Tweet
The past several years have seen a monumental shift in Americans’ thinking about foreign policy according to a new Pew poll. The number of Americans that think the United States should be active in world affairs has drop 11 points from 2004.
The biggest change has been among conservative Republicans, which has totally flipped from supporting neo-conservative foreign policy in 2004 to now most supporting an isolationist position.
The good news is that the American people do learn from our mistakes, it is just too bad it took nearly a decade of two disastrously wars to teach us the lesson.
Politically we are starting to see this major shift in foreign policy thinking among likely Republican primary voters starting to be reflected in the Republican presidential primary race and among Congressional Republicans. For example, you have both Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman starting to sound more skeptical about Afghanistan war.
With the American people focused on the economy and this current wave of deficit hysteria causing more to serious question the cost of our wars, it is likely Americans may become even more isolationist as we approach the 2012 election.
29 Comments
I think we are back to talking about the hard core 30%ers again.
Bush destroyed Neo Conservatism!
And yet, the wars go on and on and on and on …
With new ones every year or two.
Hmmm … most Americans want … secure Social Security, current or expanded Medicare, gay marriage, legalized weed, an end to current wars and no new ones, tax increases for the wealthy, banks to be held accountable, and environmental protection.
We get … bank bailouts, tax cuts for the wealthy, a domestic security state, perpetual war, environmental devastation, free trade agreements.
If I were to believe my lying eyes, I might be tempted to think the government doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the will of the people.
Foreign policy has become so corroded by economic corruption that I can really understand why the true conservatives that I know are completely fed up.
Today’s Financial Times and NYT both have mentions of the Bank of Kabul, which it appears even the IMF is *finally* giving up on. (Here’s hoping…)
‘Foreign policy’ is going to have to be linked to more economic transparency, IMVHO. We’re seeing a first salvo in the news about Greece.
‘Foreign policy’ is going to have to involve dealing with the huge problems of corrupt financial structures – including tax havens, as well as the notion of Corporate Personhood.
Looks like it could be a wild ride…
Well, he had plenty of help from the neocons themselves.
When you hire someone as ideological as Doug Feith, who then refuses to hire Col Pat Lang (who speaks Arabic) during the leadup to Iraq, there’s plenty of blame to share — Bush didn’t do it singlehandedly. It took quite a few idiots to screw up this bad.
It seems that NeoConservatism functions outside of public opinion per se. If those pushing NeoConservatism can use a favorable public opinion to their advantage then they certainly will do so, but if public opinion is not with them they are just as willing to employ shock and awe. They tend to be all about breaking stuff… and people with the aim of internalizing “profits” and “externalizing” costs. Reality is not actually so cleanly segmented, however. So, it seems to me that NeoConservatives ALWAYS shit in their own nests, and just do not seem to acknowledge as much. Powerful NeoConservatives have apparently been intensely preparing for public opinion to turn against their agenda. How could it but do otherwise? NeoConservative, NeoLiberal, sociopath/borderline personality, they all can cause a whole lot of damage, and can never be expected to be trustworthy… alas. Am I wrong about this?
Um…Nope. Not that I can see. The question is this:
How the hell do we get everyone (all points on the political spectrum) on the same page about it? Wingnuts are getting screwed over in this process, too, though (for some inexplicable reason) they cannot seem to grasp this reality. (“Keep your gubnint hands off my Medicare, etc…”)
As I see it, getting people to understand that we’re all battling very large, very well-organized, trans-national financial interests is key. How to get that done is quite another matter, although shaming MSM at every opportunity would seem to be an obvious step. (“Hey, let’s run some more round-the-clock Weiner-Gate stories…” Idiots.)
KnowwhatImean?
I do. I’ve been watching closely for three days now trying to find out about the Nuclear Plant in Nebraska. Nothing—NADA!
Some of the web sites I visit have had articles and one yesterday said they were flooding the core to cool the rods. What the heck is wrong with the media? Weiner instead of Nuclear Power Plant probelms right here on our soil!!!!
The neo-conservatives are losing their grip on public opinion but readers of this blog need to understand that non-intervention does not mean isolationism and free trade does not mean free trade agreements. Non-intervention means ending all wars, closing all foreign bases, bringing all troops home. Free trade is encouraged but not subsidized with crony deals and tariffs. There is a big differnce. We are a long way from understanding this distinction. Certainly this is a political issue worth watching but be certain that you get the terminology straight.
And speaking of news outlets, KO is back on Monday. I’m hoping his show doesn’t turn out to be the same thing it was before. Yes, it was good (for commercial TeeVee), but the scope was much too narrow. He’s now calling the shots in the news department, but Current also sells advertising time, and barring some heavy-duty outside funding, alienating too many sponsors can effectively sink the ship. That’s the conundrum.
Isn’t it better to be active in world affairs? The problem is the *way* the US behaves in the world, bombing the crap out of oil-rich countries, and such.
