I thought they were generally considered to be neutral, not withdrawn. Right, but interventionism and non-interventionism are not inherently good or evil respectively right? They merely reflect two approaches to differences with others. I think the danger of interventionism is not that others aren't happy with us, but that we are not happy with us generally. But by doing so, he isolated himself from all "unlike" regimes in philosophy or purpose, yes? That's what I am talking about. Isolationists create barriers. Inequalities. Enforce hard prerogatives. By interventionism, did Hitler maintain open relations with the West? Was his regime one of tolerance for civil liberties, ethnicities or philosophies? For example, by placing sanctions on Iran, this is intervention. But it is also isolationism. Iran has been isolated from America. By supporting the Saudi Princes, the other effect is creating isolationism from the will of the Saudi people. I can understand this definition, even if I do not agree with it. Fortress America is an extreme. How about putting a label to an America that trades, deals diplomatically and travels (as well as allowing travel and investment within) without the warfare mentality? Is this isolationist, or non-intervention? By definition, interventionism and non-interventionism would be mutually exclusive philosophies. Isolationism can be accomplished by both and is exclusive to neither (by your definition). Hope your back isn't bothering you too much. I'm feeling quite a bit better today.
Thanks - and glad to hear you're better. Good post, Guerilla. Making dinner under a cloud of Vicodin, but will respond later. Dinner is braised blade chops of lamb, with ratatouille, herbed gnocchi parisienne, and a beautiful, peppery Syrah. So if I'm coherent, that is, I'll be back later.
Let me start by saying I think we are off track. Our exchange centered on Ronald Reagan, and whether he was or wasn't an interventionist, prior to him becoming President. His early and sustained statements regarding America's almost holy mission, worldwide, against global communism, and his vociferous support of the Vietnam War as a war against same is evidence enough for me. We don't have much else, as I said, because he wasn't in fact Commander in Chief until 1980, when you say he became a puppet, in so many words, of other interventionist interests. I don't believe you've really addressed that. I also discussed the fact that as Governor he also quashed dissent at home, with armed force. Given your statement: I am surprised, to be honest, you haven't addressed that either. Now, to your post: Switzerland: A couple of things. Neutrality is embedded within an isolationist stance – a country that is isolationist will obviously be neutral. I do think Switzerland is moving more and more to an engaged, but neutral country, but I think it has been dragged kicking and screaming so. It has not been merely neutral in its history, but very reluctant to engage in "foreign entanglements" in any way. To this date, it stands alone among the countries of Western Europe in not belonging to the EU. Nor does it belong to the European Economic Area. There are signs – such as its overtures to bringing its policies in line with EU protocols – that the country is moving away from its isolationist bent. Its signing of several agreements – including the Schengen Treaty and others – points the way of the future for Switzerland. I would expect it to be fully integrated within the next 20 years. I don't understand you're asking a normative question regarding interventionism and non-interventionism, because I don't know my discussion of it that you are responding to has anything to do with an inherently normative quality - in fact, quite the opposite - I am discussing interventionism as a tool, in the service of national interest. That we have blown the use of that tool for decades now doesn't impute its inherent evil. Again, I don't understand your line of reasoning here. I don't think you really believe this, Guerilla, as you said, and I would say, in the way it has been expressed over the last several decades, rightly said: I also think this statement by you seems to indicate your belief in the inherent "evil" of interventionism - making your statement above, regarding "not inherently good or bad" all the more puzzling to me. While I don't think interventionism per se is necessarily evil, I do think the policies we have pursued using interventionism over the last 60 years have been very unhelpful, overall. These are invalid definitions of isolationism and interventionism in my opinion, Guerilla. My understanding of isolationism is the same as your apparent usage with respect to Switzerland - "withdrawal": Hence, I don't understand your altering the definition now. It is commonsense that isolation is, well, just that - withdrawal. It is a withdrawal from foreign affairs, and, historically, the building of strength of the nation bounded by the national boundary lines. Again, "Fortress America." As I said, what I called what Hitler undertook was national aggrandisement, not isolationism. He invaded other nations. I do not understand how you can maintain this is an isolationist stance. As I've said, this is "non-interventionism" in the Libertarian definition of the word. It isn't isolationism. Here, I will repeat my early definitions: "Isolationism": I define it as a country's stance that seeks absolute disentanglement from the world stage, that acts entirely in its own self interest, and leaves other countries to deal with their internal politics. "Interventionism": an activist foreign policy that seeks to intervene in the internal political and economic affairs of other nations, to redound benefits to the home country or to those nations whom the home country deems important to its national interest. Libertarian "non-interventionism": the libertarian view - which I now realize you must have been talking about: avoidance of foreign entanglements, but an open-door policy regarding trade and other mutually beneficial exchanges. I disagree, though I actually am not big on semantic debates. I cannot see "an activist foreign policy that seeks to interfere in the domestic affairs of other nations" ("interventionism") as the opposite of an "open-door policy regarding trade and other mutually beneficial exchanges (your libertarian, "non-interventionism"). I do see it as the opposite of "seeks absolute disentanglement from the world stage, acts in its own self-interest, and leaves other countries to deal with their internal politics" as very much opposites. "Seeking to interfere" and "leaving to deal" cannot be construed any other way but opposite in nature.
