USAT Survey: Americans want us to be more isolationist !

[Laura PourMeADrink]

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060414/1a_lede14.art.htm

More say U.S. focus should be home
Poll: Americans warier of world
By Susan Page and David Jackson
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Americans, anxious about the costs of the Iraq war and the impact of a global economy, are increasingly wary of engagement in the world.

In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, nearly half of those surveyed said the United States “should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along as best they can on their own.” Three years ago, just one-third felt that way.

“There seems to be a turning inward across the American spectrum,” says Charles Kupchan, a former State Department and National Security Council aide who now teaches at Georgetown University. He calls it “an inevitable consequence of Iraq.”

The leave-us-alone mood is apparent not only in the proportion of Americans, 64%, who want all or some of the U.S. troops in Iraq to come home now. It's also reflected in concern about illegal immigration — eight of 10 said it was “out of control” — and in the furious public reaction to reports last month that a Dubai-owned firm was poised to take over cargo operations at ports in six states. After the outcry, the deal was undone.

Attitudes have soured toward trade as well. Two-thirds said increased trade with other countries mostly hurts U.S. workers. By 50%-39%, respondents also said it mostly hurts American companies.

In 1999, majorities said it mostly hurt workers but helped companies.

snip

[marmar]

1. Then again, one out of five Americans holds a passport...

Visiting Paris Las Vegas or the World Showcase at Epcot Center is not international travel. The ignorance of the rest of the world and the nationalistic chauvinism that goes with it are big reasons for the isolationism, I think.

[BiggJawn]

5. Well, I'm one of the four.

I don't see your argument as to why I should have a document that costs me somewhere areound $100 to acquire when I have no use for it. At least not until the seperate states start closing their "borders".

I must be missing something here, because what I get from your statement is "Well, of COURSE the Murkan Sheeple are Xenophobic, good GAWD, man! 80% of the Phillistines don't even have a PASSPORT!"

I'd LIKE to travel, I'd LIKE to try out my Russian-German-French, but on a $40,000 a year income, it's a little difficult, y'know...

[marmar]

7. Sorry...

I'll amend it to say many Americans don't take the time to learn about the rest of the world, whether it be through travel or their own research. I realize not everyone can travel.

[nonconformist]

8. I am determined to travel to at least Europe in my life

I've only ever been to Canada. :cry:

[HereSince1628]

11. Do it. It's easy

and not as expensive as you might expect.

[BiggJawn]

21. S'OK, I'd LOVE to be able to travel!

Europe by bicycle, pedal into Russia, how cool could that be?

Right now we're trying to figure out how we will afford to drive 120 miles and spend 5 days on the West Coast of Michigan this summer. Couldn't afford it last year. Spent the summer at home and worked like slaves out in the yard. How sad is THAT?

[darkmaestro019]

9. You beat me to it. Can't afford a passport or the travel

that would necessitate one. It's not that I don't want to. I have to do my travel with books and this thing (pokes Internet)

EDIT: Thanks, OP, for amending that. I am sure you didn't mean it that way but that was sort of how it came out. It's never easy to figure out how your words will "sound" until after they're posted--and sometimes way after it's too late for the nifty EDIT function. : )

[HereSince1628]

13. That's sad cause it isn't all that expensive

Once you get past the airfare, all vacations in the developed world cost similar amounts of money...a week in New York city is about the same as a week in London.

[darkmaestro019]

16. "all that expensive" depends on how much $ you have coming in

and how much of it you can spare. : ) What it'd cost for that week would support us for two months or so, just guessing, but I'm probably pretty close to right.


Only change is constant. I'm fairly determined to see as much of this lovely planet as I can before I leave it, fear not.

[HereSince1628]

17. As I said that's sad.

[BiggJawn]

19. Can't afford NYC, either.

Work is sending me to a convention in Jim Kunstler's "favourite town" (LV) for a week and paying $2200 to do it.

$2200 is more than I get to live on for a MONTH the rest of the time.

Thank the FSM for the Internets, books and videos. I used to "travel" via Ham Radio, too, until Murkan Hams became truly "Ugly Americans".

[HereSince1628]

23. Yes, well same as me. Each of us has our obligations and

our priorities. For any one person their specific circumstance may contradict the general experience. There are undoubetedly millions probably 15-30 million Americans who simply can't afford to take a vacation anywhere. I readily admit that.

Once, not long ago, I saw travelling as impossibly expensive, too. But then I only brought a working class upbringing into thinking about that.