It would be a lot more effective (not to mention cheaper) to respectfully participate as a member of the community of nations instead of trying to spread American hegemony.
in response to Shoto’s response. (I’m new here and forgot to use the Reply button.) From what I’ve occasionally seen from those on the small time personality disorder side of the problem, people do not think out what is logical as much as what stokes their fancies. They will go to great lengths to justify that which floats their boat – so to speak. It is REALLY difficult to get beyond those rather common personal defenses. But, maybe it can be done if understood and approached accordingly – not at all straight forward, easy, or simple.
I can’t vouch for the site, as I’ve never read it before, but a little info on Fort Calhoun here.
Thanks!
Interesting that “liberal Democrats” have roughly the same poll number as “conservative Republicans.” In 2004, 49% of liberal Democrats felt the USA should be involved in world affairs while 58% of conservative Republicans felt the same way. Forty-nine percent is surprisingly high to me. It confirms that a large portion of Democrats are very neo-conservative in their thinking. Now, maybe the poll only reflects that Democrats believe in foreign aid, loan guarantees, etc., but I think it also confirms that Dems strongly believe in mindless militarism (just look at the fake liberal in the White House today for more proof of this). It’s important to be VERY suspicious of Democrats, especially liberal Democrats, who claim to support withdrawal from the Middle East. Remember, Israel Firster Anthony Weiner was a “liberal” Democrat.
“Best to be active in world affairs”
Is ‘active’ defined elsewhere as ‘militarily’? I’m failing to see how ignoring the rest of the planet is part of a progressive, ahem, worldview.
Being involved does not mean the same as the NeoCons use of Occupation and Natural Resource Theft.
I understand what you’re saying. It’s pretty difficult to break through. There is, in fact, a growing body of evidence that actual physical composition of the brain plays a role here. Yes, rewiring is possible, but how to get that accomplished in an environment like this is a “Holy Shit!” type exercise. From my perspective, if there’s an issue that appears to be common across the spectrum (high gas prices, for example), I bore in, sometimes subtly, sometimes not. Depends on the person, the timing, the subject, etc.
The biggest problem with this poll is that “active in world affairs” is vague. If the question were “meddling in the internal affairs of other countries and going to war for regime change,” then the percentages would be much lower.
Never fear. As soon as a Republican gets elected as POTUS they’ll be the biggest cheerleaders
I’ll believe that conservative Republicans are backing off neo-conservatism when they start advocating cuts in military spending, reining in the “intelligence” industry, eliminating the function of the TSA (not privatizing it), and repeal of the PATRIOT Act.
And a full snapback to isolationism would probably not be something to celebrate. There still is a world beyond US borders.
Yes. Come to think of it, it can be impossible to reach consensus by presenting an issue as opposed to, rather than in alliance with, the person the issue is directed at. If you can find where they have already incorporated similar stands in their own valid way in some aspect of their lives, however tangential, and connect that to whatever issue we have all got to resolve, it may be a way to get “buy in” into a rather revised notion of how to govern. Not cynical manipulation, but actual common ground. Go to the other end of dysfunction and we are probably only left with a “Holy Shit!” type exercise – as you described it. That is what our DOJ is supposed to deal with if it actually did its job. US foreign policy really needs a massive change of priorities to meet our real concerns. Isolationism = coping strategy. So, are there better ways to cope? Yes, but not always.
Conservative Republicans are only embracing this isolationism because Obama is in office so now they’ve reclaimed their lost conservative principles (they’ll oppose Obama on any issue). Once a Republican is back in the White House they’ll go back to wanting to invade the rest of the world. They will continue to refuse to see that Obama is purusing the exact same foreign policies that they were all gung-ho about ten years ago.
I did not intend to promote the DOJ dispensing with anyone that strongly disagrees with coming to some kind of consensus, of course. Just wanted to make that clearer.
Americans have a choice, either dig wells, build schools, hospitals and roads or blow them up. Americans love their shock and awe, it plays so well on the TV.
Interesting. Further down the linked article, % approve of each to reduce debt/deficit:
Reduce overseas military commitments: Rep 56%, Dem 63%, Ind 72%
Limit tax deductions for large corporations: Rep 62%, Dem 58%(?!!!), Ind 67%
Huh?
Adam503 did a diary on the Fort Calhoun nuclear power facility in NE yesterday. Unfortunately, it has dropped from the FDL main pages. I posted links to photos of the flooded areas. The Sheeple News Media has had an almost total blackout on this story.
http://my.firedoglake.com/adam503/2011/06/16/nebraska-nuclear-reactor-may-be-experiencing-flooding-issues/
Please recommend.
Because isolationism has always been beneficial…
There’s a good reason why foreign policy is less often dictated by populism than its domestic counterpart.
But “being involved” often results in militarism. Clinton was “involved” in sanctions on Iraq during the 1990s, leading to the invasion in 2003. I have liberal feminist friends who support our “involvement” in Afghanistan because the Taliban cuts off the clitoris of teenage girls. Some of the best neoCons in America are liberals, something few people talk about, unfortunately.
Tom Hayden: Pentagon Enlists Feminists for War Aims: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/pentagon-enlists-feminist_b_238715.html