Because I acquiesce . I disagree that neutrality and isolationism are synonymous. Neutral means not taking sides, rather than not acknowledging two sides. Isn't this exactly what I have said? Blowback is a consequence, it is merely acknowledging the relationsip of reactions to actions, cause and effect. And I agree with the rest. No, I don't think intervention is inherently evil, but some forms of it can be. It's a policy that is fraught with danger from the potential for abuse. Except I didn't say the Swiss were withdrawn, I said they were neutral. If I avoid you, then I might be withdrawn. If I interact with you without interfering in your affairs with others, I could be deemed neutral. It was Isolationist to all he did not trade with. Surely you recognize that perfect interventionism and perfect isolationism are myths? And yet that is what our Fortress America example is. A perfect myth. Fortress America assumes a withdrawal from trade, diplomacy and travel. The Swiss do not meet this criteria. I don't know that they ever have. So now we are going to qualify "Non-Interventionism" as "Libertarian"? I don't accept your definitions. You're narrowly defining foreign policy as intervention in domestic policy or not, overlooking the much broader picture of what foreign policy accommodates. But therein lies the failure NPT. Absolute disentanglement from the world stage, excludes trade, diplomacy and possibly travel. It's narrow definition we are arguing about. Switzerland has not been an isolationist nation. They deal, talk and travel. They accept investment and commerce within. Hard to do all of that if you are "disentangled".
Yes, thank you again for the intelligent reply. Now, if you'll go back to your corner, the grownups are talking.
Guerilla, I didn't say they are synonymous. I said that neutrality is embedded within isolationism - in fact, they aren't the same; isolationism includes neutrality, but much more, in the same way interventionism includes armed aggression, but much more. Well, no, as your post on interventionism and blowback shows. But more than that, I am asking you why you are presuming I said that, because nothing in the quote you drew from my post indicates a normative stance. I stated that the abuse of interventionism can be a problem others had with us. You responded that problem with interventionism is a problem we have with us. I don't see how this view squares with: We were discussing whether Switzerland was "neutral" or "withdrawn." You used the word withdrawn to distinguish this term from the term "neutral." You therefore used the word "withdrawn" to characterize isolationism. On a couple of occasons, I provided my definition of isolationism, so we weren't talking from conjecture, but you would know my working definitions of these tendencies. I also provided you with two very real examples of Switzerland's isolationist tendency- against extraordinary pressure, Switzerland stands alone in not belonging to either the EU or EEA. This is a striking example of its isolationist viewpoint in the postwar European milieu. I also acknowledged this isn't going to last, and there are signs afoot it will be fully integrated within our lifetime. Which also answers why I think your argument regarding Hitler is off-mark, naming his expansionist policy isolationism. Hitler invaded countries and pursued a policy of aggrandisement. In fact, he was likely the first, on any kind of mass scale, to institute the notion of a "preventative" interventionism; and his was the epitome of interventionism. Of course, he also was "isolationist" with countries with whom he was at war. This goes without saying, it is commonsense, it wasn't your original point, and please, let's not play word games that amount to nothing. As I have said a couple of times, now, I am defining the term "non-interventionism" by your same definition: I never said they were entirely isolationist. In fact, I acknowledge that they have been dragging and kicking into engagement. But Switzerland's involvement with the world is not merely from a position of neutrality - merely neutral countries join supranational organizations. Switzerland, not a member of the EU or EEA, the two largest European organizations linking nations together in international trade and security, has not been a member. This is an isolationist bent, in my opinion, more than mere neutrality. At issue, however, is also the rise of the SVP, which is strongly isolationist in outlook: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_People%27s_Party This augers an even stronger retrenchment, it seems to me. In the words of one analyst: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/3207834.stm -"Even further retreat." In other words, a stronger isolationism (retreat, withdrawal) from what was in place before. SVP and Blocher's recent rise may indeed auger in a new and stronger era of isolationism, though the trends to integration, I think, will survive any move in the opposite era, however strong for the moment. At any rate, I don't enjoy niggling over words, guerilla. In fact, I feel all we are doing is playing word games at this point, and I object to that as a waste of time. I have, I think, established fairly clearly the many points I raise, including the fact that Reagan was an interventionist prior to 1980. But I won't be spending the time any longer over definitions of the words "isolationism," "interventionism," "libertarian, non-interventionism."
