of America’s most infamous unsolved murder cases. The home is now a museum where guided tours detail the mystery surrounding the 1892 murders. Fall River also has lots of scenic attractions, such as Fall River Heritage State Park, with its beautiful riverside boardwalk and lush green spaces.   If you want to get away from the crowds of Boston and you’re looking for a place where you can experience Massachusetts history with historical landmarks, maritime heritage, and a quiet pace, then Fall River should be next on your list.   10. Plymouth Pilgrim Hall Museum, Plymouth, Massachusetts. Source: Wikimedia Commons   While Plymouth is a town and not a city, it deserves a spot on our list of historic alternatives to Boston, thanks to its historical significance. After all, this is the oldest town in Massachusetts. It was established in 1620 by the Pilgrims who arrived aboard the Mayflower. As one of the earliest European settlements in America, Plymouth became the symbolic site of the first Thanksgiving. It’s often referred to as “America’s Hometown” because of its history mentioned above.   The Plimoth Patuxet Museums recreate life in a 17th-century English village alongside a native Wampanoag settlement. So this is definitely a must-visit. As for the Mayflower II, another must-see, it’s a replica of the original ship that carried the Pilgrims across the Atlantic.   The Plymouth Rock, while modest, holds symbolic importance as the legendary landing site of the Mayflower passengers. To learn about the early years of the colony, consider heading to the towering National Monument to the Forefathers and the Pilgrim Hall Museum.   Plymouth is located around 40 miles south of Boston. This is a 45-minute to an hour’s drive. The town offers a quieter coastal alternative to Boston, with a walkable, history-rich experience.

  Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd was an important figure in South African history. He did not create apartheid nor first implement it, but he expanded it to such a degree that he will always be remembered as the man who intensified the regime so much that it turned South Africa into a pariah state.   During his rule as prime minister, millions were disenfranchised while tens of thousands were imprisoned. He ruthlessly cracked down on all opposition and turned South Africa into a virtual police state.   Predictably, he attracted many enemies. One of them in particular had a critical impact, from which Verwoerd would never recover.   Early Life of Hendrik Verwoerd The town of Winnie Mandela, formerly known as Brandfort in central Free State province. Source: Ronald Moorcroft on Google Earth   Hendrik was born in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, on September 8, 1901. His father, Wilhelmus Johannes Verwoerd, was a shopkeeper and an extremely religious man who sympathized with the Boer cause in the wake of the Second Anglo-Boer War. For this reason, he decided to move with his family to South Africa in 1903.   Hendrik was the second of three children born to Wilhelmus and his wife, Anje Hendriks Strik. Hendrik had an older brother, Leendert, and a younger sister, Hendrika Johanna Lucretia. He began his schooling in Cape Town, and in 1912, his family moved to Rhodesia, where he excelled in his studies and was awarded a scholarship. His father joined the Dutch Reformed Church, where he became an assistant evangelist.   In 1917, Verwoerd moved with his family back to South Africa, where they took up residence in Brandfort (renamed Winnie Mandela in 2021) in the Orange Free State. Hendrik took his final exams there and finished first in the province and fifth in the country. He went on to become a brilliant student at Stellenbosch University in Stellenbosch, near Cape Town. In 1925, he completed a Doctorate in Psychology. Thereafter, he went to study in Germany, where he had been offered a scholarship.   Hendrik Verwoerd, 1945. Source: Wikimedia Commons   It is debated whether this is where he was influenced by racial policies. Nevertheless, living in Germany at the time would certainly have led him to be in contact with many people who viewed such ideologies as the acceptable norm.   However, it is salient that in his notes, he mentioned that there were no biological differences between racial groups. It is thus assumed that his ideas for racial segregation were informed and influenced by the dynamic in the United States, although this cannot be confirmed concretely. German historian Christoph Marx contends that Verwoerd’s ideas were not influenced by the ideas of eugenics and social Darwinism on which the Nazis based their racial ideologies.   He was later joined in Germany by his fiancée, Betsy Schoombie, and the two were married on January 7, 1927 in Hamburg.   He further studied in the UK and the United States before returning to South Africa.   Return to South Africa Hendrik Verwoerd. Source: Store Norske Leksikon   Verwoerd garnered impressive academic credentials. Upon his return to South Africa in 1928, he was appointed chair of Applied Psychology and Psycho Technique at Stellenbosch University. Six years later, he was a Professor of Sociology and Social Work.   This position served him well, and he won great support for his social work during the Great Depression, although it must be noted that his efforts to provide welfare only extended to South Africa’s white population.   He became a friend of future National Party (NP) leader J.G. Strijdom and gained significant influence in the movement to further segregate Black and white people. The United Party, which would be Verwoerd’s main political rival, opposed these views.   His efforts in this field would also lead him into politics. He became editor of a newspaper called Die Transvaler, a publication designed to promote Afrikaner Nationalism. Through this, he was also tasked with strengthening the NP in the Transvaal.   Under the editorship of Verwoerd, Die Transvaler took an anti-British stance that was also accused of being pro-Nazi. Verwoerd took the accuser to court for libel but lost the case.   Verwoerd Joins the National Party Sophiatown. Source: South African History Online   In 1948, the National Party, under the leadership of D.F. Malan, came to power and officially implemented apartheid policy. Verwoerd left his post as editor of Die Transvaler to represent the NP in government. He was hugely successful in this move, and by 195, he was the Minister of Native Affairs. In this position, he started work on implementing harsher apartheid laws. He transformed land that had been set aside as reservations for various Black communities and turned them into autonomous states known as Bantustans.   In charge of Black education, Verwoerd also put limitations on the curriculum to be taught to Black people, intending to reduce the level of education to basic literacy and numeracy. Verwoerd believed staunchly that Black people were only good for manual labor and simple tasks.   By doing so, he prohibited Black people from accessing higher education and made sure that only white people would have the education to achieve high-status positions within South African society.   He also cleared various areas in South Africa of Black residents and was responsible for the displacement of tens of thousands of people from the towns of Newclare, Martindale, and Sophiatown. The residents of these areas were relocated to the township of Soweto, southwest of Johannesburg. Today, Soweto is still one of the poorest neighborhoods in South Africa.   