If you are an American, do you believe that America should work toward global unity and support international organizations such as the UN with the same zeal expressed by other countries.. like fRanCe and geRmany? Or do you think keeping to ourselves (except when we feel we need to beat up on somebody or help someone else beat up on somebody) and pursue a more isolations policy is a better idea. I personally think the world and reality is more about "every man for himself" and dont being a patriot is an evil thing. Thats right.
I think WWII was spawned in many ways by the beggar thy neighbor policy in place during the interwar period, and the UN was created to ensure something like this never happened again. The UN is subject to abuse, but I don't think the answer is a return to isolationism and politics by power alone. War is a blunt instrument, a cudgel. Using force and might to wage diplomacy is like approaching a brain tumor with a plumber's wrench.
American national sovereignty > Globalism. The EU member countries want to sell themselves away just for some economic prosperity, that's fine, but we aren't giving away America to some globalists. The country bows down to no one, and the top level people who decide the path our country takes in history are our 3 branches of Federal gov't. Nothing more. No NAU, UN, or anyone else.
I think history is an important lesson. Maybe today, with the legacy of WWI and WWII dying daily, it just doesn't seem salient how dangerous the world was in the years 1919-1945. But those years existed, and to me, at least, they are an extremely salient reminder of what happens when one nation, or group of nations, thinks solely of "my nation first, my nation only."
Globalism will most likely have a hard time working. Like the Roman Empire and Napoleon's Empire it will be spread too thin too control properly by one unified government.
Let me clarify. Taking what I believe the OP posed as two alternatives, I don't consider globalism to be a unified multi-national or global government. I consider it to mean nations working in concert with other nations towards commonly accepted goals, such as peace and prosperity.
Let us also remember that the biggest cause for WWI was entangling alliances, inflating a small, local conflict between two countries into the first real global war. See any comparison in the modern day? As we slowly give more and more power to globalist interests, and are knee deep in support for countries like Israel, to our own peril. Let us also remember that one of the main causes for WWII was the ridiculous Treaty of Versailles, which might as well have been called the Fuck Germany Over for Petty Revenge treaty. We refused to work with Germany, refused to let them take part of negotiations, and crippled their industry and economy. We paved the way for Hitler to take power. See any comparison in the modern day? As we begin to try and sanction Iran, and use our force and UN power to exert our might over them and force them to do our will. Yet we'll be surprised when they try and fight back.
The harsh terms of the treaty of Versailles were a result of Americans return to isolation policy. The United States Senate refused to join the League of Nations and the US acquised to France's demands for reparations which bankrupted the Weimar Republic.
It's a fair point regarding WWI, but honestly I think it stretches back much, much further, to industrialization and the colonial fever itself. Germany found herself squeezed out of raw material resources and as a late comer to the stage - remember, she was only unified in 1864-1871, after centuries of being the "chessboard" principalities over which the other powers played realpolitik - she needed to develop late, fast and intensively. Hence, intensive militarization and, most sensitive to England, a massive navy-building campaign that also touched on imperial possessions globally made WWI an inevitability. Secondly, the alliances spawned in the 19th century and exploding in the 20th were old world alliances on the order of Metternich's Europe. They were based on the self-interest of nations seeking national aggrandizement. These are nothing like a true international body that I speak of when I talk about the benefits of international cooperation. Further, looking at the specific development of the "entangling alliances" of the period, it wasn't alliances per se that were the problem as much as the Kaiser's club-footed bungling of them that hurt. Remember, Bismarck put in place a system that included German alliance with Russia, and he sought a conservative agenda. Wilhelm, the bombastic, sword-swinging moron, screwed it all up. Given that the stage had been set for some time, the "entangling" alliances were only the spark, not the cause, from all history shows me. Absolutely agree about Versailles. One of the most shortsighted bunch of nimrods ever to put pen to paper, though sitting here in my comfy chair close to 100 years later, easy for me to say. But Versailles supports my point. These nations wanted to hurt Germany, rather than bring her into the fold for a better, common future. And not only Germany, but Japan, with the draconian navy curtailments put in place after the Washington Treaty of 1922. We should have learned from pre-WWI history, but didn't. In essence, we (the U.S.) stayed staunchly isolationist after encouraging and aiding Europe in its bid to take a big dump on itself, and Europe was in no mood, and did not have the energy, to step up to the plate and give strength to the League: The League was composed of nations acting not in concert, but in stringent beggar-thy-neighbor selfishness; it was gutted of all power to do anything to a jingoistic would-be power; and it was therefore useless against the Axis powers once they made their move. I firmly believe that true globalism, had it been in place from 1919 on, would have avoided WWII. It strikes me that all of this discussion brings up an interesting point: in the world of nations, as we now have, no one paradigm answers everything. If history is useful as a guide, it cannot be used as a blueprint. The world of political economies is too complicated, and social systems too malleable, to be subject to the kind of analysis and experimentation one can do in a lab. Every change is unique, and is not exactly like some change that on the surface seems to be identical. The best we can do is put history to use, use our heads, and hope for the best.
