I am sympathetic to the general thrust of this essay. I suppose, that explains why I object to the digest of events offered in "Interbellum Years".

Here we find the author inexplicably relating "isolationist" sentiment, in general, to reluctance, in general, "to intervene militarily or economically" in in formation of the League, but not international settlement of reparations; and the US isolationists' argument that "membership over-committed the U.S. to intervene all over the world in conflicts that didn't really concern Americans" is a plausible explanation for Wilson administration's intermittent intervention by Herb Hoover-proxy in the Conference business, between his visits Jan 2018, Dec 2018, Jan - July 2019.

I smell a rat. I smell the innocence of US military aggression in this high school revival of US 'isolationism'. Consistency in fact is rather trivial detail in presentation of US hegemony as if alone in all things fabulous.

For one, I have posted here before Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1789-2012. The US federal gov has never been averse to intervention "all over the world" before, during, or after WWI.

Second, the author seems careless to conflate domestic agitation for 'reform' (Progressive Party, Roosevelt 'Moose' Party, Socialist and Communist parties, anarchists' demos) with polemic against 'isolationism', proposed by latter day US historians. In the decade after the Spanish-American War, brutal union-busting, Panic of '07, etc insurrection pre-occupied fed gov revival of imperial aspiration. It entered WWI late in part because of regime change to systematically suppress civil rights agitation right up to WWI conscription and secure budget financing. 'Isolationism' is the rug pulled over a period of violent, reactionary fed gov police action to quash US domestic 'reform'.

Third, I've been following this WWI shitshow through NYT --'conscience of a liberal'-- clippings for several years at WIIIAI. These anecdotes nicely complement Zinn's survey ( Ch.13-14), for example. And for the last few weeks -100, I've been reading about Republican Party threats to depose Wilson in the event he took even a Japanese minute to sail to Europe for the Paris Peace Conference.

Fourth, the compact wasn't signed until 1920, wasn't 'wildly popular' nor ratified by the US Senate, and the League wasn't codified until 1930, when Herb Hoover was installed. Not that it mattered. US didn't ratify the United Nations Charter until July 28, 1945. And since then has "cherry picked" which UN conventions fed gov will sign but not enforce. Mr Trump is not in the least an atavistic figure of US 'foreign policy.'

"Over-committed the U.S. to intervene" should be understood instead to express a historical political sentiment that fed gov will refuse to be bound by international treaty prohibiting US aggression.

Happy Black History D355 Y3

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.