To Isolate Or Not to Isolate

Ordinary Americans shy away from foreign policy issues for the simple reason that they know what they don’t know – and know enough to keep their opinions largely to themselves. This is admirable, but it leaves an important matter to the self-proclaimed credentialed “experts,” who are more than ready to state all kinds of opinions without having the slightest idea of what they’re talking about. Unleashed on this territory, bereft of morality and objective standards, these “experts” don’t hesitate to back tyrants with your tax dollars, and arm murderers with weapons paid for by peaceful, law-abiding US citizens, all in the name of “realpolitik,” or some such ideological construction.

The US government feels obligated to comment on – and intervene in – every event, no matter how small (or fearsomely large), from Tehran to Timbuktu. Has an election occurred in Ukraine? Well, then, surely it is our sacred duty to ensure it is “free and fair.” Have the Nepalese people overthrown their monarch, and installed a parliamentary democracy? Well, then, surely it’s part of our obligation as a Great Power – nay, the Greatest Power – to check and see if they’re doing it right. During the 1980s we “tilted” toward Iraq, in order to contain Iran, and during the Bush II era we “tilted” against Iraq – and now there’s no music, or theater, being taught (or enjoyed) at Iraq’s premier school of fine arts. Just like in Iran.

Which pretty much says it all when it comes to the fruits of American foreign policy ever since we emerged, stupidly, from the fortress of our post-World War II “isolation.”

Justin Raimondo

I can agree completely with Raimondo’s assessment of who and where we are now. But I tend (or tilt) to part ways with Libertarians once we get to the isolationist stance. In the world today, I just don’t think we can be isolationists and function well. I do agree that we have no business in other countries’ politics - and if they mean isolation in the narrow definition of politics, then I'm with them. But I think we have every interest in other countries’ economies. I don’t, however, think destroying them, which we seem bent on doing in many cases, helps us in the long run. Indeed, it only really helps the top 10% of us or so even in the short run. Our aim should be to improve the economies of every country on earth. Instead, we bankrupt them with loans on which they pay interests they cannot afford. We make them sell their raw materials to us and then sell processed materials back to them at prices they cannot afford.

We cannot live in isolation, but we can live in cooperation instead of competition. We always hear talk about “trade.” Trade has to be a good deal for both parties before it’s really trade. We also hear talk about whether another country has anything to offer us for what we give them - even if what they give us is just bribed political influence. But life isn’t about always getting something for your money. Sometimes you give away your excesses without getting anything for it because it will uplift and improve life for someone else, which inevitably leads to making the whole of life better for everyone.

It could be argued that we wouldn’t have all our wonderful excesses in this country if we hadn’t been dealing with the rest of the world in the self-interested way we have. I’ll even buy that proposition. But even if that's true, it doesn’t mean that we can’t stop now and change the way we do business - use our wealth (which we got off the backs of other countries' and our own lower class populations) to help bring about a balance that allows other countries to improve and become a source of valuable input to the global picture in whatever way they can. I might even allow that would redeem us for what we've been.

And at the very least stop backing dictators and strongmen who keep their own people in chains and squalor. If we can’t do that, then perhaps we really should isolate ourselves.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.