Isolationism:A Good Thing?

(Warning, the following link leads to a PDF format document)

According to this document from the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, in 2002, the United States exported $10.3 Billion US+ in cereal grains, out of $37.8 billion US+ for the entire world. That means that US cereal grain exports in 2002 were less than 30% of the world total. Although i find it difficult to navigate a necessarily complex web site, the evidence is very good that the United States does not come anywhere near to producing 63% of the world's food.

Once again, food exports do not represent all of the food produced in the world.

Under our Constitution, foreign policy can only serve the lawful best interests of the United States Government and its citizens. The Constitution empowers and limits the federal government; therefore all treaties, alliances and agreements must be subordinate to the Constitution.

Any alliance, treaty or agreement that commits this nation to participate in foreign conflicts subverts our Constitution and the independence of this nation, and is therefore illegal. The Constitution of the United States delegates the authority and responsibility for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States to the Congress - not the President. Only Congress-not the President, the UN, NATO or any other organization-can commit United States armed forces into any armed conflict or war with a declaration of war. All security alliances must be reviewed by the U.S. Congress to determine if they still serve the best interests of this nation and its people. The Constitution does not empower the Federal Government to police the world or protect other nations. The Constitution does not allow our nation's armed forces ever to be under foreign command, which has become common practice under present UN and NATO deployment. The Constitution requires that the President of the United States shall be the Commander in Chief of our nation's armed forces. It does not provide any means for the President to delegate this authority to any domestic or foreign person or organization, as has happened with NATO and the UN forces of late. Both the UN and the NATO treaty claim authority to direct our nation's armed forces into a war [armed conflict] without the Constitutional requirement of Congress declaring war. Since NATO no longer serves a defensive purpose for the United States, it is therefore time that we withdraw from NATO and permit Europe the task of defending itself.

The United States must withdraw from the United Nations immediately and require the UN headquarters to relocate out of the United States. Our participation as a member nation in this organization was never constitutional and now places our nation's sovereignty in extreme peril. The United States must promptly withdraw from all international monetary and financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, WTO, NAFTA, GATT, etc. These institutions violate the meaning and intent of our Constitution.

Some of these organizations also claim the unconstitutional power to levy tax on the United States Government and the American citizens. The U.S. Federal Government does not have any Constitutional authority to tax the American people or use any U.S. funds for the specific purpose of providing aid of any kind to foreign governments. Therefore, the United States Congress will terminate immediately all programs of foreign aid, whether military or non-military, to any foreign government, or to any international organization, including the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, and other similar institutions.

http://www.americafirstparty.org/docs/platform.shtml

What do we mean by "isolationism" on this thread? When the term was popular and had a real meaning in the world of American policy in the 1920s and 1930s we had substantial two-way trade with the rest of the world. At the time that was not the issue. Instead the issue was, should the United States emesh itself in foreign alliances and as a partner in the opposing alliances among colonial powers that had for so long characterized European history. The unrealistic notion of complete economic independence never materially entered into the dispute then, and I see no reason for it to do so now. (Certainly no serious economist would argue today that the exclusionary Hawley-Smoot tariffs were a good idea.)

I suppose that if necessary we could get on without most foreign trade, however our lives would be very different, and some wrenching changes would be needed. As has been noted, many of the huge advantages we once enjoyed in industrial and agricultural productivity have been much diluted by the spread of modern methods throughout the world.

I do believe an interesting case could be made for the wisdom of reducing our participation in international bodies and, along with it, our many attempts to control or influence events around the world. We could instead focus on becoming a sort of Super Singapore, interested only in itself and doing business. This, of course woiuld intensify the economic pressures on us to outperform our competitors on a purely economic basis right now and always.

The real problem with this though is that we are already a target for the ambitious and envious, by virtue of past success (primarily in the Cold Warr) and our past actions on the international scene. Potential rivals may not accept our new self-appointed role. We may supper the fate of the standard Western Movie figure of the gunfighter who wanted a quiet break from the competitive routine.

I don't think that would be a good idea. However, I do believe we should rethink our European alliances. Our primary interests are now elsewhere.

What I mean by isolationism is close the borders, stop trade, close off the rest of the world.

Although i can see the sense in this, i think you are missing a point. A stable Europe is important to the United States for economic and security reasons--even if they won't take the responsibility for "sweeping their own stoop." The situation in the Balkans reached a "can't be ignored" level at the time of the attack on Serbia, and the Europeans would have stood by wringing their hands, had the United States not taken a lead under the NATO umbrella. Although one might criticize how the operation was carried out, it did have clear goals which have been achieved, and the violence ended rather quickly after the capitulation of the Serbs.

It is useful to us to continue to have military bases in Europe, and it is useful to us that Europe is stable and economically healthy. It's too bad that they can't manage their own continental affairs effectively, but i don't think we can afford to ignore the possible consequences of their disunity.

