Isolationist Sentiment Soars
By Mande Wilkes | In stark contrast to Barack Obama’s renewed commitment to rebuilding Afghanistan, half (a whopping 49%) of Americans believe that the U.S. should “mind its own business” internationally.
From MSNBC:
Americans are turning away from the world, showing a tendency toward isolationism in foreign affairs that has risen to the highest level in four decades, a poll out Thursday found.
Only 32 percent of the poll respondents favored increasing U.S. troops in Afghanistan, while 40 percent favored decreasing them. And fewer than half, or 46 percent, of those polled said it was somewhat or very likely that Afghanistan would be able to withstand the radicals’ threat.
This streak of passivity underscores a blooming libertarian sentiment. To be sure, the leap from interventionism to isolationism is emblematic of Americans’ weariness with hands-on governance.
Or at least that’s one way to look at it.
More likely, however, is that Americans are only weary of hands-on governance overseas. Domestically, plenty of people still appreciate statism, and would in fact like even more in the way of government involvement.
That, unfortunately, is the probable reason for this new isolationist streak – an explanation supported by the poll itself.
According to the poll, Americans’ are dissatisfied with Obama’s troop surge only insofar as a focus on Afghanistan steals attention from the jobs issue (which: hello, perfunctory summit!). A ferociously self-centric nation, America rejects interventionism as soon as it starts to displace Americans’ own interests.
So, while libertarianism indeed has growing support (even Ron Paul is getting some Congressional love!), most Americans are hardly ready to retract their support of the statist status quo. They only insist that the statist agenda is carried out in their own name, and not the name of Iraqis or Afghans. Right now, people would like job creation to top that agenda – and if there is to be statism, that’s a pretty benign use of it. And when that agenda becomes less benign? Well, then would be a good time for Americans to re-embrace interventionism.
Say it together, people: Fiscally conservative, socially liberal.
Comments
By Calhoun Fawls on December 4th, 2009 at 12:33 am
If Afghanistan becomes a failed state again, it provides a springboard for Pakistan to become a failed state with nuclear weapons. If that happens, all sorts of things could happen, including to the United States if we just sat and “minded our own business.”
The President is right to commit to Afghanistan. It is in the security interest of the United States. It is one of the few things Obama has done right.
The enemy wants to kill us, not because we “are there.” They want to kill us because we stand for things that they loathe. For example, an educated woman writing her opinion on a blog. Read their writings, they hate us, here or there. Just because we decide one day to mind our own business is not going to deter them.
By ron on December 4th, 2009 at 3:54 am
Calhoun your a fool to niavely believe that they hates us based on our values. Thats B.S. right outta george b jr’s. mouth and supported by the MSM. We the (united states) have been medling in the middleast ever since OIL was discovered there in the mid 40’s and it’s U.S. govt. policy to keep the oil flowing that’s the TRUE issue at the core of the middleast occupation. Do you really think the united states would care anything about the region if it wasn’t for the oil?? Wake up ! not many ppl know it but we are securing Afghanistan so Unocal can build a natural gas pipleine and are in Iraq for their OIL reserves…….In the past we simply sent CIA ops into a country to destablize the exsisting govt. and install those into power that were favorable to the U.S. Just as we did in the 1950’s IRAN. Those people in Iran rember this and subsquently resent the U.S. for these actions. THAT’S WHY THEY HATE US OVER HERE not because your some woman that blogs some bullshit on the internet. Those ppl in the middleast have treated women as property for thousands of years. It’s ingrained in their culture and it outrages alot of people in the west but that this is the way it is over there……But who are you or I or anyone else to tell those in the middleastern regions how to live or what to think?? It’s not your place or the U.S. governments or anyone elses to try to westernize them , covert them to christianity, make them ware the latest fashion’s, or anything else ……. I say leave the fuckin idiots alone and just try and get along with them as best we can after all peace is whats needed not more troops and more war………
By Liberty For Me on December 4th, 2009 at 7:21 am
I hope it keeps growing….free trade…mind our own business otherwise
By Elmer on December 4th, 2009 at 8:12 am
Mandy,
Some very good points. I think the American public or the MSM or the pollsters could use some explanations defining the differences between “isolationism” and a “non-interventionist” foreign policy.
The founders favored a non-interventionist foreign policy as do I.
President Thomas Jefferson in his March 4, 1801 inaugural address: “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”
President Monroe in 1823, “In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense.”
A non-interventionist foreign policy is the best path for the U.S. today.
The warmongers would like to call a non-interventionist an isolationist simply because isolationism has a bad connotation. There is a huge difference between the two.
By dirtbogger on December 4th, 2009 at 8:48 am
Liberty, I beleave you, Ron, Ynot, I and a few few others are proof that we are a growing movement!
By Cooter Brown on December 4th, 2009 at 8:49 am
“Isolationism” iz a loaded werd dat meens dat’s we doesn’t want t’ bee involved wit da rest ov th’ werld. Dis iz simplie naught true fer dose ov us dat’s dis-appruve ov th’ empire’s fernien policie!
