Do you support isolationism as a foreign policy?

[ellisonz]

Isolationism is a category of foreign policies institutionalized by leaders who asserted that their nations' best interests were best served by keeping the affairs of other countries at a distance. One possible motivation for limiting international involvement is to avoid being drawn into dangerous and otherwise undesirable conflicts. There may also be a perceived benefit from avoiding international trade agreements or other mutual assistance pacts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism

8 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, I believe we should avoid foreign entanglements.
	0 (0%)
	No, I believe we should engage in internationalism.
	7 (88%)
	Other (please specify)
	1 (13%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[tridim]

1. This poll should be 99% "yes" based on Neo-DU's demographic, but I bet it wont be.

It will however point out a lot of hypocrisy.

We are The World. All of us.

Good luck DU!

[Mosby]

2. its the framing

DU isolationists don't like to be called isolationists.

The polite term is non-interventionism.

[Comrade Grumpy]

7. Indeed.

DU imperialists don't like to be called imperialists.

The polite term is internationalist.

[LanternWaste]

11. FDR didn't care if he was called interventionist, imperialist or simply a realist.

FDR didn't care if he was called interventionist, imperialist or simply a realist.

I doubt many others care about bumper-sticker labels either... except those who rely on bumper stickers for their knowledge.

[leveymg]

8. No, I believe in rewarding our friends and punishing our enemies. And in making better distinctions.

Many of our "friends," particularly in the Mideast, aren't. They are commercial trading partners, some of whom provide bulk energy supplies and have huge investments in U.S. based multinationals, real estate, and defense industries, while others are economic dependencies. Both types routinely intervene in the US political process, in their own ways, and regularly threaten us with dire consequences if we don't indulge their mutual paranoia about terrorist factions supported by the other. They are not our friends, but not entirely our enemies.

To label and treat them as either one or the other has been the source of decades of lethal mistakes and miscalculation.

To be more cautious and to demand accountability from both is not Isolationist. It is self-preservationist.

[upaloopa]

3. When I here trade discussed in the media

it seems to me those with the most to gain are for it and those who will lose are opposed. That is not news.
But trade has many dimensions.
The TPP is more about corporate control over countries than it is about trade. So saying you are opposed to the TPP is more about opposing corporate control than it is about opposing trade.
If the OP is calling the TPP merely trade it is dishonest I think.

[on point]

4. But I also don't support using our military to impose our will over others

Participation in, and building of, international institutions, and the rule of law is required.

The mood of the country is not to isolationism, but a retreat from attempting to be the sole imperial power lording it over others.

[redgreenandblue]

5. No. But there are more options than "isolationism" and "imperialism".

[Comrade Grumpy]

6. If "internationalism" means fighting wars all over the planet, I'm agin it.

[99Forever]

9. While you're looking things up, check on this:

FALSE DICHOTOMY.

[Xithras]

10. Yes and no.

The United States should participate in world bodies that establish treaties and negotiate for peace around the world (like the United Nations). The United States should also participate in mutually beneficial international trade that causes no harm to Americans.

The United States should NOT send it's armies to kill brown people around the world to further our "foreign policy" or enrich the 1%. The United States should NOT sign trade treaties that only "trade" general economic security to improve the profit margins of America's wealthiest people.

[cali]

12. no. and opposing ftas written by corporations and their

allies, that expand corporate rights and increase there power and influence, does not make one an isolationist. Shockingly, there are orher models for free trade.

[geek tragedy]

13. overall internationalism is the future, but we could use with a bit more isolationism

with regard to certain areas of the planet

[ieoeja]

14. Absolutely not! Especially big business, small business, labor, peace makers and earth scientists.

None of those should be isolated from the planning of international agreements between nations. Any trade agreement that excludes small business, labor, peace makers and earth scientists should be automatically rejected on the grounds that big business alone[font size=1], and a bunch of people we oddly call "brilliant" for winning popularity contests, [/font]can not possibly be qualified to tackle all the issues that need to be addressed by such agreements.

[NewSystemNeeded]

15. The United States is long overdue for a scaling down overseas.

A nation's self-interest should be defined by the interests of a majority of its people, not the majority of its corporations, elite few, and especially anyone outside our borders.

Everything we do should have a net positive benefit to our nation's people to justify any actions we take on an international scale.

[kentuck]

16. I support less military intervention....

...and more "fair trade". Not to be confused with "free trade".