Isolationist Policy?

Question

What would the impact be upon the world if the United States adopted a true isolationist policy?

Think about it. We are so reviled the world over as nothing but trouble-makers, thieves and liar wouldn't it be better for us just to pull up stakes and leave everyone to their own devices?

I mean, no matter what, when there are problems facing the world who is the first one asked to lend a hand? It doesn't matter what it is, the United States is always asked to help. Would an isolationist policy be the way to go?

Or would it be have the opposite effect? If we isolated ourselves would we then be called selfish and uncaring for not helping when asked?

Is it a situation of damned if you do and damned if you don't?

Answer 1

As the supreme power in the world at the moment, for the US it is a case of your damned if you do and damned if you don't. The problem is that like every other country in the world, America has a tension between its domestic needs and international obligations. Put simply every country has to decide to what extent it will prioritise its own interests over those of the world as a whole.
The problem for America being the ultimate power in the globe, is that its decisions have way more flow on effect to the world system, than do those of the other countries.
You are correct in as much as America also does seem to come under undue criticism at times, as the rest of the world expects America to lead the way in international morality even if it is to its own detriment. This is largely because of the international system that the US has set up in the interests of stability. The US set up the UN to avoid another WWII in which the developed world almost tore itself apart - if they had all had nuclear weapons as they do today, they just might have. What the UN does is to prevent the rise of a contemporary nuclear armed Hitler, by locking all countries into an international system which it favours them to adhere to - ie. to go against it would cost too much.
This international system has to be underwritten in some way however, and as things stand, this is with US power, not so much military power as US economic power. As the ultimate power in the world, and the only power capable of fulfilling this role, the US is held to a higher international morality than other nations.
Even though this may seem like a bit of an unfair imposition on the US - why should they be bound to do it just because they are the only ones that can - it must be remembered that maintaining this international system does actually serve our interests. Currently we are very much on top of the pile. That will not change as long as the pile does not change. By maintaining the international order, we are also maintianing our position at its head, and all the economic benefits that we derive from that position.
If the US was to pull up stumps and go isonlationist, the rest of the world would plunge into a more anarchical state - a nation such as China could invade or take over whomever they pleased and noone could stop them. From the turmoil, a world power capable of challenging the US could emerge.
The US has gone isolationist in the past - in the early 20th century. It was thought that by being isolationist, the US would insulate itself from the world's problems. However, experience showed that the US was not able to protect itself economically - in the 1930's it was hit by the depression - or militarily - despie US neutrality the Japanese still attacked Pearl Harbour. As a major power in the globe, whether isolationist or not, the US will always be a potential target to any rising power.
In addition, with the globalised nature of the world, going isolationist would imeasurably damage the US economy. The US sits atop of the world financial system, and this is maintained primarily with the income that we make off other nations. Put simply, the US is good at business, we make a lot of income/profit from other peoples. Going isolationist would cut off this profit, and the US economy would at best stagnate. Without this income from other nations, the US would no longer be able to grow economically to the same degree. The US world position would slip and the country as a whole would suffer.
In the end analysis, yes the US is suffering as a result of its unique dominant world position. This may result in some unfair criticism being levelled at America. However, most of it is just due to the fact that America is so dominant, it doesn't really matter what other people say anyway, and the benefits to the US of maintaining its dominant position in the world system far outweigh any negatives.
Put simply, by engaging, we can continue to keep ourselves on top.

Answer 2

There have not been any Non-isolationist countries that have not been attacked at some point in their history as well. Isolationist theory works independently of expecting attacks and it's purpose is self-serving. Is it right for the U.S. now? Why not... we've stuck our nose into the world's business long enough. Maybe an inward look at our country could do some good!

Answer 3

Yes your last sentence is right= you'll always be judge like that for the best and worst reasons. The best is that you're worried and care and the worst is that for many people you are not dealing with your own business. What some times might be the case. I prefer the option of taking the risk and not being indifferent not letting abuse to be held. But the UN exists for that and USA must try not to go outside that borderline= is loosing credibility even if intentions are at their best. Must stop be the police of the world and try to support other big nations to also do it. I firmly believe that the world can not accept injustice without making interferences to stop them= is not yet "political correct" for those who are too selfish or dilettante on so many millions really suffering. Thank God Europe is also awaking and I believe soon we might be surprised with other important main players in the world.
The doing nothing would had been worst= to isolate. Besides, the world is aware= maybe not enough marketed that you're the melting pot

I wouldn't underestimate public opinion in whatever shape you want= at least shall be tried and with honesty. Thinking that majority is stupid is a bad principle on political strategics and usually your first step to loose your feet.

Answer 4

The US is like the parent of a teenager. The other countries might not like our involvement in their affairs, but they need it, whether they like it or not. All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing. If we become isolationists, the evil dictators in the world would gain power. Eventually they'd come after us, and at that point they'd be strong enough to do serious damage. It'd be like in the 1930s, when everyone ignored the threat from Hitler, giving him a chance to build up Germany's military to the point where it almost took over the world.

Answer 5

Well historically, the United States entered a phase of Isolationism after the end of WWI. WWII came not long after and the US was attacked - draw your own conclusion.

In South Korea, their last election: The popular party promised to remove almost all the US military from their country. After the elections, the US started drafting plans to pull out and North Korea built up it's forces along the border. It didn't take long for the new leader to go back on his election promises and ask the US to stay when faced with reality.

Answer 6

Half the world hates us now, even though we provide much aid to many countries.

If we went isolationist, those same countries would hate us because we would no longer provide aid.

No matter what, half the world is going to hate the U.S.

I would love to do what you say and just leave the rest of the world to fend for themselves. We should be worrying about ourselves.

Answer 7

The world would be a safer place.

#1 Cut off ALL Military and Foriegn Aid, half of the Dictators in the world depend on us.

#2 Quit NATO and all other Alliances, half of our "Allies" are detrements.

#3 Stop Deficit Spending

We have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world several times and without the distraction of Iraq we could locate Bin laden.

Answer 8

Your last sentence sums it up.

Forget everything ahead of that.

Since there will always be the uninformed public to whine and cry, "foul", so why cater to them? Why base ANY decision on their behavior, their words, their beliefs?

Why try to change a chess game into a checker game because chess is too complex for them to understand?

That's why our representatives act on intelligence data, not on polls, on the leaders of the other countries, not on the people in those countries.

Why waste time with those who don't know what they are talking about?

Every election cycle we get a group of outsiders who say, "We're going to clean up Washington!" only to get in and find out how stupid they were about it, how uninformed.
They then turn around and change their minds, get called flip-floppers or traitors to their party.

How silly.

Answer 9

We thought that before both world wars and it didn't work out very well. There was much wasted time once we got into those wars and many lives lost trying to catch up. We need to do what's best for us and ignore those who have a problem with it.

Answer 10

Considering we have political impact on nearly every nation I think some of the world would be fine, and the other half would be totally screwed.