First: The first half of my article states my displeasure with some US policymakers, not the whole of the US government, the existence of which, in part, have helped the US survive as a strong nation since ≈1800.

Second: While you would be right about isolationism in the context of the Gilded Age, the current, increasingly globalized nature of the world’s economies necessitates governments to interact on a global scale in order to survive. The CIA Factbook points to the US as the world’s largest importer. Given the fact that Germany, China, France, Japan and the UK follow the US in this respect, isolationism would only serve to plunge it into total economic collapse and resulting insolvency. In addition, isolationism, from a diplomatic standpoint, decreases national security. The fact that the Bush administration attempted to close relations with other countries meant that it either stopped considering this important aspect of international relations. Isolationism allows governments to concentrate on their own citizens, but at what cost? North Korea is isolationist. Need I say more? Obama’s policies have thus far helped to promote national security by encouraging diplomacy and focusing limited military action in the Middle Eastern region that actually poses a threat to US security. Studies show that Afghanistan is home to every possible problem imaginable, from terrorism to child prostitution. Military action is necessary therein, but only, as John Kerry stated on Thursday, “to protect the citizens… rather than focusing directly on flagrant aggression” (paraphrased). Different times call for different strategies. Ancient societies were successful in their own time, and they certainly didn’t employ the same peace-building strategies modern civilizations do—and so, given the current worldwide political and economic climate, we might infer that going along with globalization is better than going against it.

My main message in the article that policymakers shouldn’t work solely for the sake of improving the US’ appearance, but for the sake of working—that is, for the sake of improving both the livelihood of its citizens and the rest of the world, for if the rest of the world is in turmoil, how can the US be safe? Even GWB said on numerous occasions that the stability of Iraq, et al. was vital to US national security interests. Why? Because if Iraq, et al. was taken over by terrorists, the United States would be that much more prone to terrorist attacks. By helping to stabilize the world in a manner suitable to the citizens thereof, the US protects its citizens more than it possibly could if it were isolationist. Look at North Korea. The only thing protecting it is its international crime network, its permanent representative in the SIx-Party Talks, and its nuclear missiles. Take those away, and North Korea would have no means by which to protect itself at all. Collaboration, we see, is the premise upon which the United States itself was built, hence its motto, e pluribus unum (out of many, one). By collaborating with others, we protect ourselves. We should continue in that tradition.

In the second half of your article, you were very critical of the Bush administration, an administration that was on the path to closing relations with other countries. Isolationism would allow the government to focus more on the people, the exact thing you were advocating for. While on the other hand, you praised Obama for for reaching out to foreign nations and wanting to please them, surely something that will take attention away from citizens.

I’m confused by the position you’ve taken.