Changes

The churches played a major role in the debates on the League of Nations. The mainline denominations, especially influenced by the [[Social Gospel]], provided strong support. Opposition came from [[Fundamentalist]] and Calvinist groups.

The churches played a major role in the debates on the League of Nations. The mainline denominations, especially influenced by the [[Social Gospel]], provided strong support. Opposition came from [[Fundamentalist]] and Calvinist groups.

Most Americans who belonged to Dispensationalist Fundamentalists, Calvinists, German Lutheran and Catholic churches opposed the League.  Ethnicity played a role, as German Lutherans and  German Catholics were especially hostile, as were Irish Catholics. There was some opposition from Methodist and Episcopalian ranks.

Most Americans who belonged to Dispensationalist Fundamentalists, Calvinists, German Lutheran, and Catholic churches opposed the League.  Ethnicity played a role, as German Lutherans and  German Catholics were especially hostile, as were Irish Catholics. There was some opposition from Methodist and Episcopalian ranks.

Dispensationalists denounced the League as fulfilling the prophecy of a final world empire and as a sign of "human pretensions of self-sufficiency" in thinking that they could prevent the sin of war without God's help. Although many Calvinists backed the Social Gospel and therefore the League, conservatives, including Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, and Christian Reformed, counter-argued that such a human endeavor to improve the world without a Christian core doomed it to failure. Furthermore, they lamented the lack of mission language in the League charter and warned against cooperating with non-Christian states on an equal plane. The Missouri Synod Lutherans argued against such Social Gospel endeavors because of their amillennialist bent and insistence on the separation of church and state. Conservative Methodists and Episcopalians found themselves in the minority within denominations that publicly endorsed the League of Nations but nonetheless derided it as dangerously socialist and too divorced from Christianity for success.  Much of this rhetoric has reappeared in recent years in discussions of the United Nations.<ref>See Markku Ruotsila, ''The Origins of Christian Anti-Internationalism: Conservative Evangelicals and the League of Nations.'' (2008)</ref>

Dispensationalists denounced the League as fulfilling the prophecy of a final world empire and as a sign of "human pretensions of self-sufficiency" in thinking that they could prevent the sin of war without God's help. Although many Calvinists backed the Social Gospel and therefore the League, conservatives, including Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, and Christian Reformed, counter-argued that such a human endeavor to improve the world without a Christian core doomed it to failure. Furthermore, they lamented the lack of mission language in the League charter and warned against cooperating with non-Christian states on an equal plane. The Missouri Synod Lutherans argued against such Social Gospel endeavors because of their amillennialist bent and insistence on the separation of church and state. Conservative Methodists and Episcopalians found themselves in the minority within denominations that publicly endorsed the League of Nations but nonetheless derided it as dangerously socialist and too divorced from Christianity for success.  Much of this rhetoric has reappeared in recent years in discussions of the United Nations.<ref>See Markku Ruotsila, ''The Origins of Christian Anti-Internationalism: Conservative Evangelicals and the League of Nations.'' (2008)</ref>

===Cold War===

===Cold War===

During World War II, the internationalist wing of the GOP gained strength, as former isolationist [[Arthur Vandenberg]] switched sides.<ref>James A. Gazell, "Arthur H. Vandenberg, Internationalism, and the United Nations". ''Political Science Quarterly'' 1973 88(3): 375-394</ref>  The Republicans controlled Congress when it approved the [[Truman Doctrine]] in 1947 and the [[Marshall Plan]] in 1948.

During World War II, the internationalist wing of the [[GOP]] gained strength, as former isolationist [[Arthur Vandenberg]] switched sides.<ref>James A. Gazell, "Arthur H. Vandenberg, Internationalism, and the United Nations". ''Political Science Quarterly'' 1973 88(3): 375-394</ref>  The Republicans controlled Congress when it approved the [[Truman Doctrine]] in 1947 and the [[Marshall Plan]] in 1948.

The leaders of the anti-isolationist or "internationalist" wing were [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] (president 1952-60), and [[Richard Nixon]] (president 1968-74).  Conservative leader [[Barry Goldwater]] in 1964 rejected isolationism and called for an aggressive [[Rollback]] strategy to defeat Communism, a policy followed by [[Ronald Reagan]] (president 1980–88).   

The leaders of the anti-isolationist or "internationalist" wing were [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] (president 1952-60), and [[Richard Nixon]] (president 1968-74).  Conservative leader [[Barry Goldwater]] in 1964 rejected isolationism and called for an aggressive [[Rollback]] strategy to defeat Communism, a policy followed by [[Ronald Reagan]] (president 1980–88).   

==Switzerland==

==Switzerland==

Since 1815 Switzerland has conspicuously distanced itself from the international community. It remained neutral in all wars. It has rejected membership in the UN and participation in the European Economic Area treaty and UN peacekeeping operations; and it remains outside the European Union.  It remains one of the world's major banking centers, and serves as the neutral host of many international agencies and meetings.

Since 1815 Switzerland has conspicuously distanced itself from the international community. It remained neutral in all wars. It has rejected membership in the UN and participation in the European Economic Area treaty and UN peacekeeping operations; Switzerland remains outside the European Union.  It remains one of the world's major banking centers, and serves as the neutral host of many international agencies and meetings.

This starkly isolationist posture is the product of Swiss direct democracy. Swiss voters have repeatedly voted on issues of international integration. In five of the six cases, they delivered a sharp rebuff to the international community and to their own government.  One explanation focuses on the renewed linguistic cleavage between German speakers and French speakers. Also critical has been the desire to preserve a wide scope for Swiss direct democracy by rejecting binding international agreements. Finally, government campaign tactics have exacerbated popular opposition to international integration.<ref>Kris W. Kobach, "Spurn Thy Neighbour: Direct Democracy and Swiss Isolationism." ''West European Politics'' 1997 20(3): 185-211</ref>  

This starkly isolationist posture is the product of Swiss direct democracy. Swiss voters have repeatedly voted on issues of international integration. In five of the six cases, they delivered a sharp rebuff to the international community and to their own government.  One explanation focuses on the renewed linguistic cleavage between German speakers and French speakers. Also critical has been the desire to preserve a wide scope for Swiss direct democracy by rejecting binding international agreements. Finally, government campaign tactics have exacerbated popular opposition to international integration.<ref>Kris W. Kobach, "Spurn Thy Neighbour: Direct Democracy and Swiss Isolationism." ''West European Politics'' 1997 20(3): 185-211</ref>