Poll: Isolationism soars among Americans

I know some here will see this as a negative trend, but I dont. I'm really curious to know as to why more and more Americans feeling this way is a bad thing.

Washington Post

Almost half, 49 percent, told the polling organization that the United States should "mind its own business" internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own, the Pew Research Center survey found. That's up from 30 percent who said that in December 2002.

"Isolationist Sentiment Surges to Four-Decade High," the nonpartisan research center headlined its report on the poll about America's role in the world.

These numbers suggest that entirely apart from the specific policy and political challenges of Afghanistan for the Obama Administration, there is a growing sense among the American public that the country should pull back from the international community and avoid acting as the world's top cop

The U.S. should do whatever is in its own best interests. If foreign intervention is most advantageous, do it. If not, don't.

We're by far the most generous nation in the world already, I say we start focusing on healing ourselves for once.

We've tried that before and it lead to an economic disaster, as well as the rise of dictatorships in Europe and Asia. It's best that America is not isolated but rather present in the world, especially if it would affect them in any way, shape, or form. I know that the founders wanted an isolated America but it's not possible. Jefferson tried to avoid the Napolenic Wars through economic embargos, yet that was a bust and Great Britain impressed (forced American sailors to become British navalmen) American navalman and invaded the United States in 1812.

I'm not saying we use cowboy diplomacy or anything but it's best if the United States was present in world affairs.

No it isn't. There is a lot of good that the U.S. can and should do in the world. -Sun_Tzu-

But of course, as is always the case with your type, we should only do the things that you deem to be good. Anything else is war-mongering imperialism.

The U.S. should do whatever is in its own best interests. If foreign intervention is most advantageous, do it. If not, don't.

Oleg_Huzwog

Agreed.

I get the feeling the world isn't grateful for the billions of dollars the US spends every year trying to help. The solution: spend those billions of dollars on the US.FragStains

But of course, as is always the case with your type, we should only do the things that you deem to be good. Anything else is war-mongering imperialism.

Mark_the_Lie

I say keep with trade, stay out of other country's business. We should only help when we're needed, like in the world wars.

No it isn't. There is a lot of good that the U.S. can and should do in the world. -Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="FragStains"]I get the feeling the world isn't grateful for the billions of dollars the US spends every year trying to help. The solution: spend those billions of dollars on the US.sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]No it isn't. There is a lot of good that the U.S. can and should do in the world. Mark_the_Lie

But of course, as is always the case with your type, we should only do the things that you deem to be good. Anything else is war-mongering imperialism.

Even at the expense of our own economic downfall? What a rose colored little world you live in.

Unassigned

We're by far the most generous nation in the world already, I say we start focusing on healing ourselves for once.

JustusCF

Yeah USA take a load off, put up your feet and get your nails done...:lol:

I say we recall all american citizens back to the USA. Then put up force fields around our borders and cut off all communication with the outside world for 50 years. Yeah, if only we could do that.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="FragStains"]I get the feeling the world isn't grateful for the billions of dollars the US spends every year trying to help. The solution: spend those billions of dollars on the US.sonicare

One of the leading reasons for why they don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons for instance.. Is because that would prevent them from leaning on them economically and poltiically to do what they bid.. Afterall they have part of the persian gulf which is a honey pot for oil.. Oh and it will upset the trigger happy Israeli government.

No it isn't. There is a lot of good that the U.S. can and should do in the world. -Sun_Tzu-

But of course, as is always the case with your type, we should only do the things that you deem to be good. Anything else is war-mongering imperialism.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Mark_the_Lie"]

But of course, as is always the case with your type, we should only do the things that you deem to be good. Anything else is war-mongering imperialism.

sonicare

I tend to agree with that idea. However, my issue with such a policy is the possibility of sitting out during a conflict, like during the first couple years of WWII.

I tend to agree with that idea. However, my issue with such a policy is the possibility of sitting out during a conflict, like during the first couple years of WWII.

nintendofreak_2

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Mark_the_Lie"]

But of course, as is always the case with your type, we should only do the things that you deem to be good. Anything else is war-mongering imperialism.

sonicare

I tend to agree with that idea. However, my issue with such a policy is the possibility of sitting out during a conflict, like during the first couple years of WWII.

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Well, I don't know much about my "type", but yes, it is important to define what is meant by "good" intervention. I hold the view that good intervention is intervention that liberates an oppressed people, whether they are oppressed economically, politically, ect. Conversely, I view "bad" intervention as intervention that is fueled by nationalistic ambitions and results in the oppression of a people, only so the oppressing intervening power may benefit. sSubZerOo

I think it's time we started minding our own business. I don't know why we have to be the world police, this country would be better off if we used all that budget for ourselves.mohfrontline

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"] You could make the argument that the Iraqi people were oppressed by Sadam and his minority governemnt and that the afghan people were horribly oppressed by the Taliban. But I highly doubt you'd support either of those conflicts. The difference between "good" intervention and "bad" intervention is merely one's opinion in those cases.sonicare

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="nintendofreak_2"]

I tend to agree with that idea. However, my issue with such a policy is the possibility of sitting out during a conflict, like during the first couple years of WWII.

sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="Unassigned"] Even at the expense of our own economic downfall? What a rose colored little world you live in.