I agree about the word games, and frankly I am getting a headache myself from this thread. I'm merely trying to do your well thought out responses justice by continuing the debate. I can't accept that being non-aggressive is isolationist, and I can't accept that you have to surrender sovereignty to a larger body in order to not be isolationist. These ideas are, in my mind, very narrow definitions. It's a good debate, and perhaps we'll just have to accept that we don't share the same perspectives. Sorry if I have caused you any duress.
This is what I am talking about, actually, Guerilla. I do not equate non-aggressiveness with isolationism, nor is it merely "not ceding authority" to a larger body. I have never said so in this debate. I believe I have clearly defined what constitutes isolationism, at least by my definition, and the definition as it's used in discussions where isolationism is brought up. Here again is my definition: Here is dictionary.com's: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/isolationism Seems close enough for the horse races. But I find myself correcting mischaracterizations of what I have actually written, and I don't find that very fruitful. No duress, Guerilla. Just don't find much utility in it. We first argued about Reagan, and whether he was or wasn't interventionist prior to 1980; you intimated a kind of puppetry on his administration. I worked to show he was always an interventionist, and you eventually conceded. We debated on whether Switzerland is neutral, or whether it is isolationist. I first tried to clarify terms, in order that we aren't merely lost in ill-defined concepts, and then showed why I believe Switzerland is very definitely not just neutral, but isolationist in viewpoint in many ways; though there have been changes instituted towards integration, we have also seen the rise of the SVP, with its isolationist agenda. I am guessing in an effort to prove your contention about isolationism and interventionism, you called Hitler isolationist, and I tried to show how this couldn't be. I tried to clearly distinguish isolationism, interventionism, and your ethos, non-interventionism, as defined by the Libertarian cause. I don't believe there is anything else - unless I've missed something.
There is a difference between Vicodin and crack... Vicodin just makes you kinda, cool.. happy.. wow.. Crack makes people post kinda like you do.. I think I will take the Vicodin posts personally..
Northpoint needs to be on the Vicodin to give the rest of us a chance. A few are close/on his level, but for the rest of us it levels the playing field!
Just imagined if he mixed the Vicodin with Alcohol we'd be genius level by now.... BTW, not recommending mixing Vicodin with Alcohol.. Well, not endorsing it anyway... Been there done that..
It appears that Barack Obama has been the most recent bastard to try to mis-characterize Ronald Reagan and mis-use the great man's legacy for shallow political purposes. But in an excellent example of how the Democrats are currently feeding on themselves, John Edwards took the opportunity to attack both Obama and Reagan. I applaud Edwards in this. His honest display of hatred towards Ron Reagan was surprisingly refreshing. Read more at Edwards Attacks Obama for View of Reagan.
The hippie media really tried to portray Reagan as a nut back in 1980. Reagan served 9 years in the military between 1937 to 1945 and was a two term Governor of California from 1967-1975. He had a lot more experience when he was elected President than both Edwards and Obama combined. I read the article and Edward's attack is funny coming from a slick laywer living in a 28,000 square foot mansion.