Hemi-Iso what, H.C.? Don't worry, I'll keep this in layman's terms. The first thing that I found out while researching this column is that while there is certainly is a Western Hemisphere, there is no Eastern Hemisphere. At least not in geo-political terms. I guess there is too much going on in the other side of the world to break it down to a hemishere. It's broken down into Europe, Asia, Middle East, Far East, etc. The Western Hemisphere, as used for political concerns consists of North America, Central America, and South America. Now, I wish I could take credit for the idea of Hemispheric Isolationism but some guy named Henry Kissinger apparently defined it first. However, I do think I may be the first to propose this kind of economic structure for the present day free-market philosophy in the America's.
Allow me to back up a bit here so you can better understand why I would think this is a good idea or even necessary.
The United States has been a major player in world politics almost from conception, for better or worse. Even the American Revolution involved world politics. Realizing the Colonies had no real manufacturing to produce weapons necessary to support their fledgling army, Ben Franklin was dispensed to France to try to convince King Louis XVI to support the new America both finacially and militarily. It was one of the earliest examples of military trade by the not even fully formed United States. From that day forward the United States has expanded it's trade to nearly every country in the world.
And for the most part it has been a good thing. The ability to negotiate trade has turned the United States into the most powerful country on the face of the Earth. But, with great power comes great responsibilty. With it's mighty armies and enormous wealth, the U.S. has expanded it's influence to a point where it's now seen by the world as both the cause and the answer to any and all of the world's problems. And there lies the problem.
Most people I talk to about the U.S.'s influence in world politics assume that most of the world hates us for the things we have done to them. This is only partly true. At least half of the world hates us for what we didn't do. Some Vietnamese people , for example, harbor a lot of hatred for leaving Vietnam and subjecting them to the cruelty of Pol Pot, (my guess is most of you didn't even know our leaving the Vietnam War resulted in 2 million deaths), while others hate us for getting involved in the first place. Rwandans hate us for turning a blind eye to years of genocide, while Serbs hate us for getting involved in Bosnia and stopping genocide. America it seems, can not win.
Now, while G.W. has done a great job of making us even more hated in the world, we have been slowly going downhill in popularity for some time. Our continued support of Israel has made us the target of hatred by Palestinian and Arab for over 40 years and the hatred of Muslims has been cast upon us Christians since the 7th century. I know a lot of you like to think that before G.W. the whole world was in love with us but you would have a very hard time proving that to me. France, for instance, was a huge fan of the U.S. after we liberated them in WWII, but it didn't take long for that to fade. Some young French people started emulating American culture, which really disturbed the traditionalist older French people and soon everything American was seen as a threat to French culture. Charles Degault ran for President of France on a platform of preserving the French way of life and after winning, did an ethnic cleansing of all things American. Even kicking out the American troops stationed there. That's gratitude for ya.
Everyone it seems, has a reason for hating the U.S.. Which leads me to why I'm thinking of Hemispheric Isolationism.
Most of the world has gotten sick of the U.S. being in such a position of influence. Politicians all over the world and even in this Hemisphere are getting elected on platforms of America hating. (Think Hugo Chavez for example) The War in raq has been nothing but trouble and next to no one seems to care if Islamic Fascists blow up American interests and even the Leftist media here in the U.S. seems to hope we lose the war. Without any support from anyone outside of Britian and with our own media working against us, we can no longer win. We suffer all this like a parent hoping that one day his children will finally see the good in him. It's way too comfortable for other countries to sit back and criticize, to demand that the U.S. fix all the world's problems than to ever help themselves. Like the parental example we are, we need to kick our whiney children out on their own.
It's time to throw the gauntlet down. To demand that each country commits itself to helping the U.S. with troops and money or slowly be left on it's own. Our traditional friends of Israel and Britian would still get our military protection, but why are we the world's food suppliers and humanitarian aid suppliers to countries who vow to destroy us at all costs? Every disaster brings accusations of how the U.S. isn't doing enough while it's accusers do nothing. Only in our absense will they finally respect everything we have done.