-Sun_Tzu-

That's why isolationism and appeasement doesnt work. Look at neville chamberlain and nazi germany. Sometimes, countries do have to take action in their own interest, if not, bigger problems could arise.sonicare

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="sonicare"] That's why isolationism and appeasement doesnt work. Look at neville chamberlain and nazi germany. Sometimes, countries do have to take action in their own interest, if not, bigger problems could arise.sonicare

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Except the United States policy have shown little care for human life in the Middle East.. We supported Saddam Hussien in the 80's, and it was only HIMSELF that turned his back ont eh United States, not us.. We infact supported him.. Same with the Shah, we infact destroyed a democracy to put in a brutal dictatorship.. We supported a Israeli government completely even when they had asperiations of invading their neightbors to steal land from them such as the Golan heights, West Bank, and even the Sinia penisula.. The United State's policy rarely cares for human rights when it comes to these type of policies..

No it isn't. There is a lot of good that the U.S. can and should do in the world. -Sun_Tzu-

yea but the recent trend among other nations is Americaphobia...even if we have the best intentions, they wont want us getting involved.

Its sad, and I agree we can do a lot of good (we do, actually...stationing hospital ships off of tidal-wave struck countries, sharing our constant wheat surplus, etc) but we cant cram our help down their throats.

The short answer is yes.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"] In other words the US has acted in its own best interests like every other major power throughout history. sonicare

Furthermore what the West has done to the Middle East has most definitely set the region back 100 years by and large rather than actually help them.

[QUOTE="FragStains"]I get the feeling the world isn't grateful for the billions of dollars the US spends every year trying to help. The solution: spend those billions of dollars on the US.sSubZerOo

You live in a fantasy world. The United States is laughed at all around the globe for the way we cripple ourselves domestically and internationally by imposing regulations on ourselves that no other country would ever even condsider. Case in point, we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world at 39.6%; all it does is put our businesses at a competitive disadvantage and vaporize jobs. The United Nations is also the biggest farce of an international organization since the League of Nations, which is ironically what the UN was created to replace. The European Union, China, India, Russia, and every other nation our there have none but their own interests at heart. Open your eyes. America is hurting itself by making an effort to be cooperative in a world that despises those very efforts and will never show us any reciprocity. Surrendering domestic autonomy to an international body is extremely dangerous. The American people understand that, and I think we'll see the results of that understanding in November of next year.

If you want to live in a country that ignores the needs of its citizens by voluntarily surrendering its sovereignty to other countries that despise it, voluntarily putting its businesses at a competitive disadvantage, and voluntarily weakening its own economy in the process, you must be high. That's exactly what's going on. People realize that, and they're getting tired of it. Barack Obama's election last year was not a mandate to go make the United States a country that puts the interests of the world over its own citizens; it was a mandate to strengthen us domestic, particularly by stabilizing our own economy.

A nation's own interests must come first if it wants to survive as an autonomous state and remain conmpetitive. That's the bottom line. If you don't want that, then I'm deeply regretful that we live in the same country.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

I get the feeling the world isn't grateful for the billions of dollars the US spends every year trying to help. The solution: spend those billions of dollars on the US.FragStains

You live in a fantasy world. The United States is laughed at all around the globe for the way we cripple ourselves domestically and internationally by imposing regulations on ourselves that no other country would ever even condsider. Case in point, we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world at 39.6%; all it does is put our businesses at a competitive disadvantage and vaporize jobs. The United Nations is also the biggest farce of an international organization since the League of Nations, which is ironically what the UN was created to replace. The European Union, China, India, Russia, and every other nation our there have none but their own interests at heart. Open your eyes. America is hurting itself by making an effort to be cooperative in a world that despises those very efforts and will never show us any reciprocity. Surrendering domestic autonomy to an international body is extremely dangerous. The American people understand that, and I think we'll see the results of that understanding in November of next year.

If you want to live in a country that ignores the needs of its citizens by voluntarily surrendering its sovereignty to other countries that despise it, voluntarily putting its businesses at a competitive disadvantage, and voluntarily weakening its own economy in the process, you must be high. That's exactly what's going on. People realize that, and they're getting tired of it. Barack Obama's election last year was not a mandate to go make the United States a country that puts the interests of the world over its own citizens; it was a mandate to strengthen us domestic, particularly by stabilizing our own economy.

A nation's own interests must come first if it wants to survive as an autonomous state and remain conmpetitive. That's the bottom line. If you don't want that, then I'm deeply regretful that we live in the same country.