I did say that I wasnt sure about the chart or if it was or was not in US Dollars.
Also,I never claimed that the US produced 63% of the worlds food.

I do know that the San Joaquin valley of Ca exports massive amounts of fresh produce to the world during the growing season.
I also know that Tyson is the worlds largest chicken company,and that they export quite a bit.

If you look at the food given out by the UN to starving people around the world,you will notice that most of the bags say "product of USA" on them.

Edit...

Here are three well known historical examples of nations who seriously adopted a isolationist policy similar to that urged by the Texas Madam:

China: Larger than all of Europe combined and a sovereign nation before the rise of Rome, China was noted for its advanced technology. China was at the forefront of metalworking, textiles, ceramics and had a sophisticated economy while Europe was still mostly depended upon barter for locally produced goods. China built large ocean going ships and was one of the great powers of the world.

They became convinced that the Han alone were civilized. The Chinese called their land "The Middle Kingdom", the center of the world. Everyone wanted Chinese goods, and the greatest danger was believed to be from thieving invaders unwilling to purchase Chinese goods. It became Chinese policy to isolate themselves from the barbarians who had the misfortune of not being Chinese. The system seemed to work out just fine.

Then one day the Chinese awoke to find the European Powers carving out large chunks of the Middle Kingdom for themselves. The British imported opium to supply popular Chinese demand (the Chinese government decreed the opium trade illegal and tried very hard to suppress it). Foreign missionaries converted large numbers of Chinese to Christianity, and the Chinese government was justly concerned. What had happened was that Chinese smugness and traditionalism slowly strangled technological advances, while in the West Chinese inventions like gunpowder were developed into military might.

Isolationism, over a few hundred years, was perhaps the major cause of China going from the most prosperous and secure nation in the world to an impotent target for European colonization. China, after 1948, tried isolationism again. It worked no better for the Maoist Dynasty than it did for earlier Chinese governments. China became poorer and fell even further behind in its ability to efforts to regain lost ground. Only now, when the PRC is beginning to change from isolationism to a more internationally driven foreign policy have we seen a real effort to deal with the nation's many serious problems.

Japan: was at one time the one of the most isolated countries in the world. Though the Japanese had firearms, they chose to carryout their internal conflicts with the good old sword. Japan sought to preserve the purity of what they regarded as their ancient culture and traditions. That seemed to work fine, until their eyes were opened when heavily armed American ships arrived in force. The Japanese then embarked on a crash program to acquire Western technology and modern weaponry. Within a relatively short time they beat the crap out of the Chinese, and within a short period of time sank the Russian Royal Fleet. Barely forty years later they were occupying a big part of East Asia and took on the United States this very day, December 7th. Today, Japan has achieved a far more productive conquest by mastering the international economic system.

The United States has also tried isolationism with disastrous effects. Jefferson, after doing his best to destroy the American Military and Fleet, found himself unable to respond to British and French depredations on the high seas. Jefferson's solution was the Embargo Acts that cut off trade. The result was one of the earliest American depressions. Ships anchored in American harbors became un-seaworthy. New England merchants and traders were driven out of business, and the unemployed faced very hard times indeed. In the South, American plantations were unable to transship their products and the prices plummeted. It was hard times throughout the country, until the Embargo Acts were rescinded.

Washington warned against foreign entanglements because he knew that the new Republic was too weak to stand equally with the great powers of Europe. The War Hawks thought otherwise and the debacle of 1812 was the result. We weren't yet ready to take our place on the world's stage. Jackson had ambitions of extending the nation clear out to the Pacific, but he was unable to do that. Polk succeeded where Jackson failed, but the Mexican War ending in 1848 was unpopular and regarded by many as "imperialistic". The nation still remained mostly insular, though American merchant seamen were beginning to become serious competitors for international trade. Teddy Roosevelt's efforts were unashamedly imperialistic. We walked softly and carried a big stick. The Panama Canal resulted, and Spain lost its colonies to the United States. We didn't colonize Cuba, but the Philippines were a different story. Though many Americans really hated the idea of being responsible for the Philippines, it did protect them from other less well-meaning colonial powers. We fought an especially brutal guerilla conflict in the Philippines, but the islands thereafter became almost a showcase for American style democracy.

We were still primarily an isolationist nation and avoided participation in the rest of the world. That meant that when America entered the Great War, there wasn't much of an army to send into the trenches. It took time to train soldiers with broomstick rifles and sewer pipe artillery. Once the AEF came into play, the Great War ended with the defeat of Germany. We disarmed and disbanded the Army as we had always done after a conflict. The nation soundly rejected participation in the League of Nations, and continued to depend upon the vast oceans to protect us from the foolish military adventures of those crazy Europeans. After Pearl Harbor, the nation again had to build a credible effective military in a short time. We lost a lot of good men as a result, but it was clear then … as it should be clear now … that the United States can not divorce itself from active participation and leadership in the world diplomacy and economy.