But H.C., every economist in the world says that isolationism will lead to inflation, depleting our dollar down to half it's worth. I agree, there will be a price to pay, but they're talking about complete isolationism not hemispheric, and I'm talking about moving our investments slowly over a decade or two. Why can't we have products that are being produced in China produced in Central American or South American countries? Why can't we use Mexican labor instead of Tiawanese to produce our textiles? Why can't we devote efforts and monies to ending our dependence on Mid-East oil? Wouldn't we be better off to cure some of the problems we have here in our own Hemisphere before we go trying to solve the world's problems? Let's let Europe, Russia and China fight with the Islamic Terrorists over the Middle East and Africa. If it should happen that we have to retun to the world military stage, we will be far more appreciated. With the whole world praying for our defeat in every venture, we can no longer afford to spend billions every year hoping that the world will one day appreciate it and help us. As the computer "Joshua" so elequently stated in the movie "War Games", the only way to win a game that can't be won, is to not play.
Allow me to back up a bit here so you can better understand why I would think this is a good idea or even necessary.
The United States has been a major player in world politics almost from conception, for better or worse. Even the American Revolution involved world politics. Realizing the Colonies had no real manufacturing to produce weapons necessary to support their fledgling army, Ben Franklin was dispensed to France to try to convince King Louis XVI to support the new America both finacially and militarily. It was one of the earliest examples of military trade by the not even fully formed United States. From that day forward the United States has expanded it's trade to nearly every country in the world.
And for the most part it has been a good thing. The ability to negotiate trade has turned the United States into the most powerful country on the face of the Earth. But, with great power comes great responsibilty. With it's mighty armies and enormous wealth, the U.S. has expanded it's influence to a point where it's now seen by the world as both the cause and the answer to any and all of the world's problems. And there lies the problem.
Most people I talk to about the U.S.'s influence in world politics assume that most of the world hates us for the things we have done to them. This is only partly true. At least half of the world hates us for what we didn't do. Some Vietnamese people , for example, harbor a lot of hatred for leaving Vietnam and subjecting them to the cruelty of Pol Pot, (my guess is most of you didn't even know our leaving the Vietnam War resulted in 2 million deaths), while others hate us for getting involved in the first place. Rwandans hate us for turning a blind eye to years of genocide, while Serbs hate us for getting involved in Bosnia and stopping genocide. America it seems, can not win.
Now, while G.W. has done a great job of making us even more hated in the world, we have been slowly going downhill in popularity for some time. Our continued support of Israel has made us the target of hatred by Palestinian and Arab for over 40 years and the hatred of Muslims has been cast upon us Christians since the 7th century. I know a lot of you like to think that before G.W. the whole world was in love with us but you would have a very hard time proving that to me. France, for instance, was a huge fan of the U.S. after we liberated them in WWII, but it didn't take long for that to fade. Some young French people started emulating American culture, which really disturbed the traditionalist older French people and soon everything American was seen as a threat to French culture. Charles Degault ran for President of France on a platform of preserving the French way of life and after winning, did an ethnic cleansing of all things American. Even kicking out the American troops stationed there. That's gratitude for ya.
Everyone it seems, has a reason for hating the U.S.. Which leads me to why I'm thinking of Hemispheric Isolationism.
Most of the world has gotten sick of the U.S. being in such a position of influence. Politicians all over the world and even in this Hemisphere are getting elected on platforms of America hating. (Think Hugo Chavez for example) The War in raq has been nothing but trouble and next to no one seems to care if Islamic Fascists blow up American interests and even the Leftist media here in the U.S. seems to hope we lose the war. Without any support from anyone outside of Britian and with our own media working against us, we can no longer win. We suffer all this like a parent hoping that one day his children will finally see the good in him. It's way too comfortable for other countries to sit back and criticize, to demand that the U.S. fix all the world's problems than to ever help themselves. Like the parental example we are, we need to kick our whiney children out on their own.
It's time to throw the gauntlet down. To demand that each country commits itself to helping the U.S. with troops and money or slowly be left on it's own. Our traditional friends of Israel and Britian would still get our military protection, but why are we the world's food suppliers and humanitarian aid suppliers to countries who vow to destroy us at all costs? Every disaster brings accusations of how the U.S. isn't doing enough while it's accusers do nothing. Only in our absense will they finally respect everything we have done.