Union to Republic The flag of South Africa during the apartheid era. Source: Wikimedia Commons   From 1910 to 1961, South Africa existed as the “Union of South Africa.” Although independent, it still held many ties to the United Kingdom and recognized the king or queen as the legitimate monarch of the state in much the same way as Canada, New Zealand, and Australia still do today.   Hendrik Verwoerd was absolutely opposed to this connection and sought to make South Africa a republic, completely free from the United Kingdom. Because of the apartheid policies, a rift was already growing between the two countries. Indeed, Afrikaners still held a deep-seated mistrust of the British as a result of what had happened during the Second Anglo-Boer War. Throughout the 1950s, the move to break from the United Kingdom gathered strength.   In 1954, D.F Malan resigned as prime minister and was succeeded by J.G. Strijdom. Apartheid policies continued to be solidified under Strijdom’s guidance while Verwoerd continued in his position as Minister of Native Affairs.   Painting by an unknown artist of victims of the Sharpeville Massacre. Source: Wikimedia Commons   In 1958, shortly after a resounding election victory, Strijdom died, and Verwoerd was elected to succeed him as Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa. Verwoerd immediately set about preparing for South Africa to become a republic.   In 1960, the Sharpeville Massacre occurred, in which Black protestors were shot at by police. Sixty-nine people were killed, most as they were running away. This incident drew widespread international condemnation, and Verwoerd used it to argue further for the case of a republic. He argued that since most of the world condemned South Africa’s policies, it made sense for South Africa to take full control of its future.   Last Steps to the Republic of South Africa by H.F. Verwoerd. Source: Abe Books   On October 5, 1960, a referendum was held to determine whether South Africa should become a republic. The result was 52 percent in favor. Although a law existed that a two-thirds majority was needed in order to change the country’s constitution, Verwoerd and the rest of the NP ignored it and declared South Africa a republic on May 31, 1961.   The British Pound was dropped as the currency, and the Rand was introduced. All constitutional ties to Britain were cut.   The political fallout was severe. South Africa pursued apartheid with even more vigor and was kicked out of the Commonwealth as well as the Olympic Games. Bans and sanctions were implemented and would increase over the decades as the regime became more brutal. In 1974, South Africa was even kicked out of the United Nations.   Further Entrenchment of Apartheid The ruins of District Six in the foreground. Source: University of Cape Town/Lerato Maduna   In addition to his fight for a republic, Verwoerd passed several acts that further entrenched apartheid. The Promotion of Black Self-Government Act of 1958 solidified the existence of the Bantustans with the aim of them becoming fully independent states. In reality, however, they were puppet states of the South African government. The Bantu Investment Corporation Act of 1959 was designed to move Black capital to the Bantustans to generate the economies there. The Extension of University Education Act of 1959 was created to set up separate education facilities for Blacks, Coloreds*, and Indians.   *Note that the term “Colored” in South Africa is and was used to designate people of mixed-race heritage, which includes the descendants of Khoisan people and Malay slaves, among others. It is generally accepted as non-offensive.   Forced removals continued throughout Verwoerd’s term as Prime Minister. One of the most famous incidents was the removal of 60,000 people in the area of District Six in Cape Town in February 1966. Known for its cosmopolitan ethnic makeup, District Six was bulldozed, and its inhabitants relocated to other areas.   Two Assassination Attempts Verwoerd after being shot in the face during the first assassination attempt in 1960. Source: The Africa Archive   On April 9, 1960, while giving an address to a crowd at Milner Park in Johannesburg, an English businessman named David Pratt pulled out a .22 pistol and shot at Verwoerd’s face at point-blank range. One bullet entered the prime minister’s right cheek and the other his right ear.   Verwoerd was rushed to hospital, and Pratt was arrested. The damage to Verwoerd was mostly superficial, and he spent a short time in hospital, returning to his job only two months after the attack. Pratt was arrested and charged but was found to be insane and was committed to a mental asylum.   Verwoerd’s next brush with an assassin would not prove to be so fortunate for the prime minister. On September 6, 1966, as he entered the House of Assembly in Cape Town, Verwoerd was set upon by Greek-Mozambican political activist Dimitri Tsafendas, who stabbed Verwoerd four times in the chest and neck.   Verwoerd was rushed to Groote Schuur Hospital, but he died in transit. Tsafendas was arrested and convicted and spent the rest of his life in prison, eventually dying in 1999 at the age of 81.   Bust of H.F. Verwoerd in the town of Meyerton. The bust was removed in 2011. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Although he did not create apartheid, Verwoerd’s policies entrenched it to the point where it was defended with violent consequences. Under his leadership, a new era of trauma was visited upon the non-white South African people like never before.   For this, Verwoerd will always be remembered as the man who made sure apartheid was there to stay. Although democracy returned to South Africa in 1994, the legacy of apartheid lives on, as South Africans still struggle to fix the societal problems created by the laws of inequality. In this way, Verwoerd’s legacy is still very much a factor in South African society today.

