PDA

View Full Version : Isolationism: Your thoughts?



Frigga
10-11-2009, 05:16 AM
What do you think of Isolationism? Is it a good thing or a bad thing?

Sol Invictus
10-11-2009, 05:17 AM
Good for obvious reasons.

Guapo
10-11-2009, 05:24 AM
The policy of isolationism is a 50/50 policy depending on the situation.

Psychonaut
10-11-2009, 06:51 AM
The time when the US leaned heavily towards Isolationism and Nativism were good times indeed.

Nodens
10-11-2009, 07:06 AM
The time when the US leaned heavily towards Isolationism and Nativism were good times indeed.

That was a different world. It seems to me that the era of global politics is here to stay, for better or worse.

Psychonaut
10-11-2009, 07:15 AM
That was a different world. It seems to me that the era of global politics is here to stay, for better or worse.

Not necessarily. You can look at Taiwan as late as the 80s as a great example of a nation that had an effectively isolationist economic policy. Did it work? It sure as Hell did. The prohibitions on the importation of goods that were comparable to those manufactured in Taiwan allowed them to transform themselves into the manufacturing powerhouse that we used to be when we had similar policies in place.

Nodens
10-11-2009, 07:17 AM
It seems we need a clearer definition of 'Isolationism', as I generally wouldn't equate it with economic Protectionism, but rather an active avoidance of all engagement with the outside world.

Psychonaut
10-11-2009, 07:35 AM
It seems we need a clearer definition of 'Isolationism', as I generally wouldn't equate it with economic Protectionism, but rather an active avoidance of all engagement with the outside world.

OK, I was just thinking of a combination of military/foreign non-interventionism, protectionism, and a severely limited immigration policy.

Nodens
10-11-2009, 07:44 AM
OK, I was just thinking of a combination of military/foreign non-interventionism,

Generally agree, but I would favor (or at least not object to) intelligent intervention to further geopolitical stability in cases that affect our interests (as opposed to the debacle of America's last few decades of foreign policy). And if we wish to stay relevant, we may need to continue to play the geopolitical power game (albeit in a more reasonable manner).


protectionism, and a severely limited immigration policy.

No arguments here.

Psychonaut
10-11-2009, 07:47 AM
Generally agree, but I would favor (or at least not object to) intelligent intervention to further geopolitical stability in cases that affect our interests (as opposed to the debacle of America's last few decades of foreign policy).

I would have to ask, discounting the Middle Eastern debacle that we've stepped into, what real interests do we have overseas at the moment that are not manufactured by some political interest group?

Nodens
10-11-2009, 07:48 AM
I would have to ask, discounting the Middle Eastern debacle that we've stepped into, what real interests do we have overseas at the moment that are not manufactured by some political interest group?

None that justify intervention, but it wouldn't hurt to keep our options open.

Psychonaut
10-11-2009, 07:50 AM
None that justify intervention, but it wouldn't hurt to keep our options open.

Agreed. :cheers:

Octothorpe
10-11-2009, 01:48 PM
Part of the confusion here is that academic historians have charged the term 'isolationism' with specific, leftist political meanng. In reality, the U.S. has never been 'isolated' in any meaningful sense--even durng the Colonial period, the U.S. had the largest merchant marine fleet (larger than Mother England's!) and traded with China, Europe, and the world at large.

'Islolationism' in the academic sense means diplomatic standoffishness! The nation followed Washington's dictum of avoiding 'entangling alliances' from the 1790s to 1917, when Wilson (John the Baptist to Obama's Messiah, if you will!) dragged the nation into a war it did not want or need. All throughout our history, we've made one-on-one treaties with nations signifying our friendship and opening two-way trade. We have now (since 1945) turned that around, and engaged in entangling, multilateral treaties that have bound us to the destiny of others at the expense of our national sovereignty.

Of course, the academic left acts as the intelligensia to the political left and cheerleads its desire for a weak, ineffectual, socialized America. Call it Zionism, neoconservatism (merely the coin-flip to socialism), self-hatred, or what you will; it has been, is, and shall forever be dangerous to liberty and those who love it.

Loddfafner
10-11-2009, 02:59 PM
I think it is irresponsible for a country, especially one as hefty as the USA, to opt out of institutions that coordinate solutions to global-scale problems.

Psychonaut
10-11-2009, 04:14 PM
I think it is irresponsible for a country, especially one as hefty as the USA, to opt out of institutions that coordinate solutions to global-scale problems.

What would a current example of these kinds of problems be?

