So You Want To Be An Isolationist?
Deborah Venable
September 8, 2006
It should come as no surprise that many Americans fall short of understanding their cultural and traditional roots. I’m not talking about the pre-hyphen part of the post-hyphen American – I’m specifically referring to the NO hyphen, distinctly American culture and tradition. So what about THAT distinctly American culture and tradition am I talking about? Simple - the part that used to embrace an isolationist stance for America. That good old, “what’s in it for us?” attitude that once upon a time was in the driver’s seat of American foreign policy was held as American tradition through much of our history. Some will tell you that American isolationism had a lot more to do with staying out of European affairs than anything else, but generally speaking isolationism has a definition much stricter than that:
“Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a
non-interventionist military and political policy with a policy of economic
nationalism (protectionism). In other words, it asserts both of the following:
Political rulers should avoid entangling
alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct
territorial self-defense.
There should be legal barriers to prevent
trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.” Definition
Source
Why do I bring all of this up? Well, it ocurrs to me that whole generations of Americans living
now and griping the most about this and that – specifically the War in Iraq and
our fight against terrorists are truly ignorant of the tradition of
isolationism and the ongoing debate about it.
You see, the true isolationist is far more apt to be ultra conservative
– an extremist if you will.
Isolationism has been proven in the past to secure peace for longer
periods of time than any other foreign policy undertaken. (Japan’s Sakoku, for example.)
Now, let’s be clear – the anti-war crowd are not
predominately isolationists because they have no idea what it would mean to
their own comfortable lives. Many
debatable points exist within this issue of isolationism that have nothing to
do with whether or not America goes into a military conflict. Immigration policy is heavily influenced, as
is trade, communication, and other cultural exchange by an isolationist
stance. The growing attitude toward
border security and our ridiculous illeagle alien problems have focused
attention on the need to more clearly define America’s big picture on foreign
policy. Yes, there are many debatable
points.
One person certainly NOT ignorant of how the sentiment of
many members of his own party, as well as that of the “pullout crowd” of
democrats smacks of isolationist theory is our current president. You only have to look back to George W.
Bush’s State of the Union speech this year to see how aware he is of this fact:
“The road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting—yet it ends in danger and decline...America rejects the false comfort of isolationism...Isolationism would not only tie our hands in fighting enemies, it would keep us from helping our friends in desperate need...American leaders—from Roosevelt to Truman to Kennedy to Reagan—rejected isolation and retreat, because they knew that America is always more secure when freedom is on the march.”
Contrasting
that message to George Washington’s admonishment in his famous Farwell Address,
we find the somewhat muddied definition of “American isolationism” stated
earlier:
"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."
When we hear it stated that “America is becoming
increasingly unpopular” in Europe especially, but thoughout the world, some of
us scratch our heads and wonder why, others turn an unrealistic blame on our
own nationalism, some attribute it to our declining culture, and others simply
chalk it up to our isolationist roots.
Hey, we are who we are – aren’t we?
We’re a crazy, mixed up hodge-podge of immigrants from the Old World and
their descendents who have been educated almost to idiocy by subversive efforts
to overtake our traditions, our culture, and our uniqueness. Why do we need to be popular? The bottom line is that more people are
trying to get in here than ever try to get out! Do they, too, wish to be unpopular?
But here is another question that I recently answered in a brief essay:
Should the U.S. Get
Out Of Iraq?
Although this
question has taken on a life of its own as a driving force, debatable issue to
make or break politicians during this election cycle, the answer is quite
simple. A “yes” answer to it hangs on
only one condition – otherwise the only sane answer is a resounding “no” until
the newly elected Iraqi government can insure Iraq’s stability.
The one condition
that would support an immediate U.S. pullout from Iraq is if we decided that
the United States should maintain a strict isolationist stance for an
indefinite period of time. Most folks
don’t realize just what this would mean, but we ARE one of the few countries of
the world that could probably pull it off.
I am talking about severe isolationist policies, of course.
It would require,
first of all, that we break every treaty we have with any foreign country or
group of countries. The United Nations
would have to find new headquarters elsewhere and without our membership or
financial and military support. Our
foreign interests in every country would have to be severed – sold or abandoned
– with no further support of any kind.