But H.C., every economist in the world says that isolationism will lead to inflation, depleting our dollar down to half it's worth. I agree, there will be a price to pay, but they're talking about complete isolationism not hemispheric, and I'm talking about moving our investments slowly over a decade or two. Why can't we have products that are being produced in China produced in Central American or South American countries? Why can't we use Mexican labor instead of Tiawanese to produce our textiles? Why can't we devote efforts and monies to ending our dependence on Mid-East oil? Wouldn't we be better off to cure some of the problems we have here in our own Hemisphere before we go trying to solve the world's problems? Let's let Europe, Russia and China fight with the Islamic Terrorists over the Middle East and Africa. If it should happen that we have to retun to the world military stage, we will be far more appreciated. With the whole world praying for our defeat in every venture, we can no longer afford to spend billions every year hoping that the world will one day appreciate it and help us. As the computer "Joshua" so elequently stated in the movie "War Games", the only way to win a game that can't be won, is to not play.
16 comments:
Well said, You call the troops, I'll call the corperations.....
I'm not so sure that 1/2 the world likes/dislikes the U.S. for the simplistic black & white reasons of doing/not doing various things. From what I've researched in the past, I've found that to a large degree much of that so-called hate can be attributed to financial aspects (most of which aren't considered to be news-worthy nowadays), such as the differences between the haves & the have-nots, or even more accurately, the exploitation of the have-nots by the haves. Now it should also be mentioned that the story behind the currently popular (and wrong) view of U.S. haters being muslims, is of course slightly different, but muslims DO NOT make up the majority of U.S. haters in the world.
I'm curious though as to why you state that "Our traditional friends of Israel and Britian would still get our military protection...", when Israel is & has been used merely for its strategic location, & Britian is 1/100th the power @ best that it was during its peak, it was also used for its strategic postioning (although to a much lesser extent today), and not to mention the fact that it is the very nation that the U.S. rebelled against.
Finally, to reposition U.S. business interests to Central or South America seems silly, & ultimately unrealistic. After all, wasn't just about every nation that produces our 'stuff' (or more accurately allows American companies to LET THEM produce our 'stuff'...but for much cheaper) stable & appreciative when U.S. business went there originally?
But then again, all this debate about the big-kid-on-the-block is kind of pointless, as the U.S. will be passing that torch on, unfortunately much sooner than later.
Thanks Anonymous,
I was going to say you don't have to be anonymous here, but I publish under a pseudonym so I guess be who you want. Thanks for replying.
Hmm, Nic,
You make several good points, so allow me to address them one by one. 1)While it is a simplistic view, what other options are there?
That they hate us just for who we are? 2) Money is the reason for everything in politics, and not just for the U.S.. 3) I would question the word "exploitation", although that is the view of the left. Most people in poor countries don't want to be put on welfare where they're beholden to the U.S. for food, medicine and jobs as their only way to survive. From the people I've met from overseas they are far prouder than us Americans about taking handouts. They want a chance to improve their country and their lot in life. Could we be better? Of course, but to think we can go into a third world country and use our standard of living as a gauge is something that doesn't hold up in global competition. But as far as the environment, I would agree with you. Polluting is polluting anywhere, and should be a crime. 4) I don't think for a minute that ALL Muslims hate America or that ONLY Muslims hate us. But they are the product of propaganda which is FAR less free than here in the U.S. 5) Abandoning Israel would guarantee it being overrun and if you think they're leaving WITH all those nuclear weapons, you don't know Israel. Britian has put itself in the crosshairs to back us, I don't believe in turning our back on those willing to help, it's the rest of the world I have a beef with. 6)We AlREADY do business with the countries I mentioned so it's hard to see why it would be "silly" or "unrealistic" to simply increase incentive to do MORE business with them. As I stated above, yes they are appreciative for the jobs and the chance to improve their economy and lives, but I think it's necessary to separate that from the fact that they also would like to see the U.S. reduced in size and world stature. 7) I think that's my main point. If we continue stretching our military, expanding our debt, and carrying the majority of the finacial burden of the world, your prophecy WILL come true. If you think that would be great.You should check out the lives of people in countries that have collapsed economies such as Russia or Yugoslavia. An important point; only in a strong economy can any country protect it's environment protect it's people, and preserve it's wildlife. It's completely contrary to on one hand pray for the demise of the U.S. and on the other say you are a enviromentalist. People in Yugoslavia killed every wild animal and then stripped every tree of it's leaves for food and then burned every stick of wood for heat. Careful what you wish for.