A feller dat knew a little bit ’bout Amerika said:
“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none.” -Thomas Jefferson
I think dat ’bout covers whut the u.S fernien policie outta bee!
Dont think weeze needs t’ rethink th’ wicked and tryanikle adventurisms ov th’ u.S. empire?
Cheque dis out: http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance8.html
If “Isolationism” inkludes un-occupin’ all dese ferein lans, I says lettuce bee “Isolationists”
By Ron Paul Was Right Bumper Sticker Sales Rep. on December 4th, 2009 at 8:58 am
http://www.zazzle.com/ron_paul_was_right_bumper_sticker-128180536782633191
By Jonny D on December 4th, 2009 at 9:26 am
I understand the need to be engaged in the “international community” on some level, but being the world policeman is not the USA’s job. Nice to see that this is a growing sentiment among Americans. It always blows me away that this country is so engaged internationally (not to take anything away from the military and civilian men and women who serve oversees, they are true professionals), and yet there are many, many locations right here in the USA, both urban and rural, that are simply NO GO. All I can say is America First.
By PasserBy on December 4th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Mande:
I think this partially is a response to our dire economic position as a nation. When times are tight in a household, you have to focus on the ‘essentials’, which includes taking care of the necessities. I believe more and more Americans are questioning why we spend so much $$ abroad, when we’re hurting at home, and when the rest of the world seems ungratful and uncaring.
Or to put it another way: If country X doesn’t represent a necessary interest for the US, and doesn’t want us, why are we spending money there we can’t afford?
It’s easy to spend money freely when you have it, but the US doesn’t, IMO. I’m starting to share this sentiment.
By Huh? on December 4th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Amazing how easily we forget history. Seems to me that on 9/11 someone else started this….. Now, because it isn’t convenient to our own self interests, we would like to forget what happened and hide under a rock. Well, let’s all go run and hide, and maybe, just maybe, they won’t hit us again. After all, we clearly can negotiate with people who hate us and don’t give a damn about us. Didn’t it work really well to ignore the world in the 1930s and 1940s? Sheesh….. doesn’t anyone study history before they spout off this kind of drivel?!?
By Elmer on December 4th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Huh,
We do read history Huh and that is why we disagree with perpetual war. We had a chance to kill Osama and we did not do it at Tora Bora. A gang of thugs attacked us – not Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, no one on the 9/11 planes was from Afghanistan or Iraq.Invading and attacking countries who did not attack us is the height of folly.
By PasserBy on December 4th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Huh:
We (or at least I) do read & remember history. I did say if a country represents a “necessary interest” for the US, we should be there. I’d include in that category people who attack us – in that case, we should do what must be done to end the threat to the US. Maybe you don’t see it that way?
We can argue, I suppose, over whether a country is a “necessary interest” or not. But, I DO say that we can consider our own economic position in making that determination. It is very possible, IMO, that limited resources can & should cause us to re-visit where we have a presence abroad and whether they continue to serve our current & future interests.
By WorkingTommyC on December 4th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
There is a limit to playing god in “preemptive” wars and otherwise policing the world.
NO ONE in his right mind is saying “let’s not defend ourselves.” Anyone who presents the either/or alternative of doing what we’re doing now or surrendering to them is presenting a false dilemma.
The question to be honestly debated is this: HOW should we respond to threats and attacks?
Going over to Iraq or Afghanistan and pretending they’re like Western Europe or Japan was after WWII is suicidal. It’s not like that over there for one thing. For another, we don’t have the money to do what we did in Western Europe in part because WE’RE STILL IN JAPAN AND GERMANY just to name two out of 170 or so countries our military is stationed in. Most of these countries have plenty of money to defend themselves and, if they don’t, SCREW ‘EM! IT’S NOT OUR JOB!
Bush was right when he stood under the “Mission Accomplished” banner. He just didn’t know when to quit and neither does Obama.
The legal way to wage war EFFECTIVELY in the Mideast (or elsewhere) is to:
1. PROPERLY DECLARE WAR AS CALLED FOR IN THE US CONSTITUTION (but not done since 1941).
2. BRING BACK THE CONCEPT OF A “PUNITIVE” WAR. The basic role of law is to punish injustice in the overall effort to discourage (by example) future injustice. The Constitution does not authorize our central government to “rebuild” foreign countries with beneficence derived from taxpayer pockets.
We invaded two different sovereign countries at a relatively low cost in numbers of lives and dollars spent. Our forces toppled dictators and destroyed their military and their infrastructures. After that WE OWE THEM NOTHING!
We don’t have to be their friends. We also don’t have to stay there and offer their terrorists an endless supply of targets.
Limit the objectives of wars to the traditional ones that we can REALISTICALLY accomplish and freakin’ MIRACLES CAN HAPPEN! Right now, no one can tell us what the objective is other than some nebulous goals of “stability” and “democracy”–but not how much of either in any firm, definable quantities. According to the excuses being made now about why we can’t just pick up and leave, we will NEVER be able to leave those countries.
The thing I sense most from military members and other supporters of endless, preemptive wars is that they’re worried we’ll lose face and look weak and then be subject to more attacks due to that widespread perception. Gee, if we can’t accomplish in eight years what previous generations accomplished in about half that time, do we not look weak now?