Liffrea
10-11-2009, 04:33 PM
Originally Posted by Loddfafner
I think it is irresponsible for a country, especially one as hefty as the USA, to opt out of institutions that coordinate solutions to global-scale problems.

I agree.

As often the options given are two extremes, option one ethno/racial/cultural suicide, option two retreat from the world.

Sadly no one seems to have realised that preservation and isolation are two different concepts. A nation can preserve itself and yet take part in the world.

Frigga
10-11-2009, 04:41 PM
Part of the confusion here is that academic historians have charged the term 'isolationism' with specific, leftist political meanng. In reality, the U.S. has never been 'isolated' in any meaningful sense--even durng the Colonial period, the U.S. had the largest merchant marine fleet (larger than Mother England's!) and traded with China, Europe, and the world at large.

'Islolationism' in the academic sense means diplomatic standoffishness! The nation followed Washington's dictum of avoiding 'entangling alliances' from the 1790s to 1917, when Wilson (John the Baptist to Obama's Messiah, if you will!) dragged the nation into a war it did not want or need. All throughout our history, we've made one-on-one treaties with nations signifying our friendship and opening two-way trade. We have now (since 1945) turned that around, and engaged in entangling, multilateral treaties that have bound us to the destiny of others at the expense of our national sovereignty.

Of course, the academic left acts as the intelligensia to the political left and cheerleads its desire for a weak, ineffectual, socialized America. Call it Zionism, neoconservatism (merely the coin-flip to socialism), self-hatred, or what you will; it has been, is, and shall forever be dangerous to liberty and those who love it.

The bolded statement totally captures my thoughts on the whole matter.

I believe that America was in a better economic, political, and moral frame of mind as a country when she concentrated the majority of her resources on the betterment of her people. And left the rest of the world to fend for themselves unless they asked for help, or had items worthy of trade. I wish for more Isolationistic policies in America right now, because as a country we need to fix ourselves before we can even hope to help others. We need to build our economy back up, and that I believe will come from the closing of the borders to illegal immigrants, bringing the manufacturing jobs back from overseas, and not importing fruits and vegetables from across the globe that can grow just as easily here.

I wholeheartedly support Isolationism, as I think that it is a worthy mindset, politically, and economically. Not to say that we should never interfere, or reach out, but to not make it our business to stop all bullying in the world. Let other countries stand up for themselves and better themselves.

Rudy
10-11-2009, 05:26 PM
The US should make trade agreements to it's benefit, just like the other countries do, and forget about free trade.
The US could easily take care of immigrant problems if it chose to fix them.
Alleged security holes are still up to debate. The government covers up some of the spying activities by other countries.


Prior to 9/11, the FBI had discovered the presence of a massive spy ring inside the United States run by the government of Israel.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/spyring.html

Four part series on Israeli spying. Fox news has been working to have the links taken down.

It turns out that Israel has had a potential wiretap on every phone in America for years, along with the ability to monitor and record who any person is calling, anywhere in America;
http://100777.com/usa/israeli_spyring

anonymaus
10-11-2009, 05:27 PM
What do you think of Isolationism? Is it a good thing or a bad thing?

For better or for worse, it is simply not possible at this point; we live in a modern and interconnected world. The discussion of such broad labels is better used to discuss those who self-identify as isolationists, rather than the concept itself which is functionally dead, or the real heart of the issue which is:

American isolationism is very much a romantic fantasy rather than an applicable policy. It provides no more useful a trade or foreign policy than does blanket "interventionism". A particular policy or vein of policies may be roughly described with either of these labels, but it should be decided on its merit and not an ideology superfluous to the nation's broader self-interest.

Murphy
10-11-2009, 06:06 PM
Isolationism has never worked and nor will it ever work. Anyone who supports isolationism in my opinion is an idiot who needs to open up a history book and see that it doesn't work for rather obvious reasons.

Regards,
Eóin.

Manifest Destiny
11-02-2009, 02:41 PM
I don't believe in isolationism; that a country should be shut off from the rest of the world in every way.

I prefer non-interventionism. My country shouldn't try to be (or be expected to be) the world's policeman/soup kitchen, but we should strive for friendly relationships and trade with other nations while avoiding entangling alliances (like the UN or NATO).

Loxias
11-02-2009, 02:57 PM
I am against interventionism and for a country giving priority to its own products. It appears to be more down to earth.

safinator
02-25-2012, 05:10 PM
While it may seem tempting sometimes to say we should only worry about our own, the truth is in the modern global economy we are obligated to worry about the affairs of other nations, for better or worse.