While I'm a bit confused as to what you think I've wished for, I'm fairly certain that I'd be correct in thinking that you don't see me as much of an environmentalist, nor as one who prays for the destruction of the very country in which I reside. I hope @ least.
In regards to the repositioning of U.S. business interests being silly, it's safe to say that yes, anything that isn't feasable can also be described as such. I don't see the people who really run things, that is the heads of big business, jumping @ the opportunity to spend hundreds of billions of dollars, if not trillions, to build/transfer their infrastructures elsewhere merely to acheive some sort of "respect" for the U.S. I understand incentives & how they work, but I'm failing to see any here. I'm also hardly educated in economics, but a move of this scale, even in a window of 10-20 years could very potentially collapse the world economy. I won't even mention the trillions of dollars that the very countries we would be cutting off have invested right here in the U.S. So is that a fair, justifiable trade? The inevitable collapse of @ the very least a few national economies, the view of other nations that this could very well be considered an act of war, & the potential for breeding even more hate/disdain for the U.S. & it's foreign policies all for a little respect?
The bottom line is that I can't recall many examples of isolationism making situations better for anybody, ever. A modern example would be of the communist nations of the last century. Yeah, China is doing REALLY well, but they're a living breathing experiment of what happens when you mix communism w/ capitalism (A contradiction that I'm still very amazed by).
Don't get me wrong, I think globalization has done more harm than good, but isolationism is synonymous w/ segregation, & I doubt I have to cite any examples of how we know why that doesn't work.
Hey Nic,
First off, I think you are at the very least environmentally conscious. I mean, I certainly don't think you think the Earth is disposable. You may have misinterpreted me on that one. I was only pointing out the need to be careful in whatever we do, that we don't damage our economy, and hence our environment. As you know, there is a segment of society that wants to see the U.S. to fall into anarchy, I would hope and assume your not part of that. My statement was more of a warning to everyone that thinks like that and not directed at you personally. (If it came off that way, I apologize.) I guess I would have been better off to use a word other than Isolationism, as that's not really even possible. I was thinking more in terms of a foreign policy, as business is very hard to control in today's environment anyway as you astutely pointed out. It's really more of a threat than a reality; The act of moving away from the world stage both militarily and by dollar diplomacy. I don't think most countries would want the U.S. to leave for some of the reasons you stated. My hope is the threat would get them more engaged and make them less of a spectator hoping for us to fail. But having said that, if we're going to invest 100's of billions why not at least try to help people who are in a far less fought over region? Who MAY be more appreciative of our efforts? The money we give to all the Western Hemisphere countries pales in comparison to what we give to the rest of the world. Billions to Africa that drags our bodies through the streets, billions to the Middle East that threatens to destroy us. Why must WE be the answer to Darfur? To Palestine? To the Congo? I guess if I thought they appreciated any of our efforts I would feel different. Give them money and they hate us vs. leave and they hate us, what's the difference besides that it saves us money better spent somewhere else. I appreciate the debate though. It gives people more perspective than just mine.
I understand the arguement against being the "World's Police". I even agree w/ it. I mean, c'mon, there are 3.5 million homeless living on the streets of the greatest, most industrialized country in the world! You'd think things would be a bit different. But, with that said, western morals in their current state tell us that something must be done to assist the less fortunate abroad....even if some of them don't appreciate it (though I'm willing to bet that MANY more do, regardless of how proud they may be). Somewhere in the midst of our gluttonous consumption there still exists a conscience, or @ the very least, a feeling of guilt. Ultimately, it's a simple case of being caught in yet another catch 22...and being that far less than 1/2 of the world's population share our "western" morals, I fall far short of being able to provide any ideas pertaining to a solution.
Hey Nic,
I'll leave that as the last word since I had the first. Thanks for your comments, you give many good points to consider.
Maybe it's just me...
