Magazine article The New American

Fallacies of Isolationism Exposed: Internationalists Claim That "Isolationism" Causes Incidents like Black Tuesday, but Their Faulty Logic -- and the Value of Minding One's Own Business -- Is Easily Demonstrated. (Isolationism)

Magazine article The New American

Fallacies of Isolationism Exposed: Internationalists Claim That "Isolationism" Causes Incidents like Black Tuesday, but Their Faulty Logic -- and the Value of Minding One's Own Business -- Is Easily Demonstrated. (Isolationism)

Article excerpt

While political circumstances change, arguments against "isolationism" never do. Following are some common fallacies promoted by the internationalist cartel.

Q: With advances in military technology, our geography no longer isolates us from the rest of the world. Since supersonic aircraft and ICBMs can reach American shores from overseas, doesn't that mean we must keep our troops deployed worldwide?

Q: But with the internet, television, and air travel, the modern world is more interconnected than ever. How can we think of sealing ourselves off in some "fortress America?"

A: The same technology that allows other powers to build air forces, navies, and fleets of ICBMs to threaten our shores allows us to erect defenses against them, if we but summon the political will to do so. Because of the internationalist mindset in Washington, our elected leaders expend vast resources to maintain our overseas military establishment to protect allies like Japan and to police obscure trouble spots like the Balkans -- and then plead a lack of funding and resources as an excuse not to create antimissile defenses to defend our own homeland from attack. Military involvement overseas at once depletes precious resources in the defense of non-U.S. citizens (none of whom pay taxes to the American government) and creates resentment and added incentives for hosti le foreign powers to attack the United States.

A: We are truly more interconnected than ever, but this is due to increased trade and communications technology -- private-sector innovations -- rather than to increased political involvement. This is the critical point that disingenuous proponents of political and military interventionism always try to finesse. George Washington recommended in his Farewell Address that our "great rule of conduct ... in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible." Thus political "isolationism," more accurately called non-interventionism or neutrality, is a very wise policy, and must not be confused with cultural and commercial isolationism such as that formerly practiced by Japan and Korea, which has never been an American trait.

Political interventionism benefits only the politically well-connected and antagonizes the general populace. One need look no further than Saudi Arabia to see a country whose ruling elites owe their power and prestige to American backing, and whose subjects are becoming increasingly embittered and radicalized against the United States as a result. The recent revelation that 15 of the 19 September 11th hijackers were in fact Saudi nationals therefore comes as no surprise. Trade and other forms of private-sector exchange, by contrast, tend to empower the non-elites everywhere; the rise of cell phones across the Third World to replace inefficient state-run telephone systems is but one example of this.

Q: We have a mission to liberate oppressed peoples throughout the world, and sometimes force is necessary to depose the enemies of freedom. In any case, isn't it in our best long-term interests to convert the rest of the world to democracy?

A: If we wish to promote genuine freedom worldwide, which undeniably is in our national interest, example will win more converts than force.

Q: The world is such a turbulent, dangerous place. If we don't take responsibility for peace keeping as the world's only superpower, who will?

A: A "peacekeeping force" is a contradiction in terms, since peace is by nature a voluntary, not coerced, condition. As a result, military "peacekeeping" operations often end up exacerbating the problem they were intended to solve. For example, because of the Korean "police action" 50 years ago, the two Koreas remain in a state of war. How many North Koreans are grateful for the perpetuation of Communist tyranny, which has probably cost millions of additional lives in the "Hermit Kingdom"? …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.