A closer guise into the part of the Golden Rule athwart National borders
One of the controversial topics of our time is around the idea that one country should or should not intervene in another country's affairs.
Isolationism is an example of such foreign policy typically adopted by various leaders across history and the globe. Those leaders assert that countries’ best interests are better served by keeping the affairs of other countries away from home. Although some may associate #isolationism as the core value of the libertarian principle, that is hardly the case.
One of many rationales for impeding international involvement is averting being drawn into formidable warfare. But, on the downside, Isolationism has been denounced by some for the lack of aiding nations with significant crises.
Isolationism is not a novel Concept
Isolationism is a deep-rooted phenomenon in the United States and around the world. The U.S. has experienced isolationism many times in its history. But, for the first time, isolationism was the expression in the Farewell Address of Pres. George Washington and in the early 19th-century doctrine of Monroe that opposed the notion of European colonialism. It was the term most often applied to the political climate in the U.S. in that epoch.
The failure of President Woodrow Wilson’s internationalism, liberal opposition to war as an instrument of policy, and the rigors of the Great Depression were among the reasons for Americans’ reluctance to concern themselves with the growth of #fascism in #Europe. However, despite all the rhetoric, isolationism never found its course in American politics. The United States’ internationalist stance reaches back for two centuries.
Isolationism versus Internationalism: the right Policy
Juxtaposed to isolationism is the concept of internationalism. Internationalism clasps a state’s defining their national identity and interests by underlining their common values with others.
Those Countries are inclined to speculate that it is in their national interest to bring about some form of the regional or international climate in line with their national prerogatives. However, pursuing internationalist foreign policy rhetoric would allow others to ride on the back of the more influential countries, like the U.S. Entering into a long-term alliance with other countries through NATO.
With a particular emphasis on #NATO, one can see that it serves other countries to enter bilateral security agreements that would benefit others more than the U.S.
Amidst transformations that the country has traveled between the 19th-century traditional protectionist rhetoric to Trump’s “America First” mindset, nonetheless, the latter is still isolationism. That is precisely the reason behind today’s foreign policy predilections serving as the source of partisan conflict. That is, between presidential rivals’ isolationist Trump versus internationalist Biden administration.
Isolationists don’t believe in the Golden rule
Throughout history, the sociopolitical scene has presented libertarian ideology as an isolationist dogma. On the contrary, within the international stage, libertarians have a dominant voice. That is through emphasizing the Golden rule. The notion embraces the core libertarian value. That means The Golden Rule bases its principle on treating others as one wishes to be treated. That is why the libertarian part is utterly unlike any of the crude and erroneous whimpers of isolationists.
Let us keep in mind that the war or government intervention does not necessarily reflect the genuine attitude of “Golden Rule internationalism.” Instead, they underline the government’s dare to bully outsiders. That is because the government’s position practically has always been the idea that we are superior to other nations and can use our power to make them act like us. In contrast, a true believer of internationalism will always uphold treating citizens of other countries with respect and serving with humility, not the political rhetoric.
Neither Isolationism nor Internationalism under the prevailing portrayal: Realistic Attitude
I don’t personally recall knowing anyone who rejects to want to keep America safe. But everyone has a different, often selfish way of achieving that safety. However, realistically speaking, all attempts to create or support democracy around the world have utterly failed. Furthermore, it has earned us new enemies and done more harm than good. Unfortunately, some factors respond to that opinion by dubbing the disciples of the golden rule weak and delusional isolationists where it is nothing but the reality and respecting everyone’s stance.
Everyone who upholds the “Golden Rule” by nature is involved in the “global affair,” but they are never the boss or guardian of the world.
John Stossel, American libertarian television personality, author, consumer journalist, wrote once:
“If it’s realistic to acknowledge that America has dangerous enemies, it’s also realistic to acknowledge that going to war is not always worth the loss of money and lives. War, like most government plans, tends not to work out as well as planners hoped.”