But Hemispheric isoloation isn't reasaonable in the least bit; considering that some of the nations who own shares of the U.S. debt are...well..in the Eastern Hempisphere (Hello China? Hello Japan?). If these nations decided to collectively dumped their stake in the U.S. Treasury (which I wouldn't at all be suprised about, since irresponsible cash-printing is f***ing up the value of the dollar BIG TIME), we'd all be screwed. It's another Great Depression in the making.
So, if for no other reason than preserving some economic equilbrium, I just don't see the "Champions of the West" (I'm talking about the U.S., not the other guys from Ann Arbor) being willing to make such a move.
Hey Dre,
I must not have made it clear that I see this as a foreign policy move only. Yes, we would be encouraging corporations to move to W.H. countries but there's not much we can do to stop them from going where they will. Like I was telling Nic, I see this more as a threat than anything. Any small move on our part toward moving away from being so envolved would, I hope, get E.U. countries to wake up a little. As I also told Nic, I think "Isolationism" may have been the wrong term as people seem to associate it with Monroe Doctrine type isolationism which as you both stated, is not realistic. I'm very concerned about foreign debt which you are wise to bring up, but I think we need to reduce that no matter what our course. That would be part of my proposed policy also. Maybe a better term for what I'm talking about would be "slow disengagement" from the problems of the East and slow engagement of the West. Does that clear it up a little?
Actually HC, you made perfect sense in the beginning. I wasn't turning my attention to the economic ramifications of W.H. to be contrary to your point, but to augment it.
I wholeheartedly agree with where you were going with this post...
I had already posted on this one when you originally posted it, but I will post again because of all the great discussion.
Nic: When you talk about our 'western morality' being the thing that makes us feel like we have to be be the big brother of the world, it is worth noting that it is this same 'western morality' that prevents us from saying "Screw the debt, we are bigger and badder than you, go ahead and try to collect." The problem with accepting or rejecting morals is that it is something of a package deal, you can't (or shouldn't) pick and choose the morals that are convenient for you.
The example you cite with Russia (the communist nations of last century) falls through, since that is political isolationism, not geographic, and further I would imagine that since we are discussing economic practices, the different economic models would have a greater effect than you seem to think it would.
HC: I liked it the first time on iBlogButYouCan'tReadItBecauseItIsDownThisMonth, and I liked it again. Good post.
LOL, Will,
I loved the Iblog thing. Thanks for the comment I'll leave the answer up to Nic.
@ Will: I'm not entirely sure how the first portion of your response applies, so I'm clueless as to how to respond. It's very possibly (even likely) just me.
I used the example of past communist nations for it was the best modern comparison that I could pull off of the top of my head as I can't for the life of me think of any nation that geographically isolated itself (by choice @ least). Regardless, as much as I don't want to get into semantics, aren't political isolation & geographical isolation merely two forms of the same thing...that is isolationism? But yes, you're right, I should have stated that it was not a direct comparison.
Nic: I was referring to your last post where you said "western morals in their current state tell us that something must be done to assist the less fortunate abroad". I was trying (unclearly, my apologies) to say that it wasn't a failing of our western morals, because these same western morals are what would make us accept the objection that moving our money out of the countries that invested money in us wouldn't be a prime choice either. America as a whole struggles with noblesse oblige, in both its internal and external affairs.
It did sound like I was splitting hairs, but what I meant was that in the Communist examples, they only allowed trade of services, goods, ideas, whatever, with countries that shared their political ideology. I think their economic model was such that trade really doesn't benefit either country as much, especially considering the inefficiencies and corruptions.
While our economic model is not free of inefficiencies and corruptions, when we enter a trading relationship with countries, it is typically more beneficial for both us and them, then the same relationship would have been with the USSR.
Finally, the geographic isolation that HC speaks of I think is much less focused in scope than the socio-political isolation of the communist block. I suppose I would argue that use of the term isolation (while accurate) is misleading, as you aren't really isolated when you deal with half of a planet.
It further stands of interest that Europe is largely considered part of the west, as in western civilization.
In my third to last paragraph I meant:
more beneficial for both us and them, than the
I might not be able to post on your blog anymore if I can't learn to type on it, HC...
Post a Comment