Ukraine not our problem. Israel not our problem. Taiwan not our problem. Islamic terrorists in Africa not our problem. Communists in Latin America not our problem. Why, for that matter, are California or Massachusetts our problem? Why not secede from the District of Columbia?
If we could costlessly establish peace-loving, democratic countries throughout the world, we should. The obvious, selfish benefit would be that we, and no other country would need spend significant amount of money on national defense.
But, the cost of establishing peace-loving, democratic countries throughout the world would be prohibitive. The question, then, is where is it profitable for us to draw the line of our free trade zone and mutual defense (not that these two things must exactly coincide)?
Through the 19th Century, the great oceans of the world made an excellent border. That was a time of semi-isolationism. With the Monroe Doctrine, we defined our trade and defense border to this hemisphere. We also pursued our Manifest Destiny, to expand to the Pacific. I suspect today’s isolationists might not approve of either the Monroe Doctrine nor Manifest Destiny.
But, the pragmatic approach of the 19th Century went even further. It meant that the Continental Congress did not attack slavery, so as to not antagonize the Carolinas and Georgia, and through the 1850 or so, we carefully added states to keep the number of slave and free states equal. Eventually, we might have known that a house divided against itself will not stand, but in the meanwhile we had to hang together or else we would be hung separately.
With the 20th Century, the costs and benefits of isolating ourselves to the western hemisphere were changed by advances in transportation, trade patterns, and then by the rise of global ideologies, first international communism and then global jihad. It would be good for those who are involved in the debate over where we should define our national interests to do more than simply say “war bad” or “democracy good.”
Agree, and yet even here on FR, tiny wars of words conducted in a sentence or two without actual "defining" is quite normal.
I think our "national interest" is the health, safety, prosperity and liberty as it can reign within our borders, without debt and in measured pace. Stick to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, and we can be safe and sage enough. There are resources aplenty here, should we aim for being a autarkic as possible, and from that base we can deal honestly with the rest of the world.
But then, that is not and never will be in the interest of the lobbyists, looking from their riches from government, and it is they who exert the "donor" pressure on what is currently a very well "purchased" government.
This suggests that the time will come when a revisit to the opening of the Declaration of Independence will become crucial.
Agree, and yet even here on FR, tiny wars of words conducted in a sentence or two without actual "defining" is quite normal.
I think our "national interest" is the health, safety, prosperity and liberty as it can reign within our borders, without debt and in measured pace. Stick to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, and we can be safe and sage enough. There are resources aplenty here, should we aim for being a autarkic as possible, and from that base we can deal honestly with the rest of the world.
But then, that is not and never will be in the interest of the lobbyists, looking from their riches from government, and it is they who exert the "donor" pressure on what is currently a very well "purchased" government.
This suggests that the time will come when a revisit to the opening of the Declaration of Independence will become crucial.