We need customers for our products, technology, services, and innovations. We may not "need" inexpensive products manufactured in China, Japan, Korea, India, Malaysia, Germany, France, Italy, Mexico, Canada, and all the rest, but you have to admit they add considerably to the standard of life that we enjoy. Cutting off our foreign relations with the world, just isn't a realistic option anymore. The oceans are now not much more defense than a Texas water tank. Modern weapons are exceeding lethal and they can destroy our major cities in less than a day. There is today abroad in the world a major threat to world peace, our peace, from the Radical Islamic Movement that would like to impose Taliban-like governments over all of mankind. In the West we've outgrown having religion dominate our lives. We've become so ecumenical that we blind ourselves to the dangers presented by fanatics who would like to return to the superstitions of 10th century theocracy of the sword.

We can not afford to bury our heads in the sand ... whether that solution to all our problems is proposed by a conservative, or the leftists whose entire sympathy seems to be with our enemies.

As for myself, my sympathies lie acutely and absolutely with your (Asherman's) enemies. It's a narrow focus, but no less valuable to the overall good of mankind for that.

Those European trenches that our soldiers had no business dying in.


Rightfully so.


And how many good men have we lost fighting other people's wars?


Nobody's talking about cutting off trade-although I do favor some sort of protectionism-but we should stop being the world's policemen and welfare department. Enough is enough.

Here is how I define isolationism.

We close ALL US embassies all around the world,kick every foreign doplomat out of the US,close all of the foreign embassies and the UN,and sever diplomatic relation with every other country.

We stop all foreign aid,including medical,food,military,financial,and anything else.

We order all US citizens outside of the country to return home or lose their citizenship.

We allow every other country to solve their own medical emergencies,like disease,aids,or any other pproblem.
We do this by closing the CDC to any foreign govt or health organization.

In any natural disaster,like the tsunami that hit Thailand,earthquakes,floods,etc we simply refuse to send any kind of relief supplies or rescue personnel.

We leave NATO or any other military treaty we have signed,and we allow other countries to take up the slack.
In places like Darfur,we tell Africa and the EU to solve the problem,because it no longer concerns us.

Of course,the US could survive this,but I truly believe that if we did this that millions would either die of starvation or disease,simply because we werent helping any more.
But,that wouldnt be our problem.

No argument about the utility of bases in Europe and our self interest in a stable Europe. However, I have come to believe that our activism in these areas has had the unintended consequence of subsidizing European illusions and passivity. We have aided in the creation of a continent addicted to a perverse form of security wellfare. The Balkans were perhaps a particularly illustrative case. While I agree the situation there had become very bad, truly demanding action, subsequent events have confirmed the European powers learned nothing from it.

We exhaust ourselves in concerns and actions for European security, and get indifference, criticism and even direct opposition from them as our reward. Meanwhile they screw up their own future with social welfare systems that in effect discriminate against their islamic immigrants and the folly of their antagonism towards Turkey. I believe it would be useful to let Europe contemplate their growing dependence on resources from Putin's Russia and the hatred of their former colonial subjects to the South - all on their own - for a few decades. NATO is a relic of an earlier age and should be abandoned.

Blimey George-

I thought I could count on you to be immune to the assertion bug but it seems you are a terminal case.

There's no such thing as "our" anymore.

You tried that one with Hitler. Then at Suez.

Putin's Russia is a part of Europe and in a "few decades" Putin will be long gone.

I believe my position is both realistic and reasonable. I don't advocate restrictions to trade or the several attempts to truly isolate America from the world apparently advocated by others here. They would be unwise and , more importantly, futile. Neither do I suggest we should withdraw from the arena of world politics. I merely suggest we recognize that events have overtaken the notion that we have any remaining "special" relationship or common interests with the nations of continental Europe.

Is the UK included in your suggestion George ?

No, I said "continental Europe".

My reference was particularly to those Europhiles who wish to see the EU become some kind of antidote to or replacement for America's perceived excessive dominance of the West. I don't advocate America's dominance of the West ,or anywhere else for that matter, however I do recognize the aims of these Europhiles as opposed to the self-interest of America. They may occassionally be friendly toward us, but they are surely not our allies, and I can see no reason for us to sustain the promise of defending them in exchange for the illusion that they will support us. Better for all to make our respective positions clear.

From one of America's great songwriter/composers. Ladies and gentlement...Randy Newman.

Hopeless Bernie.

Anybody could write that with time on their hands. It's a ditty

"Noontime, and I'm still pushin' myself along the road, the darkest part.
Ooooh! Into the narrow lanes, I can't stumble or stay put.
Someone else is speaking with my mouth, but I'm listening only to my heart.
I made shoes for everyone, even you, while I still go barefoot."

Have you seen him do that "Ooooh!" live and up close?

I have.

And remembering "Ain't it hard to stumble and land in some muddy lagoon, especially when it's nine below zero and three o'clock in the afternoon."

I like when they make fun of Randy on Family Guy. It's funny.