Posted on 08/06/2014 8:15:21 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The proliferation of crises around the globe has, for the most part, been met with a yawn from the political class. Americans, they say, are tired of being the world’s policeman. Most media and political elite believe Americans are happy to let the world can sort out it affairs for now.
They are not entirely wrong. “Americans in large numbers want the U.S. to reduce its role in world affairs even as a showdown with Russia over Ukraine preoccupies Washington,” an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll in April found. “In a marked change from past decades, nearly half of those surveyed want the U.S. to be less active on the global stage, with fewer than one-fifth calling for more active engagement—an anti-interventionist current that sweeps across party lines.”
Americans got what they asked for, and Washington retreated from the world stage even as the war in Ukraine grew more violent, Iraq and Syria witnessed the rise of ISIS, and violence in a series of Central American nations precipitated an exodus of migrants who streamed across America’s southern border.
While Americans may have welcomed the dual policies of disengagement and retrenchment, they sure don’t seem to like the results of those policies. Another NBC News/WSJ poll released on Tuesday indicates that Americans are not happy with the level of disengagement displayed by the American government in the face of a number of pressing threats to global security.
Respondents were asked about a series of crises; the war in Europe, an attack on a commercial airliner by Russian separatists, the civil war in Syria, the war in Gaza, ISIS’s rise to power in the Fertile Crescent, and the crisis on the southern border. Pluralities in all cases were dissatisfied with the United States’ level of involvement in those crises.
When asked what American policy they would prefer to see, many said that they were unfamiliar with or had no opinion on those particular matters. Among those who were familiar with those crises, however, the consensus is clear: America is “not involved enough” in world affairs.
Americans may like the theories of disengagement and retrenchment, but they do not seem especially fond of them in practice. While Americans are war-weary and cautious about reengaging in global affairs after a decade of conflict, they are also apprehensive about increasing global instability. An electorate plagued by anxiety about the state of foreign affairs is usually not predisposed to vote for the status quo. Maybe after Americans vent their unease at the polls, the political class will wake up to the fact that Americans are plagued by fears, not just about their own country, but for the world.
Yes.
We’re already bankrupt.
Disengage no.
Be a little choosier about how and where we engage, yes.
I sure do. Of course the answer is not that simple to a question that isn’t that simple either. But ... yes.
Heck no. Bring in all the filoviruses you want.
Yes. Build a wall. Start manufacturing here again. Let the rest of the world eat cake. We are broke.
Yes.
We’re already seeing the results. Are we sure this is what we want?
While the First World War is interesting, the aftermath is even more so.
Fortunately Harding and Coolidge had the good sense to tell the League of Nations to shove it and only except the peace with the Central Powers.
War is the Ultimate Crisis, because in a crisis you can do things you couldn't do before.
(which is also why we have the War on Crime, War on Poverty, ect)
Well, I do.
No doubt after GWBush+Obama messes and screw-ups.
And all the $$$ and US lives.
However just because disengagement polls popular doesn't mean those same people will be pleased with the results.
Its like employer mandates(like minimum wage), Dems always call fer them because they are always popular.
But that doesn't mean that those who like them will like the results, maybe they don't understand cause and effect, maybe they believe Dems false claims about them.
That is why Obama delayed the employer mandate even though its popular.
22% higher than the second highest item (ISIS, 42%) at 64% Total Dissatisfied.
The text barely mentions it in there commentary list the war in Europe, an attack on a commercial airliner by Russian separatists, the civil war in Syria, the war in Gaza, ISIS’s rise to power in the Fertile Crescent, and the crisis on the southern border.
Looks like American Citizens have had it with being the doormat/scapegoat of the planet.
.
Disengage and financially support are two different things. . .
The Third World and Muslim World? Absolutely.
How quickly some have forgotten the 9-11 attacks.
RE: How quickly some have forgotten the 9-11 attacks.
Ron Paul’s argument was precisely this : We were attacked because we too engaged in the Middle East.
Big difference between isolationism and a policy of non-intervention. We won’t go to war over Ukraine, but you know darned well that we and the rest of the world will take notice and make the appropriate preparations.
From what I can tell, the pawns in our Govt and NATO have caused most of the warring in the last 20+ years - whether warranted or not, none of it was played to WIN, so then, What Was The Point??? More CHAOS and debt and demoralizing of national sovereignty and our freedoms - Who does that benefit? Not you and me, that’s for sure. I would give anything to have a real Calvin Coolidge come forward, but the Sheeple wouldn’t see that as a good thing any more.
Yes.
I don’t think the average person wants to totally disengage. I think they’re just tired of pulling almost all the weight when Europe and Asia sit back and invest next to nothing. And I think they’re tired of nation building on lost causes like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.