Is isolationism a benchmark of the left or right?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1 vote, 5 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	left
	1 (100%)
	right
	0 (0%)
	5 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Scuba]

1. Neither.

[WouldbeCentrist]

3. Agreed

It really depends on who is in office. It appears to me that not a lot of Congressmen out there supported both the Iraq War and the Libya Intervention. Whether or not it was in America's interest depended on which party controlled the White House.

Then there is American history in general, which has shown different parties supporting isolationism at different times in different eras. Often its just a matter of which party the president advocating intervention is.

The one possible exception I can think of could be the Cold War, for it seemed that both parties were equally supportive of covert actions in Latin America, Vietnam, Korea, etc.

[Warpy]

26. Or both

Reasons for it are so complex that we can't really assign it any basic politics.

[Douglas Carpenter]

2. neither. but getting involved in situations where we will almost certainly cause more harm than

good - is simply stupid. I find amazing that people who hate and loathe Muslim and Arab people suddenly get all humanitarian and want so much to help them when it comes to a an opportunity to bomb them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. This is the reason I started the thread

First I will say that I would only use force or the threat of force is if I exhausted all other alternatives and was convinced that the threat of force or the actual use of force would do more good than harm.

In another thread a poster wrote that the only time force is justified is when our sovereignty is threatened. That struck me as America Firster, Ron Paul, atomistic libertarian bullshit... I don't see any daylight between that position and saying that if i saw a large adult beating up a small child I don't have any moral obligation to stop it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

6. . what would be the most predictable consequences of launching military strikes against Syria?

Will it increase or decrease the bloodletting? Either it would be insufficient to lead toward the toppling of the regime and would only encourage further bloodletting. The Assad regime is largely backed by a coalition of minorities; Christians, Shiites, Allawaites, Druze, and others who know that if Assad looses - so do they. They will fight to the end because they are fighting for their survival. Or we will have to see a massive military involvement that will cause a great deal of bloodletting in itself leading toward either a protracted civil war with even more bloodletting or a totalitarian regime equal or worse than Assad. Or we would be talking of a long term foreign imposed peace through military occupation. That, I can only imagine how well that would work.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. I conceded that I would only use force if I was convinced The use of force would be efficacious

I don't know what I would do in the present situation.

My question was more global. I don't think it's a liberal or progressive position to state that the only time the use of force is justified is when our necks (sovereignty) is on the line. I don't think it's a liberal or progressive position for a individual or a nation. I do think it's a libertarian, i.e. selfish one.

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. there are situtions where military intervention may be the right thing to do.

But I see no evidence that this is one of them. When I look at the history of U.S. military interventions - they were continually justified on moral grounds - only a few stood up to scrutiny . The vast majority were driven by deeply selfish motives.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. I'm just observing; so far

I don't have a hard and fast opinion on this one.

But I have seen arguments that our involvement ( the good guys) in the Civil War and WW ll wasn't justified. I didn't find those arguments compelling; especially the argument that slavery would have eventually fell of its own weight when we were the ones that brought the slaves over here in the first place.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

28. Syria isn't the only state to consider.

I think it highly unlikely that military strikes in Syria will do more good than harm *in Syria in the short term*

But there's also the fact that the next time a dictator is wondering about using chemical weapons, they'll remember what happened next when Assad did.

Even so, I think the cost/benefit calculation is probably heavily against. But Syria is only one term in the equation.

[seabeckind]

19. "exhausted all other alternatives"

You imply that there must be an intervention of some sort. I think that the analogy of a large adult beating up on a small child is a false equivalency.

I think a better one is of 2 brothers fighting in a bar. The most likely outcome if you intervene is that they will both turn on you, then after they've dealt with you, go back to fighting.

Most times it's better to just let the fight play out and intervene only when it starts to overflow its banks and then only work to containment.

[seabeckind]

4. Neither

But it is purely right wing propaganda bullshit to use the term "isolationist".

The right wing marketeers like to give false alternatives.

They count on the stupid to believe a complex topic can be explained on a bumper sticker and too lazy to find out it can't.

On edit: Interesting game. The only way to win is not to play.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. I thought the term "isolationist" was first came into vogue when it was used

I thought the term "isolationist" was first came into vogue when it was used against the "America Firsters" The Firsters weren't a left wing group.

[Recursion]

11. Hm. Historically it's been used against the right more than the left

At least throughout the 20th century or so.

