Should the United States Adopt Isolationism as a Policy?

[Frodo]

Should we abandon a policy of engagement with the rest of the world that has lasted ever since the end of the Second World War, and reconsider isolationism in international affairs?

And yes, I am deliberately avoiding defining it here -read the question through your own understanding of the term.    

[Goldwater]

NO! (R)

[AkSaber]

Non-interventionism is the way to go.

But the neocons like to interchange the terms isolationism and non-interventionism.

[Deus Naturae]

Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none.

[Redalgo]

No, though I suppose isolationism would be preferable to imperialism or a foreign policy grounded in realpolitik.

[TNF]

Isolationism is impossible. We have never been an isolationist country.

[bedstuy]

No, it's never again going to be in our self-interest as a country. 

People need to understand the history here.  Isolationism wasn't an altruistic policy for the United States.  At the beginning of the country, we wanted open markets in Europe and we didn't have the military power to meddle.  (I also would ask the Native Americans on the trail of tears if we were all that isolationist)  So, our ploy to being able to trade with both England and France was to assert that we were uninterested in foreign affairs.  At the same time, we also wanted to protect our infant industrial sector with protectionist policies.  That was American self-interest and explained by isolationism.  The simple fact is that weak, undeveloped countries are suited to isolationism, while strong, developed countries are suited to imperialism. 

[H. Ross Peron]

No (normal)

[TNF]

No, it's never again going to be in our self-interest as a country. 

People need to understand the history here.  Isolationism wasn't an altruistic policy for the United States.  At the beginning of the country, we wanted open markets in Europe and we didn't have the military power to meddle.  (I also would ask the Native Americans on the trail of tears if we were all that isolationist)  So, our ploy to being able to trade with both England and France was to assert that we were uninterested in foreign affairs.  At the same time, we also wanted to protect our infant industrial sector with protectionist policies.  That was American self-interest and explained by isolationism.  The simple fact is that weak, undeveloped countries are suited to isolationism, while strong, developed countries are suited to imperialism. 

Bingo.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No.  We need to be less willing to put our troops in harm's way, but for better or worse, we're in the world and need to have some level of engagement.  Ending our current militarism is not the same as adopting isolationism.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

No, we're not North Korea.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Betteridge's law of Frodo thread titles

It strikes again!

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

No, we're not North Korea.

You are obviously confusing an isolated society with isolationism.

[Lief 🗽]

Isolationism is impossible. We have never been an isolationist country.

We were arguably isolationist in the 1930s. But yeah.

[Supersonic]

No. Rather not have Russia and China dominate the world.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

No, we're not North Korea.

You are obviously confusing an isolated society with isolationism.

Haven't you seen that one guy's sig that says:


Switzerland is non-interventionist. North Korea is isolationist.

[Cassius]

No. Rather not have Russia and China dominate the world.

This, essentially. The United States is the only nation capable of maintaining a reasonably pro-western international order.

[ElectionsGuy]

No (I). We have to contact and a relationship with the rest of the world obviously (and free trade, etc.).

Non-interventionism is the way to go.

But the neocons like to interchange the terms isolationism and non-interventionism.

^^^^
This too

[PJ]

No, we're not North Korea.

You are obviously confusing an isolated society with isolationism.

Haven't you seen that one guy's sig that says:


Switzerland is non-interventionist. North Korea is isolationist.

That's Jbrase's sig. And I would support a non-interventionist foreign policy, but not an isolationist foreign policy.

No. Rather not have Russia and China dominate the world.

This, essentially. The United States is the only nation capable of maintaining a reasonably pro-western international order.

Cassius, stop upholding Americans as superior to everyone else. Its not America's job to make the world "pro-western," and frankly, a world controlled by America would be an imperialist hellhole.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

No, we're not North Korea.

You are obviously confusing an isolated society with isolationism.

Haven't you seen that one guy's sig that says:


Switzerland is non-interventionist. North Korea is isolationist.

Switzerland is neutral, but at the same time is also very active in world's diplomacy. North Korea is not officially allied with anybody, but is hardly keeping away from other countries' business.

Both mentioned states are, in diffrent ways, involved in international affairs. Isolationism was about staying away as much as possible from any international involvements.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

No (I). We have to contact and a relationship with the rest of the world obviously (and free trade, etc.).

Non-interventionism is the way to go.

But the neocons like to interchange the terms isolationism and non-interventionism.

^^^^
This too

[angus]

Ending our current militarism is not the same as adopting isolationism.

I wholeheartedly disagree, and I voted yes.

[RosettaStoned]

 Yes. Stay out of third world sh*tholes.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

No (I) (D). We have to contact and a relationship with the rest of the world obviously (and free trade, etc.).

Non-interventionism is the way to go.

But the neocons like to interchange the terms isolationism and non-interventionism.

^^^^
This too

[Cassius]

No, we're not North Korea.

You are obviously confusing an isolated society with isolationism.

Haven't you seen that one guy's sig that says:


Switzerland is non-interventionist. North Korea is isolationist.

That's Jbrase's sig. And I would support a non-interventionist foreign policy, but not an isolationist foreign policy.

No. Rather not have Russia and China dominate the world.

This, essentially. The United States is the only nation capable of maintaining a reasonably pro-western international order.

Cassius, stop upholding Americans as superior to everyone else. Its not America's job to make the world "pro-western," and frankly, a world controlled by America would be an imperialist hellhole.

You are quite wrong. A world without America as the most important power (given that no other Western nation has the capacity to step into its shoes) would almost certainly be a disorderly hellhole, not one under American 'imperialist' domination.