Should the United States Adopt Isolationism as a Policy?

[politicallefty]

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.

This pretty much sums up my view as well. We should be far more open to letting some of our allies take a primary leadership far more often.

[tik 🪀✨]

Isolationism is a frustrating thing to me. People who advocate isolationism seem to take the stance because right now we're too active in global affairs, doing cannonballs into pools at parties we were never invited to. At the risk of being labelled a moderate hero (and you'll want to take a deep mental breath for this run-on sentence), I'd posit that people who think isolationism is the answer to American international woes are just being contrarian idiots (or as they prefer to be called, "libertarians") who haven't used their brain power to find one of the hundreds of middle grounds that may work better in any given situation and instead use their brain power towards justifying the opposite extreme in such a way that allows them to feel smug with being so far removed from the mainstream.

I recall debating my sibling and her partner about basic economic affairs after I correctly predicted that Ohio would be called for Obama and the news programs would confirm it. They disagreed because of the economic climate and were frustrated and upset. After a bit of sake and a few beers she exasperatedly sighed, "Why can't we just go back to gold being the standard so everything wasn't so complicated?" Well, there's a thousand excellent answers to that question that aren't worth going into when your debating opponent's argument has veered so drastically from what is realistic. So it is with isolationism - it ignores so many damning things in its pure form that it becomes DOA in a reasonable brain. Sure, there are aspects of isolationism that may be beneficial, but as a concrete policy it does a hundred harmful things - not the least of which is leave a massive influential superpower hole in global affairs begging to be filled by something possibly even more nefarious than the United States. Granted, the nefariousness of the US in global affairs is measured with metrics that vary based on ones viewpoints. As for me, I think the US has the potential to do wonderful good and I am naively optimistic that we would act with philanthropy and maturity. Isolationism is an easy out so you don't have to think. Thinking gets a bit hurty sometimes

[Supersonic]

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.

I prefer the American dominated 'imperialist hellhole' to one of a Russian or Chinese vision.

[ingemann]

I don't even get that you people mean with "Isolationism", the way most supporters seem to have used it in this thread; it translate directly into making USA into a hermit kingdom, but people say that it isn't what they mean.

So instead of the supporters coming with feel good talking points and buzzwords; I challenge you to set up a model of what policies a isolationistic state should adopt. It make it easier for us other to discuss rather than some airy word like "Isolationism".

[morgieb]

Of course it shouldn't.

Maybe it should be non-interventionist, but it clearly has a role to play in the world.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Who asks these freakin' questions?

[tik 🪀✨]

I don't even get that you people mean with "Isolationism", the way most supporters seem to have used it in this thread; it translate directly into making USA into a hermit kingdom, but people say that it isn't what they mean.

So instead of the supporters coming with feel good talking points and buzzwords; I challenge you to set up a model of what policies a isolationistic state should adopt. It make it easier for us other to discuss rather than some airy word like "Isolationism".

My basic understanding is that an isolationist state:

- Does not exert its military force whatsoever unless it absolutely must
- Does not voice its opinion of international affairs and conflicts
- Chooses to remain neutral during conflicts
- Only acts in the interests of itself passively on the world stage

In their minds, America would cease to have an active leading role in world affairs. It would not be a picker of winners and losers. It would not use the military as peacekeepers, to aid allies, or to exert influence. We are our own country, we should only be responsible for ourselves.

It's a very tempting thought because it saves you from thinking anymore.

I doubt "hermit kingdom" is really accurate as isolationists probably aren't also economic protectionists and would want to trade with everyone regardless of anything (again: less thinking to do that way). We'd trade with everyone, and remain powerful, but also silent. And our stick would probably remain pretty large, too, so we wouldn't worry too much about ourselves.

[courts]

i'd pretty much support a hermit kingdom then. although i'm pragmatic enough to know certain tariffs like say, on agriculture are kind of pointless...not to mention we have a lot of unnecessary and artificially imposed scarcity as it is.

[angus]

I don't even get that you people mean with "Isolationism", the way most supporters seem to have used it in this thread; it translate directly into making USA into a hermit kingdom, but people say that it isn't what they mean.

what I mean is that we worry too much about Radical Islamists or African Civil Wars or Latin American neo-socialist dictatorships.  But Radical Islamism, African Civil Wars, and Latin American ideologues are merely responses to US and European imperialism.  We apply interventionism to fight the very problems created by foreign intervention in the first place.  It's a vicious cycle, and an expensive one. 

If we want to intervene, then we should provide food and education, but not "military advisors" every time some potential dictator we don't like tries to supplant some dictator that we do like.

[Mordecai]

Absolutely not.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

[angus]

Seriously?!  Do you even try?   Have you ever even read Dr. Seuss?  It's one thing to pass along another's clever work.  But to pass on another's failed attempt.  Has the author of that horrible attempt at parody ever even read Doctor Seuss?

Look, I'm not a parodist, or even a writer of any sort, but I'll take a minute to give it a try:


Through plans acted more, and some acted less,
Through Operation Fortune, and Operation Success,
Through the long Desert Fox, then Shield, and then Storm
Operation Enduring Freedom, and operations forlorn,
Operation Peter Pan and Operation Little Switch,
These military ventures only prove war's a bitch
But the wolf has patience and vengeance and stealth,
He knows that what attracts us, really, is wealth

The wolf ate the children and spat out their bones,
But the wolf did not hear their cries and their moans,
Still, moans they did make, and make them galore,
Yet though they were eaten, they still were not sore,
'Cause deep in their hearts, they knew but one cause
'Twas the cause of the stable, they thought with some pause,
The sovereignty of nations--at least those that endure--
Is the sovereignty that ends at their borders, for sure.


How's that?  Probably it stinks, but then I only spent about five minutes on it, and at least no one's paying me for it and no punks are posting it on internet forum debate links. 


Really, if you have an opinion, state it.  If you have a cute cartoon, post it.  If you have a nice original parody, by all means post it.  But if you have garbage, please put it out by the curb before five o'clock on Monday morning.  Thank you.