Interventionists dominate American politics, even if they wear different ideological labels. On one side are progressives who believe government programs can engineer social outcomes at home. On the other are war hawks who believe American power can engineer political outcomes abroad. The two sides argue about many things, but they share the same fundamental assumption, namely, that the solution to nearly every problem is just one more government intervention away.
Progressives have spent decades building a political philosophy around the belief that social problems exist primarily because the government has not intervened enough. Poverty persists? Then we need more spending, programs, and federal oversight. Healthcare is expensive? Then Washington must take on a larger role in controlling the system. Housing is scarce? Then we need more regulations, subsidies, and centralized planning.
The possibility that government intervention itself may contribute to these problems is almost never considered. Instead, every failure becomes proof that the government must simply try again with more authority and more resources.
This pattern has repeated itself for generations. The United States has spent trillions of dollars on anti-poverty programs since the 1960s. Entire bureaucracies were created to administer welfare systems, housing programs, education grants, and social assistance initiatives. Yet poverty never disappears, dependency often increases, and the underlying social issues remain deeply entrenched.
The progressive conclusion is never that the approach might be flawed. Instead, it’s always the same: we didn’t spend, regulate or intervene enough. Failure produces expansion rather than humility.
The same mindset appears on the other side of the political spectrum in America’s foreign policy establishment. War hawks approach global conflicts with the same kind of blind confidence in intervention. When instability arises in another part of the world, their first instinct is rarely caution. Instead, they argue that American credibility, stability or democracy depends on intervention.
If a conflict drags on, rarely do people reconsider whether intervention was wise in the first place. The United States simply hasn’t committed enough resources, the argument goes. More troops, weapons, money and time are needed.
For decades, this thinking produced an endless cycle of foreign entanglements. Military operations that were supposed to be short and decisive stretch into years or decades. Nation-building projects consume trillions of dollars. Promises of stability collapse into chaos once American involvement inevitably ends.
Yet the architects of these interventions rarely admit error. Instead, they insist the problem was insufficient commitment. In other words, the same logic used by progressives at home is mirrored by conservative interventionists abroad.
Both camps believe complex human systems can be managed and reshaped through centralized power. Both believe that if government is given enough authority, funding and time, it can eventually engineer the desired outcomes, and so both respond to failure not with restraint, but with escalation.
The result is a political culture that constantly expands the reach of government, whether through domestic programs or foreign wars. Trillions of dollars are spent on solving problems that often become more complex with each new intervention.
Meanwhile, the American public pays the bill, both financially and in terms of lost liberty. Massive deficits grow larger. Federal power expands further into everyday life – remember how both the USA Patriot Act and FISA have been repeatedly abused by our government domestically?
The certainty behind this cycle is what makes it dangerous. Interventionists rarely question their assumptions because their worldview depends on the belief that government action is always the answer. But history suggests that government intervention, while sometimes necessary, often produces unintended consequences that can be just as damaging as the problems it was meant to solve.
Until both progressives and neoconservatives are willing to confront that reality, the cycle will continue with more programs, wars and promises that the next intervention will finally succeed where all the others failed.
Matthew McLain is an Alabama Young Republican and an accountant for a Fortune 500 company.
The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of 1819 News. To comment, please send an email with your name and contact information to [email protected].
Don’t miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.