[QUOTE="Mark_the_Lie"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] The US actually has a pitifully low gdp % of donations to the rest of the world as compared to other nations.. Furthermore, often times those donations or agreements are places of strategic importance like Israel.. For the past 60 years thats what by and large the United States has been doing, looking out for their own asses on the international level. Yes by and large this is a good thing.. The United States needs to handle its affairs through the UN.. We have had a imperialist policy sense the beginning of the Cold War to this day.. That really go against everything the United States is suppose to stand for.

sSubZerOo

You live in a fantasy world. The United States is laughed at all around the globe for the way we cripple ourselves domestically and internationally by imposing regulations on ourselves that no other country would ever even condsider. Case in point, we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world at 39.6%; all it does is put our businesses at a competitive disadvantage and vaporize jobs. The United Nations is also the biggest farce of an international organization since the League of Nations, which is ironically what the UN was created to replace. The European Union, China, India, Russia, and every other nation our there have none but their own interests at heart. Open your eyes. America is hurting itself by making an effort to be cooperative in a world that despises those very efforts and will never show us any reciprocity. Surrendering domestic autonomy to an international body is extremely dangerous. The American people understand that, and I think we'll see the results of that understanding in November of next year.

If you want to live in a country that ignores the needs of its citizens by voluntarily surrendering its sovereignty to other countries that despise it, voluntarily putting its businesses at a competitive disadvantage, and voluntarily weakening its own economy in the process, you must be high. That's exactly what's going on. People realize that, and they're getting tired of it. Barack Obama's election last year was not a mandate to go make the United States a country that puts the interests of the world over its own citizens; it was a mandate to strengthen us domestic, particularly by stabilizing our own economy.

A nation's own interests must come first if it wants to survive as an autonomous state and remain conmpetitive. That's the bottom line. If you don't want that, then I'm deeply regretful that we live in the same country.

I never even mentioned the Middle East or any wars, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm discussing the subject of the thread, explaining to you why surrendering our sovereignty to other nations is not a good thing. You didn't read half of what I said.

The reason corporations have had to outsource jobs is because we raised our corporate tax rate to 39.6% under Clinton, and then started setting absurd minimum wages. If you stop taxing businesses nearly 40% of their earnings, they'll be able to pay their employees more and higher more of them, domestically. Trade agreements are lobbied for by the corporate sector precisely because we tax their means production here so much.

You're saying we need to conduct our affairs through the U.N.

Really? The U.N.? Are you serious? The only goal the United Nations has, in actual practice, is weakening America to a level that will allow them to dominate us in international competition. My point is that you can't both bow to the United Nations and do what's in the best interest of the American people, because the interests are conflicting.

I thought isolationism was proven to be a horrible policy 60 years ago...guess people never learn from history. The world is more connected than ever these days. Walling ourself off from the rest of the world and turning inward makes less sense now than ever. Granted, maybe we could be less aggressive in our foreign policy, but turning to extreme isolationism is not a good solution.

We've tried that before and it lead to an economic disaster,

LOL WUT? How did isolationism lead to an economic disaster?

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]as well as the rise of dictatorships in Europe and Asia.

The rise of Germany had nothing to do with the United States. It was British and French INTERVENTION together with the depression that led to the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany.

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]It's best that America is not isolated but rather present in the world, especially if it would affect them in any way, shape, or form. I know that the founders wanted an isolated America but it's not possible. Jefferson tried to avoid the Napolenic Wars through economic embargos, yet that was a bust and Great Britain impressed (forced American sailors to become British navalmen) American navalman and invaded the United States in 1812.

I'm not saying we use cowboy diplomacy or anything but it's best if the United States was present in world affairs.

leviathan91

Isolationism has always had a strong majority in the US. Even after WWI and II. We really rarely got heavily involved until the cold war where it was figured that if we don't the commies will, and it's been perpetuating ever since. For the most part I don't think it's in our best interests to be isolationist. Unlike 500 years ago the world is a much more global place, and we need to keep up on that. The US like most modern countries is completely unable to sustain itself. We rely on exports, and imports to keep us "happy". If our government doesn't take an interest in how these economics are working out for us we could have many hardships.

I think the US (and most the world) also needs to realize that what happens in 1 country affects the entire world. Poverty in Africa creates tension in the middle east, and resource exploitation in South East Asia affects the ecconomy in Russia.

The rise of Germany had nothing to do with the United States. It was British and French INTERVENTION together with the depression that led to the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany.

danwallacefan

If you wanna look at it in such an indirect way, you might as well say it was the Black Hand's fault for killing France Ferdinand and starting WWI. From a more direct perspective, Nazi Germany was allowed to rise and grow as much as it did because France and Britain DIDN'T intervene.

War of 1812? Founding fathers wanted an isolated America? Puh-leeze! Why did the Founding Fathers invade canada during the revolution and the war of 1812? Why did the war of 1812 go on for another 4 years despite the fact that the prime-minister who ordered the impressing of American sailors was assassinated and replaced by another prime minister who wished to cease this policy of impressing American sailors?

danwallacefan

Washington stressed the importance of isolationism in his farewell address. While he doesn't speak for all of the Founders, he helped set a hundred-year precedent of not intervening outside the Americas.

No, It's not. Isolationism is a very dangerous thing.