Will there ever be a viable isolationist candidate?

Tuktuk

Senior member
Jan 30, 2007
406
0
0
It is my opinion that where American went wrong was our post WWII shift from isolationism to a superpower. That is quite a statement to make, but I feel as if countries such as Canada and New Zealand have foreign policies more in line with what I consider American values. The government is bloated and the world hates us for good reason. We put puppet governments in place and kill hundreds of thousands, under the guise of spreading freedom while at the same time never giving up anything when it comes to our "national interest."

How can you claim to be helping others while never wavering from your own national interest? Obviously another country's interests aren't going to be perfectly in line with yours, so you cannot help a nation while protecting your own interest completely at the same time. We must either impose our will on another country, or aid what is outside of our national interest. It seems to me we have failed to ever do the latter in our foreign policy.

This is not Bush's fault. Bush has simply committed the same mistake again in Iraq. This is the fault of Democrats, Republicans, and most everyone in between. Johnson should have never escalated Vietnam, Clinton should have never intervened in Somalia or Kosovo. These are all situations that go against our previous, longstanding policy of being isolationist.

I realize isolationism in the 19th century sense is different than that in the 21st century, as economic globalization is inevitable. But will we ever see a presidential candidate committed to the withdrawal of our troops from foreign soil, from the interventionist attitude that has become so ingrained in the political theory of most Americans? It seems like so many other issues this one isn't even up for debate.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
ummmm no

isolationism brought us into WW 2 two years late. How many people died during those two years that might have made it?
How unprepared where we for the war that hit us on Pearl Harbor day?

Most of your OP is worthless crap that someone is feeding you and you obviously believe it.

May I ask how old you are?

BTW: if we aren't involved in the problems of the world where they happen the problems of the world will be brought to us like they were on 9-11.
 

Tuktuk

Senior member
Jan 30, 2007
406
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
ummmm no

isolationism brought us into WW 2 two years late. How many people died during those two years that might have made it?
How unprepared where we for the war that hit us on Pearl Harbor day?

Most of your OP is worthless crap that someone is feeding you and you obviously believe it.

May I ask how old you are?

BTW: if we aren't involved in the problems of the world where they happen the problems of the world will be brought to us like they were on 9-11.

Great job attacking me personally rather than anything in my argument.

The problems of 9/11 were created precisely because our troops were on foreign soil. We were attacked because we were not isolationists.

I am not being fed this by anyone. I sincerely hope you are not actually a professor, if you are please let me know which school so my kids never go there.

There may be exceptions. In the case of World War II, the Holocaust happened along with the invasion of our allies, which justified intervention. Don't tell me ever conflict we've meddled in has been on the scale of or as justified as World War II.

How many problems of the world do you see being brought to Canada? Or New Zealand?
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Isolationism isn't in our best interests anymore, we have interests to protect around the globe.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
45,895
32,691
136
Every time we try it is proved impractical, dangerous, or callous.
 

Tuktuk

Senior member
Jan 30, 2007
406
0
0
Originally posted by: ntdz
Isolationism isn't in our best interests anymore, we have interests to protect around the globe.

While I disagree with your claim, I won't bother arguing it since it is such a complicated subject that we could spend years going on about it.

The question I'm asking is, why isn't isolationism even considered in the mainstream today? Would you admit that there is a breaking point, when spending trillions of dollars on a giant military, providing aid, intervening in foreign issues, and making ourselves a target becomes outside of our national interest? I think a viable argument could be put up on both sides but it seems the accepted norm to be the global superpower.
 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,480
1
81
If by isolationist you would include supporting the UN, that is feasible (I am guessing you mean total isolation though). Of course the UN has its corruption issues. But when it comes to assisting other countries, there really needs to be a multi-national group like the UN rather than individual countries to protect everyone involved. I think that is the best approach rather than total isolation b/c something needs to be done about the evils in the world on national levels- we can't just stand by and we can't go it alone either as it is too costly in many ways.

p.s. Try to ignore the trolls- it is hard as there are many here.
 

Tuktuk

Senior member
Jan 30, 2007
406
0
0
Originally posted by: spittledip
If by isolationist you would include supporting the UN, that is feasible (I am guessing you mean total isolation though). Of course the UN has its corruption issues. But when it comes to assisting other countries, there really needs to be a multi-national group like the UN rather than individual countries to protect everyone involved. I think that is the best approach rather than total isolation b/c something needs to be done about the evils in the world on national levels- we can't just stand by and we can't go it alone either as it is too costly in many ways.

p.s. Try to ignore the trolls- it is hard as there are many here.

I understand an isolationist today would still have to work with the UN and participate in global economic matters. I just don't see much of a push towards isolationism to any degree, except for those positioning themselves as the candidate who will get us out of Iraq. To me Iraq is only the most visible of our problems, a radical change is needed in how we position ourselves in the world.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91

It depends on exactly what you mean by "isolationism".