What’s right with you? You’re being attacked with trials and temptations because the devil sees you as a threat and wants to stop you. So God’s allowing these trials and temptations for a purpose.

COLD-BLOOODEDDDD

Recurring fears of isolationism are a fixture of American politics. Such anxieties bubble to the surface once a generation as an American electorate challenges the inherited wisdom of a postwar status…

Argentina’s President Javier Milei announced Monday that he would shutter the Federal Administration of Public Revenue (AFIP), the Argentine equivalent to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. The institution…

Ross Douthat of the New York Times scored an interview with two of the top foreign policy brains in the potential next Trump administration. Their thematic similarity on Europe issues, and especially…

Politics America Was Never Isolationist  Fareed Zakaria’s “America First” is a lazy exercise in the abuse of history. Credit: image via Shutterstock Recurring fears of isolationism are a fixture of American politics. Such anxieties bubble to the surface once a generation as an American electorate challenges the inherited wisdom of a postwar status quo. Whether it be the late 1950s, early 1970s, early 1990s, or the present, American “isolationism” always seems to be on the rise, and thus, establishment media commentators and politicos feel obliged to fight back against it. In the current war against the “i-word,” Fareed Zakaria recently devoted a 45-minute CNN special to the subject of American “isolationism,” its history, and its implications on the forthcoming 2024 presidential race.  The documentary has three significant problems. First, it is primarily based on an inaccurate accounting of the past, one which holds that the United States was a disinterested geopolitical actor before the horrors of the Second World War. Second, Zakaria often downplays the costs of the American global order and seeks to assure the viewer that they were—and are—worth the price, suggesting that American prosperity relies on global leadership. Finally, he warns of the dangers of returning to a mythical “isolationist” past compared to the destructive interventionism he terms “internationalist.”  First, the history. In his retelling of the run-up to the Second World War, Zakaria portrays the United States as a geopolitically disinterested power. He does not mention the U.S. government’s imperial footprint in the Pacific. Zakaria breezes through the mechanics of America’s incremental entry into the First World War, presenting the United States as a reluctant belligerent in Europe’s total war. In truth, by 1916, the United States, while officially neutral, was supporting the Allies with both financial and material aid. When, as Zakaria tells it, “Germany ramped up its aggression with an all-out attack on American ships,” those ships were carrying American arms and ammunition to Germany’s enemies.   Thus, American involvement in the war and the imperial competition that preceded it remains largely underexamined, with critical questions remaining unasked, such as whether it was in America’s best interest to enter the war at all.  Zakaria similarly implies that the American ostrich act of the interwar period was responsible for the rise of the Axis, particularly Nazi military aggression. Echoing a common but regularly debunked claim, Zakaria charges that, after the Great War, “the United States had returned to its isolationist roots with a vengeance.” While the U.S. maintained protective tariffs, U.S. exports actually expanded in the 1920s. Geopolitically, the U.S. remained an imperial power in the Pacific as well as Latin America, participated in arms-control agreements, and organized assistance to feed the starving people of a war-torn Europe. As the late political scientist Bear F. Braumoeller noted, “the characterization of America as isolationist in the interwar period is simply wrong.”  One is treated to a similarly simplistic interpretation of the immediate origins of the Second World War and America’s entry into it. Throughout his treatment of the late interwar period, Zakaria places fault for German expansionism at the feet of a reluctant United States, asserting that “Hitler knew America would do nothing to stop the great German war machine.” Absent from his account are structural forces like the Great Depression, the complicated relationship between Stalin and Hitler (which helped usher in the war), and the lack of decisive action on the part of France and Great Britain, two powers that arguably possessed the means but lacked the will to enforce peace in Europe. Zakaria’s account is not unusual, but rather a standard hawkish narrative that the rise of Hitler and the horrors that ensued were America’s fault.   Zakaria’s cartoonish history persists into his narrative of the early Cold War. During that era, Zakaria’s villain is the arch-isolationist Senator Robert A. Taft (R-OH), who fought against the political outsider, Second World War hero, and committed internationalist General Dwight D. Eisenhower. Yet Taft was no “isolationist.” As a young lawyer and senator, Taft believed in the utility of international law, so long as it was enforced by a responsible Congress that looked after American sovereignty. And, while Taft largely toed the noninterventionist line on the eve of America’s entry into the Second World War, he was less rigid in his foreign policy views by the late 1940s. During the early Cold War, Taft supported some activist foreign policy measures but opposed others, a direction that sought to maintain American freedom of maneuver, one that prioritized strategic aims in East Asia over those in Western Europe while building a military capable of hemispheric deterrence.   The real political divide between Taft and Eisenhower was concerned not with isolation versus engagement but with the contours of a postwar world, an order about which Eisenhower himself displayed great concern at home and abroad. In his coverage of this moment, much like his account of the present, Zakaria presents us with a false choice between a relapse into a mythic and benighted “isolationist” past or a vaguely defined “internationalist” future.  In arguing that the mantle of leadership comes cheaply, Zakaria rightly notes that the toll of the “brushfire wars” of the Cold War and the post–Cold War era was an order of magnitude smaller than the catastrophes of the World Wars. Yet the costs of such wars were hidden by radical advances in military medicine, which increased the ratio of wounded to killed in action, and by the luxury of owning the world’s reserve currency. Activist foreign policies are lubricated when the government can pay the cost in treasure by putting it on the credit card and pay the toll in blood by squeezing it out of increasingly small pockets of an all-volunteer and largely generational martial caste.  What is most striking is that Zakaria largely misses the cause of the resurgence of an “America First” ideology: a recognition of the costs of empire. While some members of the America First movement of the 1930s and its later iterations were motivated by bigotry, most were animated by a desire to preserve liberal domestic order and freedom of maneuver on the global stage.  On the domestic front, the America Firsters, informed by the antecedents of the 19th-century populist movements, believed that dramatic increases in military spending benefited the few at the expense of the many. They similarly recognized, informed by their experience during the Great War, that global power came at the cost of civil liberties in the form of the Sedition Act, increased policing power, and violent private mobs. Lastly, they believed that entry into the Great War and the potential signing of the Versailles Treaty hooked their country to the imperial desires of the Old World. The total costs were just too much to bear for a country that saw itself as a republican nation set apart from the bickering powers of Europe.  None of these issues have been or can be resolved, as they are persistent tradeoffs at the core of the country’s activist foreign policy. “Isolationism” is ever-present because U.S. foreign policy relies on the resources of the American people, through the shedding of their blood and the expropriation of their treasure. As in the past, their reluctance provides policymakers feedback on their assessment whether the game is worth the candle, and whether they are willing to pay the costs.  If the United States is to maneuver through this period of global turmoil with its institutions intact and some measure of global influence, its leadership class needs to adapt the nation’s foreign policy aims in light of domestic constraints and recognize the limits of its own power. Zakaria uses a simplistic model of the past as an instrument to guide the future. In doing so, he does violence both to history and to the future. The post America Was Never Isolationist appeared first on The American Conservative.