The problem with globalism is that our politicians operate on a level beyond Congressional oversight, vote on global initiatives without representation or consultation with the citizens, and produce documentation that is not available under the Freedom of Information Act. Participating too actively compromises the sovereignty of America, by moving government to a level the citizens cannot control. Anyone who disagrees, please first look at the legislation the UN has passed or has been working to pass. A lot of it is not in this country's best interests.
Nor should it always be. A country participating in a supranational body only to the extent it is in the country's immediate best interest isn't doing anything different than the "entangling alliances" omgitsfletch speaks of above. A couple of quick examples would be the postwar international money management systems and the Marshall Plan. Without the willingness of the U.S. to act rather selflessly (running a dollar deficit, while it could, or outright grants to Europe), the postwar world may have looked very different from what it was. Attention on immediate national self-interest would have said "screw the world - we're tops!" My point is that this "enlightened self-interest" endemic to a global viewpoint has benefits that aren't always in the country's short-term best interest, but redound to the country over the longer haul. The apotheosis of "national self-interest" was the era of power politics from the emergence of nation states 1848-1920's through to WWII. It doesn't work.
You're not addressing my concerns. You talk about acting selflessly, but shouldn't the people decide when and where to be selfless? It's not in our interest, to allow other nations to determine when America gives aid, or makes sacrifices without the consultation of the American people. If there is a consensus to participate, then so be it. But it cannot completely bypass the national democratic process.
Sorry, misread you. It's a good and a difficult question. "The People" wanted isolation in WWII, across the western world, and we, all of us, earned what happened. On the other hand, I can't imagine we in the United States ceding sovereignty to a supranational body along the lines of national decisions taking place in Brussels, as they do for the EU member states. There, though, the people have willingly agreed to cede some of their national sovereignty for the presumptive benefits of cooperation. Just curious - is it the decisionmaking process you have a problem with, or the very nature of global participation?
I don't mind legal immigration and emigration. I like trade and exchanges of ideas. I like collaborative efforts. I like recognizing greatness in the world. What I do not like is what Reagan spoke about in his most famous speech.
Some excellent, well-researched, points on this thread; especially (as usual) from northpointaiki. I'd only take issue with one point: I don't believe the U.S. acted 'selflessly' after World War 2. The U.S. was worried about the spread of Communism and the rise of the Soviet Union. It was in America's interests that Western Europe stayed out of Stalin's clutches and American policy was geared to that aim. (A similar policy to oppose Communism lead of course to U.S. involvement in Vietnam). Interestingly Britain too had an an 'isolantionist' policy in the inter-war years. We'd never considered ourselves 'European' and after World War 1 Britain didn't feel it needed (or wanted) to ever fight a war in Europe again: "If Europe wants to go to war again - then let it. We're staying out." This was a view expressed by both British and American politicians in the 1930s. Now of course it seems laughable that Britain could consider itself aloof from Europe and immune to the political and military events taking place only an aeroplane flight (or a V2 rocket flight) away. It's just as laughable that America could hold a similar isolationist view in the 21st century.
Ah yes, that view was also put forward in the 1930s. No one would go to war, the theory went, because modern bombers could now destroy whole cities. WW1 had shown that really nowhere was safe from enemy attack any more. So you bomb us, and we'll bomb you back - mutually assured destruction. Probably the only thing the British got right in the 1930s was to try and come up with an alternative strategy. As opposed to just threatening an enemy with destruction why not try and destroy their bombers? This view led to the development of Radar and the Spitfire and Hurricane fighters. The idea was to use radar to find where the enemy bombers were and then direct the fighters to that spot (as opposed to having them just aimlessly patrolling). It worked well, otherwise WW2 would have ended in about November 1940 with a German invasion of Britain. The modern equivalents today would be the 'Star Wars project', the missile shield, and lasers on satelites. Nothing makes war 'impossible'. BTW the British initially tried to develop radar as a 'death ray'!
Very interesting posts, Seagull, well said. I agree with you. I don't know that I've specifically seen it discussed at length somewhere, but it seems clear to me that Hitler banked on war-weariness and all western powers couldn't shake the torpor induced by WWI. And I agree with you on our post-war actions, an apt point. "Selflessly" was not correct. Though we did things that hurt us (such as running dollar deficits to bolster European liquidity), it was all, as you rightly say, to sustain Western (and Southern) Europe against the Red Tide.
True. No one wanted a war in Europe - except Germany. So no one prepared for a war in Europe - except Germany. The British Expeditionary Force of 1940 (that was unceremoniously booted out of France via Dunkirk) was only marginally better equiped that the British Expeditionary Force of 1914. In the meantime the Germans had built Stuka dive bombers, Panzer tanks and had developed a stategy (blitzkrieg) to use them in a devastating combination. Interestingly (but a bit off-topic) warning about the rise of Hitler and saying he had to be stopped was the ONLY think that Winston Churchill EVER got right. He was wrong about absolutely everything else: Ireland, India, the Gold Standard, the Gallipoli Campaign, the future of the Middle East, etc, etc, etc. Not sure what modern character you could compare him with!