We really need to admit–something Lindsey Graham among others refuses to do–that we’re really in a very difficult and needless occupation doing police work and charity instead of primarily killing people and breaking things which is what a military is for.
One can support the military all they want but in the end the military is NOT in charge. I’m a veteran and I admire the patriotism of the members of the military and their doing their proscribed duties in a professional and often heroic manner. However, it is up to US, “We the People,” to determine how many of them are risked and what appropriate objectives they pursue in their patriotic and professional roles.
It is much more efficient in terms of dollars and lives to re-invade a country if the people there allow their governments to attack us again than to occupy them forever. An overwhelming, incredibly destructive “tit” for their “tat” will make their aggression counter-productive if we leave them to rot afterward. Right now, we’re playing right into their hands by keeping our conflict at a level that they can participate in and use to recruit. Seriously, we’d have to kill just about every last one of them to stop their resistance from continually recruiting new members and waging violence against our forces there. In fact, were the situation theoretically reversed, I’d hope that we’d have people here that dedicated and willing to fight the invaders.
We are doing the members of the military no favors by Marshall-planning every country we invade and, to the benefit of corporations and their political representatives, Vietmanizing every war. Lindsey Graham and other corporate whores WANT TO KEEP THINGS AT A SLOW BOIL. They miss the Cold War due to its continuing excuse to make a lot of spending, favors, and other corruption an emergency or priority that never ends.
If we were to wrap things up over there, Lindsey Graham and others would lose a LOT of power and income. They are keeping it at a lower intensity with occasional, expensive and deadly “surges” with no real intent to finish anything–just more opportunities for political grandstanding, huge spending, and hundreds or thousands of OUR soldiers killed.
You can whine about the “innocent” people there who will suffer but it’s about time we hold them to the same standards we have here: the people are ultimately responsible for everything their country does. If we don’t prevent our country from carrying out a wrong by whatever means necessary, then we will suffer. The same principle should apply to them.
Look at our leaders. THERE IS NOTHING magical about them yet too many voters treat them like movie stars and worship them as if they were gods.
The proper salute for a corrupt politician should be spitting on them, not making excuses and fawning all over them. HOUND THEM, DISTRUST THEM, DESPISE THEM FIRST AND FOREMOST and then MAKE THEM EARN YOUR RESPECT if they’re capable.
They’re all human beings and not even the best by far that we have here–most of them being corrupted by money and power. Yet we turn over more and more power and money to them and don’t even make them obey the US Constitution on even the most fundamental of cases–like waging war.
Politicians don’t have magical supplies of money either. They can’t create anything out of thin air even though they try.
They are NOT our keepers. We should be THEIR keepers however. These wars are excuses to manipulate us to their advantage. It’s time to break the cycle of abuse and stand up to them and their criminal actions here and abroad.
By K Trane on December 4th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Afghan’s second chief export (behind opium) is handwoven crafts. The country has no chance…
By Liberty For Me on December 4th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Elmer….You are all over this.I might not need to make comments anymore.
By Jefferson Davis on December 4th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Why the use of the indoctrinated “taboo” label dince 1942 of “isolationist”? The polls was conducted for the Council of Foreign Relations.
It’s interventionism , not isolationism and the sooner that is reported then we can address our foreign policy in a honest manner.
It’s our interventionist foreign policy and rampant internationalism as the world’s policeman that Americans object to. What happened to the Powell Doctrine?
We all remember the manufactured Gulf of Tonkin incident, babies left to die when removed from incubators, mobile WMD labs, flying drones of death and all the other nonsense from Iraq, Saddam being involved in 9-11. All lies and fabrications and a corporate media that went along with it.
Undeclared wars with no goals or exit strategies just endless wars that benefit a few kibe Wall Street, the military industrial complex, banks and in the Middle east …Israel. Enough of US Wars without end as a bulwark of our economy.
By Liberty For Me on December 4th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Jeff Davis for president…AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!
By Soft Sigh From Hell on December 5th, 2009 at 8:36 am
The picture at top is interesting and related but perhaps not real closely. A great deal of the on-the-ground activist, and in-print (then mainly newsletters and hand-outs), and on-air (then radio, e.g., Father Coughlin’s clerical fascism) backing of the America First movement at that time was also more directly in support of native fascism in general and of Germany, Italy, and Japan’s paths on the world stage. Not a little German and Japanese money went into it behind the scenes. There were a lot of arrests just after Pearl Harbor and later releases, the latter of course because (as was stated in the decision) being a Nazi-loving fascist is legal in the US.
By BIN News Editorial Staff on December 5th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
At her Saturday staff meeting our Funding Editor repeated her offer to help Mandee get a job at Cagney’s. She’s certain that after a few months bussing tables, Mandee may be able to work her way up to dish washer.
A job at Cagney’s certainly has more potential than her chances at political commentary for sic(k) willie – or of passing the bar. :)
Please, Mandeee. Stick to Inquirer level stuff. You are way over your head trying to comment on national or international issues.