The definition of isolationism is as follows: the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.
America generally adhered to such practices predating WWI, but the clash of super powers drew us into the conflict and forever changed the scope of foreign affairs in our country. There were negative results that are directly linked to our isolationist practices, I am well aware of that, but I believe the gains far outweigh the losses. Before anyone cries out that "isolationism brought on the great depression" we have to admit that their were many factors that went into one of the darkest periods in US history, not simply our policy of seclusion.
Also understand I am not talking about Libertarian Isolationism that calls for uninhibited free trade. I want a 1000 foot high wall built around our country to keep them out and us in. If we can't build it, grow it, raise it, or invent it then we don't need it. I know there will be draw backs (Like how will we meet the rice demands), and we may have to make sacrifices, but to be honest I would rather drink homemade sassafras tea from a pottery bowl then deal with the countries of Eurasia. This is not a rant just because China is kicking our collective behinds in the Olympic medal count, because medals for pistol shooting and weigh lifting in the women's 48 kilo class shouldn't count anyway.
There are a few factors that have pushed me to this extreme political position, and the first of which is illegal immigration. In Oklahoma things have gotten better, but I still see the strain that is placed on our public assistance programs to take care of the families that are here illegally. I completely understand individuals wanting a better life for themselves, but you must play by the rules, and lets all agree a 1000 foot high wall would remove a lot of temptation to enter our country illegally. There is so much more that could be hashed over in a post about illegal immigration, but I will leave it for another time.
There also seems to be this world wide obligation to assist nations or people who have experienced trouble or disaster with no regard to a countries disposition toward the U.S. Just let some place have a mudslide, volcanic eruption, rioting chickens filling the streets armed with toothpicks and those tiny umbrellas that come from mixed drinks and here comes the U.S.A. with millions of dollars in aid and assistance. I'm sure our officials want to help, but it is the fact that most of these European and Asian countries think we are the enemy yet they expect us to help in times of trouble. I say let the chickens riot and leave them to their own devices.
After we send the aid, and all hold hands on on the beach covered in volcanic ash or mud from the slide and sing Kumbaya, or Hara Krishna, or "Allah loves me this I know" and rub Buddhas belly we go home and they all go back to hating us and calling us the great Satan or infidels. Does this seem okay to anyone else.
Finally I feel we have become so reliant on the products and services other nations provide we have ceased to manufacture and work out problems for our selves. We let China produce it, or Japan invent it, or Korea manufacture it when we are capable of producing and manufacturing the same things. I'm not against shipping jobs overseas, I'm really not - we send a $8.00
an hour manufacturing job to Zimbabwe, and Korea sends $18.00 per hour jobs for LG over here, the trade has been okay. We ship about 14% of all manufacturing jobs overseas or to Mexico, but we import 18% of the worlds higher income electronic and technical jobs so I'll take the trade in our current political model. This is not a economic thing, it is an Independence thing. Lets build our wall and severe the transatlantic phone lines, we will ride bikes, eat lentils, and wear homespun frocks and live happily ever after. Let the chicken riots begin. RLR
5 comments:
I'm sympathetic to much of what you've said here, though I'm not sure that such a radical position is politically feasible. As to foreign wars I am of the firm opinion that we ought to stay out unless we have obligated ourselves by prior commitments, e.g., NATO. Leave nations to build and govern themselves. The fewer "foreign entanglements" the better.
Humanitarian wars - like ending the genocide in Darfur, for example - are a tricky issue. I'm strongly inclined against them if only because we have plenty of domestic problems of our own that we should be working on. Also, it's notoriously difficult to predict how such things will turn out. If it is a case of a government oppressing its own people then you're talking regime change and we've seen how nasty a business that is.
On the trade issues I'm not sure we can fully extricate ourselves from the world economy; I'm not even sure it is desirable. First and foremost we should work to keep jobs here in America. Then we should promote fair trade that increases justice rather than simple free trade that increases profit.