[Recursion]

10. Yes

There are isolationist and interventionist tendencies found on both the right and left.

[Recursion]

12. Also I'm curious what "benchmark" means in the context? (nt)

[bemildred]

13. Neither, isolationism is a mark of populist movements, like nationalism.

It pops up on both the left and the right.

[seabeckind]

16. I agree.

To apply the term left or right to the issue is exactly what the marketeers intend. That we must be either for the support of corporate and/or MIC interests in the globe or be against them. That if we don't actively support interventions for those interests and a military presence everywhere in the world, then we are "isolationists".

As if our only choice is to turn over the keys to our gov't to those interests or go all Kazcinski.

I think there are very strong facets of the first movement which are very liberal. Protection of the labor force in our country is probably the strongest. Being opposed to outsourcing and offshoring.

Thanks.

[bemildred]

18. Yep, that is the hidden "payload". Actually a pretty old argument too.

They were bashing us as "isolationists" when we were trying to get them to stop destroying Vietnam.

Why can't we understand that bombing the shit out of foreign countries is what Amertica is all about anyway?


Woody Wilson made that argument 100 years ago, for another failed war.

[Bonobo]

14. Not EVERY issue is one or the other.

Thinking that is so is one of the biggest damned problems in US politics -it has turned it into Monday Night Football.

[Ichingcarpenter]

17. Military Interventions are more pertinent.

FROM WOUNDED KNEE TO LIBYA:

A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS



This guide does not include:

mobilizations of the National Guard

offshore shows of naval strength

reinforcements of embassy personnel

the use of non-Defense Department personnel (such as the Drug Enforcement Administration)

military exercises

non-combat mobilizations (such as replacing postal strikers)

the permanent stationing of armed forces

covert actions where the U.S. did not play a command and control role

the use of small hostage rescue units

most uses of proxy troops

U.S. piloting of foreign warplanes

foreign or domestic disaster assistance

military training and advisory programs
not involving direct combat

civic action programs

and many other military activities.

The Full List must be seen here its too big to post in this OP
but it looks like both parties play with troops.

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

[HardTimes99]

20. "Isolationism" in the Republican Party suffered a momentous blow when

Pearl Harbor was attacked. Its last adherents in the mainstream of the Republican Party were decisively defeated in 1952, when Eisenhower's backers prevailed over Bob LaFollette and took the party over. Since then, isolationism has been the hallmark of the extreme right (Libertarian, John Birchers, etc.).

The left (or what remains after McCarthy and his like got through with it) has never been 'isolationist' except for fringe Left Libertarian types (as oxymoronic as that phrase sounds). The "Left" historically has been 'internationalist'.

[seabeckind]

23. An essential element in the purpose for a label

is that the thing it's stuck on doesn't have to be explained. The label explains it all.

In this case, "isolationism" in its current usage is intended to harken back to those pre-WW2 days and connect the bad thing that happened at Pearl to the isolationists. And then by extension apply that connotation to the current anti-intervention opinions.

So much easier than trying to actually discuss nuances, etc. Same, same with libertarian.

Bumper sticker.

Ever done that personality test to determine leanings? Every answer a characteristic of a particular segment? Mine neither.

[HardTimes99]

24. I get you. I think there's a distinct difference between being

anti-imperialist (as most of us on the Left fashion ourselves) and being 'isolationist' (historically a hallmark of the right and far-right).

That I am opposed to the U.S. taking sides in another country's civil war (Syria right now, but Afghanistan before that and, before that, Vietnam) does not make me 'isolationist.' Far from it. It makes me anti-imperialist.

[redgreenandblue]

21. Thinking that "isolationism" or "imperialism" are the only two options is the problem. nt

Last edited Mon Aug 26, 2013, 10:31 AM - Edit history (1)

[Douglas Carpenter]

22. +1

[MyshkinCommaPrince]

25. Hmm.

I recall being taught that it was a tendency more of the Right than the Left, but perhaps that was mainly in the historical context of post-WWI reactions against the League of Nations, carrying through to rejection of and paranoia about the UN. It seems like the best answer should be "Neither", as many here have stated, however. It manifests in different ways in different eras and with either end of the political spectrum. Haven't proponents of corporate globalism accused their critics on the Left of some form of isolationism?

[dtom67]

27. in 4 or 5 years ....

when everyone is asking how people are so easily manipulated into cheerleading terrorists, look back on this moment.



"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society" - Edward Bernays.