I do think that it is possible, but unlikely, that Americans might wake up one day and vote for politicians whose paramount concern is for the government to pursue the rational economic selfish interests of Americans.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Isolationism is a foolish stance to take in this world. It will end you with a stagnant economy.

What I think most people want is a balance between super power policeman and isolationism. I for one would like to see the EU start addressing situations like the ME, Africa, and other hot spots. Not give moral support as we put our ass's on the line.

Isolationism is a 19th century idea that has seen its time come.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
There'll be a number of good isolationist candidates, as soon as they get back from the point where their ship fell off the edge of our flat planet. :p

In a world of fast travel and instant communications, isolation isn't even close to a practical option.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
It isn't possible because our country is run by corporations and now those corporations are MULTI-National..
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: Harvey
There'll be a number of good isolationist candidates, as soon as they get back from the point where their ship fell off the edge of our flat planet. :p

In a world of fast travel and instant communications, isolation isn't even close to a practical option.


So what is it that you advocate then? Open the borders wide open and allow the American population to swell to 1 billion? Merge the American labor market with the Indian and Chinese labor markets, throwing hundreds of millions of Americans into third world poverty?
 

LumbergTech

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2005
3,622
1
0
the idea i get from this thread is that isolationism cant work because our companies are doing business elsewhere and we will have to kill people to maintain those businesses
 

Tuktuk

Senior member
Jan 30, 2007
406
0
0
Originally posted by: Strk
Up until recently, that was the Republican party.

Care to expand on this? Nixon bombed the crap out of Cambodia, good luck calling Reagan an isolationist, and I'd argue any isolationist stances during Clinton were more anti-Clinton than they were isolationist. I didn't want to turn this into a partisan thread because the shift in our foreign policy was caused and continued by both parties.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
To the OP, I was not attacking you personally; I was attacking your idealistic reasoning.
I have an idea, why don?t we all hold hands and sing ?All we are saying is give peace a chance? until there is world peace.

Peace is easy right? I mean we can have peace today, just stop fighting. Of course there is the slight problem with murderous dictators and tyrants in the world who might take advantage of our new peaceful view of the world. But looking at the past how much damage can these types do right? Hitler and Tojo 60 million, Stalin 20 million, Mao 20 million, The Khmer Rouge 1.5-3 million out of a population of 7 million? need I continue?

Tell me when we become isolationists do we deal with tyrants like this? Or just close our eyes and hope they go away and don?t spread?

Now obviously we didn?t take steps to stop these guys and their killing ways directly, except Hitler and Tojo. But what would have happened to western Europe if we were not there to support them post WW 2? How much farther to the west would the iron curtain have dropped? And as much of a mess as Vietnam was, you can not deny the fact that following Vietnam there was not another country in that part of the world that fell to communism. And more recently, Bosnia and Kosovo, had the US not lead the way would the mass cleansing of Kosovo continued until all 800,000 Albanians were driven from Kosovo?

The world is an ugly place, but putting your head in the sand is not the answer.
 

Tuktuk

Senior member
Jan 30, 2007
406
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
To the OP, I was not attacking you personally; I was attacking your idealistic reasoning.
I have an idea, why don?t we all hold hands and sing ?All we are saying is give peace a chance? until there is world peace.

Peace is easy right? I mean we can have peace today, just stop fighting. Of course there is the slight problem with murderous dictators and tyrants in the world who might take advantage of our new peaceful view of the world. But looking at the past how much damage can these types do right? Hitler and Tojo 60 million, Stalin 20 million, Mao 20 million, The Khmer Rouge 1.5-3 million out of a population of 7 million? need I continue?

Tell me when we become isolationists do we deal with tyrants like this? Or just close our eyes and hope they go away and don?t spread?

Now obviously we didn?t take steps to stop these guys and their killing ways directly, except Hitler and Tojo. But what would have happened to western Europe if we were not there to support them post WW 2? How much farther to the west would the iron curtain have dropped? And as much of a mess as Vietnam was, you can not deny the fact that following Vietnam there was not another country in that part of the world that fell to communism. And more recently, Bosnia and Kosovo, had the US not lead the way would the mass cleansing of Kosovo continued until all 800,000 Albanians were driven from Kosovo?

The world is an ugly place, but putting your head in the sand is not the answer.


I live in America. It is not my responsibility to keep Southeast Asian nations from becoming communist. Look at Vietnam today. Considering the toll the war took on their country, was it really worth the lives it took trying to prevent the current government's rise to power? Had the war not taken place the infastructure would be much improved, and even with the damage caused they are not doing too bad.

Your argument relies on the fact that we intervene to stop genocide. That is not the case. We intervene to protect our own national interests, and often times genocide is our justification for that. If what you were saying was the explaination for our foreign policy, American troops would be fighting in Sudan, Congo, Myanmar, North Korea, and a number of other countries.