The jury is still out for me on immigration. I don't have any problems with efforts to improve enforcement of current laws. I'm against any efforts to deport people already established here because we should not disrupt families if we can avoid it. I'm more concerned with not ruining the lives of real people who have done desperate, even illegal, things in order to improve their lives. I would support strengthening enforcement in the future, though.
Obviously I have overstated my opinion in an attempt to get my point across in an entertaining manner. I realize we are somewhat entrenched in the global economy which causes me to be fearful for our socioeconomic independence. More jobs that are currently in operation, but the creation of industry right here on our own soil that creates new jobs, as well as new avenues of income for us and ours.
Missions is an interesting point I left out in my post. I'm not sure how this fits into my new world view. I set aside a certain portion of my income each month for missions, and firmly believe in spreading the gospel to the world so I need to reconcile all of this in my own mind. I will address said issues soon.
As for illegal immigration when I was in Indiana it wasn't an issue for me either, but in the OK it is a great big deal. Imagine if you will thousands of young Latino men storming you community and snapping up manual labor jobs for sub minimum wage rates. The way it works here is the family stays at home in Mexico while they stay for two or three years and send the majority of the money home ( not injected back in our economy here). The majority of the Mexican immigrants here are not positive additions to society, they slum together often, crime is high in the areas they inhabit, and we have dealt with situations here with our acquaintances where they keep an American live in here while they have a wife at home. IT is a real problem for the South Western states. RLR
Men, you are branching out, I see. To the original post, RLR, I say the frustration between the lines is something I can agree with. Interestingly, your comment about missions in your follow-up comment to thekibitzer is a perfect place to start. I remember thinking the same things about missionaries, namely that with all of the people in our own country that needs help spiritually, why feel compelled to go to foreign soil? That's where the Great Commission comes in, obviously, and that same sentiment is evident in American policy. Yes, there are problems here, but we as a nation feel impelled (or should that be impaled? Feels like it, anyway.) to "go into all the world" and share with them our way of life. When the Constitution was written, the drafters recognized that our form of government had no precedence. We wouldn't have a monarch, but neither would we allow our nation to become a free-for-all. A hybrid of freedom and responsibility ensued, and quite frankly, even with all of the problems we do have, it works. The global economy is upon us, like it or not, and our standard of living is being jeopardized because we have more competition. Does the competition play fairly? Of course not, but that will change, I think, in time. I don't like being dependent on foreign oil, either, but there are much larger things at stake here. For example, is the supply of crude oil limitless? Of course not. What happens when other areas run out, and (in theory), we still have ours? That to me sounds like sound fiscal policies, the whole preservation of the union matter the framers spoke about. Sorry for my incoherent, choppy reply, one that doesn't cover all that both of you have said, and certainly not in order, but I'm working fast, and furiously. I need a nap. I need a cup of coffee. I don't even drink coffee. You guys are awesome. This would be a great debate around the fire-pit, I'll take the mixed drink, you, RLR, can have my umbrella....ella....ella.
One more thing. Do you not find it ironic that I am on your blogroll right between The Holiness Messenger and OBI? I guess that sorta makes me a true middle of the road-er, huh? Peace...
This comment is from another Richard the Isolationist, but I agree with Libertarian isolationism.
You ought to consider whether it is the immigrants or the state which is your greater problem here. If we didn't give out the handouts, the immigration would be less of a problem. But we do, so it is.
This seems to me like you've invited Robin Hood to your party. You get tired of him robbing from the rich and giving to the poor, so you decide that he needs an additional duty. He'll be your party bouncer. But if you stopped his robbing, you might not have such a hard time with a bigger party. (And given that he is a robber, why would you entrust him with MORE responsibility? You expect he will use his new powers honestly?)
Also, yes, many immigrants are coming from states that are terrible to us. But this just makes someone's decision to flee make all the more sense.
Post a Comment