All foreign aid would cease. All
foreign personnel would have to immediately leave the United States – selling
or abandoning all their interests and holdings here. All our military bases in foreign countries would have to be shut
down and all troops and equipment everywhere shipped home. All foreign travel for United States
citizens would cease. All foreign trade
– imports and exports – would cease.
Any travel to or from a foreign country would have to be covert with no
passports issued or accepted. Lines of
communication in and out of the country would be heavily monitored for any
commerce or other “illegal” activity and severely fined. All debts to foreign countries would be
immediately payable and all foreign debts to us immediately collected.
All of these
requirements would also, of course, apply to our neighbors immediately to our
North and South. Border restriction
policy would include, “shoot first and ask questions later.” All air and sea routes would be restricted
to and restrictive of our own borders.
Much of our infrastructure – not just economic, but power grid,
transport lanes and satellite communications would have to be re-routed or
completely severed. Ours would not be
the only country in the world “cut off” from what was happening in much of the
rest of the world.
The most difficult
complication to all of this would certainly be our joint ventures in the
international space station. It would
have to be immediately disabled.
The United States is
the richest country in the world in natural resources, which includes the human
element. Though we might suffer
inconvenience for a period of time, we could recover from it and proceed with a
rewarding lifestyle for most of our citizens.
It would be costly in the areas of civil and military defense of the
country, because no mistakes could be allowed.
Our freedoms, of course, would suffer even more setback in some ways
until we stabilized, but we should be able to insure basic individual liberties
in the end. The point is that every
other country on earth would suffer far more than this one. Most American citizens do not realize or
accept that fact these days. The
tyrannical, fascist, socialist, communist, and theocratic governments that rule
so much of the rest of the world would not long survive beyond the third world
stage. The democracies would feed on
themselves until they destroyed themselves or would be easily overrun by
others.
Should the United States get out of Iraq? Think of what we are telling the rest of the world if we do – before the job is done.
The following is an excerpt from an interesting article written by John Hawkins called, “Confessions of an Isolationist Wannabe”:
If you want to put it in perspective, it's like we're the guy who
ended up being the designated driver for the planet. Sure, we'd love to sit
back and drink ourselves into a stupor with the rest of the globe but we're
responsible for getting as many people home safe and sound as possible. Ever so
often while we're sitting around wishing we could kill a few beers like the
rest of the planet, a sloppy drunk, drooling Europe comes over to where we're
sitting. Then they take another swig of Vodka straight out of the bottle and
tell us not to worry about a thing because they'll drive everyone home in their
"international law" van. But we know if we go ahead and drink up,
we'll just get a call at 4 A.M. asking us to bring our tow truck and the
"jaws of life" to clean up the bloody mess on dead man's curve.
That's the burden of being an American.
Article Source
Thanks,
John, for putting it in words everybody can understand. Make sure you read the whole article at the
link above.
All
it takes to understand folks like Pat Buchanan is to have a good grasp on the
isolationist stance. Not that even Mr.
Buchanan would advocate for the strict isolationist stance I outlined in my
essay, but we must understand that very few Americans have any grasp at all on
the result of isolationist policy because we have been spoon fed a homogenized
version of foreign policy. Diplomacy is
touted as the end-all to war, and our economy has been diluted in
responsibilities to foreign governments through aid and trade. Now immigration is being forced as a
necessary evil instead of applied as a benevolent component of our “good
will.” And underlying all of this is
the deliberate attempts to destroy our traditions and culture and re-write our
history.
I
will say it again: the human element is perhaps the crowning jewel of our vast
natural resources. Our blessings are
only outnumbered by our attempts to share them. That is a direct result of our strong spiritual influences – not
born of a religion that requires death to non-believers. When are we going to wake up and realize
that our fights among ourselves are sparked by the dark side of human nature
that wants something for nothing and demands power from weakness?
As
we approach the 5th anniversary of September 11, I think we should
all strive to recall the first thoughts we had when we knew on that fateful
morning that America had come under foreign attack. Once our muddied perceptions of reality kicked in, too many of us
lost the grasp on reality that we desperately need to regain if we are to ever
bring a successful end to the rein of terrorist bullying. Will it take a true isolationist
approach? We COULD pull it off, but I
don’t think that is the message we wish to send the rest of the world, is it?