While the idea of fighting to free opressed peoples is noble, it merely serves as a tool of manipulation for the more sinister motives of those supporting our intervention. Furthermore it is usually unsuccessful, because as much as we'd like to think we can get rid of the "bad guy" and bring democracy to the world, the truth is democracy for the most part must be a homegrown ideaololgy in order to be successful. Imposed democracy is seriously flawed and rarely works.
 

MAW1082

Senior member
Jun 17, 2003
510
7
81
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW: if we aren't involved in the problems of the world where they happen the problems of the world will be brought to us like they were on 9-11.

You've got to be kidding me. The entire reason 9/11 took place was due to the fact the the United States IS involved in the problems of the world. The guys that hijacked the planes on 9/11 did so because of: 1. US support of Israel, 2. US bases in Arab Lands (Saudi Arabia), 3. Embargo against Iraq.

I can't even believe how ridiculous your statement is . . . it's not like the hijackers just woke up one morning and said to themselves, "I want to bomb the WTC because I think it will be fun." They were angry with the US for intervening in what they perceived to be internal affairs.

Next time you think about criticizing someone's logic, make sure yours is accurate.

 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,377
126
Originally posted by: Tuktuk
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
To the OP, I was not attacking you personally; I was attacking your idealistic reasoning.
I have an idea, why don?t we all hold hands and sing ?All we are saying is give peace a chance? until there is world peace.

Peace is easy right? I mean we can have peace today, just stop fighting. Of course there is the slight problem with murderous dictators and tyrants in the world who might take advantage of our new peaceful view of the world. But looking at the past how much damage can these types do right? Hitler and Tojo 60 million, Stalin 20 million, Mao 20 million, The Khmer Rouge 1.5-3 million out of a population of 7 million? need I continue?

Tell me when we become isolationists do we deal with tyrants like this? Or just close our eyes and hope they go away and don?t spread?

Now obviously we didn?t take steps to stop these guys and their killing ways directly, except Hitler and Tojo. But what would have happened to western Europe if we were not there to support them post WW 2? How much farther to the west would the iron curtain have dropped? And as much of a mess as Vietnam was, you can not deny the fact that following Vietnam there was not another country in that part of the world that fell to communism. And more recently, Bosnia and Kosovo, had the US not lead the way would the mass cleansing of Kosovo continued until all 800,000 Albanians were driven from Kosovo?

The world is an ugly place, but putting your head in the sand is not the answer.


I live in America. It is not my responsibility to keep Southeast Asian nations from becoming communist. Look at Vietnam today. Considering the toll the war took on their country, was it really worth the lives it took trying to prevent the current government's rise to power? Had the war not taken place the infastructure would be much improved, and even with the damage caused they are not doing too bad.

Your argument relies on the fact that we intervene to stop genocide. That is not the case. We intervene to protect our own national interests, and often times genocide is our justification for that. If what you were saying was the explaination for our foreign policy, American troops would be fighting in Sudan, Congo, Myanmar, North Korea, and a number of other countries.

While the idea of fighting to free opressed peoples is noble, it merely serves as a tool of manipulation for the more sinister motives of those supporting our intervention. Furthermore it is usually unsuccessful, because as much as we'd like to think we can get rid of the "bad guy" and bring democracy to the world, the truth is democracy for the most part must be a homegrown ideaololgy in order to be successful. Imposed democracy is seriously flawed and rarely works.

:thumbsup:
 

fallensight

Senior member
Apr 12, 2006
462
0
0
Isolationism doesnt work. Just ask the ostrich. Blaming 9-11 on thier soil is such a cop out. The leaders in that part of the world need an enemy to keep the mindless masses focused on, and to heap the blame upon, so the masses dont realize they are poor and stupid not becuase of the west, but because their own leaders are screwing them over. All isolationism would do is change thier vocal reasons. Remember, they still blame us for the crusades.

You cant make the outside world go away. Isolating yourself will only make things worse for everyone. Isolationism also ends up leaning heavily to totalitatian governments, and oppression. With freedom you cant keep people and ideas bottled up.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: MAW1082
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW: if we aren't involved in the problems of the world where they happen the problems of the world will be brought to us like they were on 9-11.

You've got to be kidding me. The entire reason 9/11 took place was due to the fact the the United States IS involved in the problems of the world. The guys that hijacked the planes on 9/11 did so because of: 1. US support of Israel, 2. US bases in Arab Lands (Saudi Arabia), 3. Embargo against Iraq.

I can't even believe how ridiculous your statement is . . . it's not like the hijackers just woke up one morning and said to themselves, "I want to bomb the WTC because I think it will be fun." They were angry with the US for intervening in what they perceived to be internal affairs.

Next time you think about criticizing someone's logic, make sure yours is accurate.

Nice :thumbsup: :laugh: