Isolationism Experiencing Revival in the US

[Frodo]

Survey Shows a Revival of Isolationism Among Americans

By MEG BORTIN,
International Herald Tribune
Published: November 17, 2005

Shaken by the Iraq war and the rise of anti-American sentiment around the world, Americans are turning inward, a new Pew survey of United States opinion leaders and the general public has found.

The survey, conducted this autumn and released today, found a revival of isolationist feelings among the public similar to the sentiment that followed the Vietnam War in the 1970's and the end of the Cold War in the 1990's.

Forty-two percent of Americans think the United States should "mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own," according to the survey, which was conducted by the Pew Research Center in association with the Council on Foreign Relations.

In a poll taken in December 2002, before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, only 30 percent of Americans said the country should mind its own business.

The result appeared to represent a rejection by the public of President Bush's goal of promoting democracy in other nations, a major tenet of his administration's foreign policy.

"The war in Iraq has had a profound impact on the way opinion leaders, as well as the public, view America's global role, looming international threats, and the Bush administration's stewardship of the nation's foreign policy," the center said in its analysis of the poll.

Among the other sentiments the survey found were these:

source

[MODU]

About a year ago, I wrote a post regarding the desire of cutting the world off and going into isolation, and the results of those actions would be.  Based on what I've read in your article, the people being polled don't fully understand what would be involved if we did isolate ourselves from the rest of the world.  As long as we are economically connected to the global market, we are going to be politically connected as well.  So, if we want to be politically isolated, we're going to have to cut most of our economic ties as well.  This would rock our economy, since supply will bottom out on many of our preferred goods, leading to much higher prices.  I bet if the poll also asked a question like "Would you be more willing to pay higher prices for US-made goods or lower prices on imported goods," the imported goods would probably win, showing those being polled are wanting their cake and eat it too.

[Bono]

Very good.

[Democratic Hawk]

Dave

[Bono]

Time to bring back the Anti Imperialist League.

[Democratic Hawk]

Time to bring back the Anti Imperialist League.

Is US foreign policy, as it stands, imperialist like?

Dave

[Bono]

Time to bring back the Anti Imperialist League.

Is US foreign policy, as it stands, imperialist like?

Dave

Define imperialist.

[MODU]

Time to bring back the Anti Imperialist League.

Is US foreign policy, as it stands, imperialist like?

Dave

Define imperialist.

If, using the old definition of wanting to expand our borders, then no, we are not imperialists.  If using a modern slant of wanting to spread Capitalism/Democracy to other nations, then in that case we are imperialists.  It is so much easier for us to operate in the global market when our trading partners share similiar ideologies.  I think the last empire (under the old definition) on the global scale would have the USSR.

[J. J.]

Not engaging didn't stop 9/11.

[Sam Spade]

As Sydney Greenstreet said in Casablanca, "Isolationism is no longer a viable foreign policy."  At least not for the US. 

Maybe withdrawing from some parts of the world could help, but the fact is that no country we're in right now wants us to leave, yet they continually complain that we're there.  Besides, without our presence in some of these countries, order would degrade even more.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[phk]

Not engaging didn't stop 9/11.

Allowing pilots to carry guns would have prevented 9/11. Simple as that.

[J. J.]

Not engaging didn't stop 9/11.

Allowing pilots to carry guns would have prevented 9/11. Simple as that.

Nobody suggested it before.  And there are legitimate safety concerns about pilots carrying guns.  There are also pilots that don't want to carry guns.

[Cubby]

Time to bring back the Anti Imperialist League.

Don't you mean the League of Nations? Thats what I associate with Isolationism. Maybe in 2008 a nominee can campaign on a platform of "a return to normalcy" and Prohibition. Then we can all have bathtub gin parties

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Isolationist is the word used by the warmongers. Opposing invading countries for no good reason does not make you an isolationist.

[Bono]

Time to bring back the Anti Imperialist League.

Don't you mean the League of Nations? Thats what I associate with Isolationism. Maybe in 2008 a nominee can campaign on a platform of "a return to normalcy" and Prohibition. Then we can all have bathtub gin parties

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Anti-Imperialist_League

[Beet]

I predicted this about a year ago.

Regarding the overused "damned if you do damned if you dont" slogan that is simply not factually accurate if what one is referring to is global attitudes towards the U.S.. Nobody here was "damned" before the chimp came into office.

My only mistake was that I thought it could take as long as 20 years, things seem to be moving faster than that:

Many agree that without the war in Iraq in 2003, George W. Bush might have won in a landslide. Of those that listed the war in Iraq as a primary concern in exit polls in 2004, most went for Kerry. Hence, a nascent rejection of a neoconservative policy is already brewing. This direct rejection, of course, is more important from the point of the neocons than the rejection of George Bush as a person and candidate, which did not happen.

My prediction is that there is a high chance that neoconservatism in Iraq will dramatically fail sometime within the next 20 years. Neoconservatism and the clash between imperialist Western-state-building and the forces of civilizationalism is a faulty paradigm. But the more interesting question is, what will replace it? I feel that it would be unwise the underestimate the backlash from a failure in neoconservatism. After all, in some sense, neoconservatism is the knee-jerk, assertive version of the liberalism of the 1990s. If it fails, as it probably will, it is highly unlikely that another form of liberalism, which is both more proactive than the 1990s version, and less blind to civilizational realities than the Bush administration version, will emerge.

What is most likely, is that the vindication that Huntington received in 2001 will be reinforced by the failure of the disciplines of Fukuyama in running George W. Bush's foreign policy. Hence I predict the likely probability of the rise of civilizationalism, or an embrace of the thesis of Huntington's latest work, in the United States, matching its rise elsewhere in the world.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I make it clear that most American liberals are not isolationists, even though we would far prefer an isolationist policy to crazy warmongering. However, the American liberal favors trading with other countries, visiting them, learning about them, and defending ourselves against them. Defending ourselves against a country does not mean invading for no good reason.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

About time. We need to let the idiot third world kleptocracies destroy themselves. Hell they're not americans so its not our problems.

[Cubby]

Time to bring back the Anti Imperialist League.

Don't you mean the League of Nations? Thats what I associate with Isolationism. Maybe in 2008 a nominee can campaign on a platform of "a return to normalcy" and Prohibition. Then we can all have bathtub gin parties

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Anti-Imperialist_League

I don't know what they did exactly but they sound okay. I'm not isolationist, seeing as how FDR is one of my political idols. I also supported Clinton's interventions in the 90's on humanitarian grounds. But I also somewhat support the Powell Doctrine and Pat Buchanan has a point when he says we should stay out of other countries internal affairs (he was talking about the lack of democracy in Putin's Russia) so I guess I am conflicted on this issue.