My parents died wishing they could have visited Europe together. They could have very easily. They spent far more on winter vacations taking their gas-guzzling motor home to over-crowded campgrounds in the Rio Grande valley of Texas. It was only their pre-conceptions and their choices that stopped them.

I'm saying if you would like to go to Europe, challenge your perceptions. Maybe you can't afford to travel, but maybe your perception is wrong.

My main point was and remains that if you do take vacations in the US anyway, a simlar European trip needn't be more expensive per day. The difference between a domestic US vacation vs a European vacation really can be mostly the airfare.

If you are so inclined you can camp and fish in beautiful campgrounds in northern Europe and spend no more than it would cost you for a similar experience in Wisconsin. You could also dump hundreds of dollars a night on 4 star hotels and on theater/opera tickets and dinners in fine restaurants, same as you could in any major US city.

[BiggJawn]

24. See my post #21 n/t

[HereSince1628]

26. Yeah, that's sad, and I'm wish things were better for you.

Like I said below. Each of us has our individual circumstance, each our own obligations and each our priorities, and because of the multitude of factors impinging upon us there are maybe 10-30 million Americans who can't take ANY vacation.

There are consequently more than a score of millions of exceptions to what is still a generally true statement.

I hope you get to do your bike trips someday. Where there's a will there's a way...

[OregonBlue]

15. Other than the airfare, many countries are very very cheap. Much

less than what you'd spend in a day in America. Unfortunately, since Bush started enforcing his agenda, Americans aren't nearly as popular in those third world countries as we used to be. Still, most people in those countrie seem to think Americans are good people, it's just their government that is bad.

In Europe, I hear that Bulgaria is wonderful, has beautiful old cities, very friendly people, good food and not at all expensive!!

[BlueEyedSon]

2. How about "less imperialist"?

[Atman]

3. ATMAN Survey: Americans are largely ignorant drones

Just keep the prices low at the Wal Mart, and keep Oh-sammy out of their back yards, and they really can't be bothered with much else.

*This is not a scientific study.

[Finder]

4. Another sign of the "either/or" mentality.

Isolationism and Globalism are not the only two choices. Globalism is often confused with Corporatism and people are jumping on the xenophobic bandwagon with the isolationists out of ignorance. IMO

[nonconformist]

6. To be honest, I've always kind of felt this way

I think we should definitely "mind our own business" - UNLESS it's a genocidal situation. We should have gotten involved in Rwanda and we should be getting involved in Dafur. But I don't support "nation building" in the least - because it DOESN'T WORK.

[jwirr]

18. I agree with you. The idea of not meddling is not new - many

of us from the 60-70s wanted to stop meddling then. We hurt more people than we help.

What I feel about globalization is simple. I want other countries to be able to develop and become stronger.

BUT I also think the infrastructure of the US needs to remain strong: for example we should make sure that the vital life supporting products are manufactured in our own country. It bothers me that medications are often made in other countries (usually off shore or other cheap labor nations). I believe we need to become more self sufficient in energy not rely on oil imports. I think the food sources for each state should be inventoried and if lacking developed. We should be able to feed our own state/area in an emergency. Items needed in an emergency should be made in this country. Other countries can also make them for their own use but we should never allow our country to be so dependent on another that we could not survive "the long emergency".

[nonconformist]

22. I completely agree with you.

The goal should be for all countries to be self-sufficient - because when the shit hits the fan, we're on our own. I saw a documentary a couple of weeks ago on Link TV about how globalization has actually increased world hunger, despite the accepted wisdom that cheaper foodstuffs would decrease it. Third world countries have become unable, and in some cases unwilling, to feed themselves... because even cheap food cannot be purchased by the destitute. It was woefully depressing.

[sendero]

10. Maybe Americans..

... will someday come to grips with the FACT that our meddling in world affairs has just made things worse and that a lot of what we are experiencing right now could be fairly described as "blowback".

[Laura PourMeADrink]

12. Yes. Maybe there is a good meddling and a bad meddling.

How about meddling to spread peace and feed the hungry and cure disease?

Examples: GOOD Meddling




Example: BAD Meddling

[sendero]

14. I'll bet you..

.... If I wanted to crack a few boosk, I could find 10 examples of bad meddling for every example of good meddling you find.

Sending money to be dispensed by the locals is not meddling. Sending operatives for mess with elections is.

[sandnsea]

28. And it's important to differentiate

Because when you don't, all you end up with is selfish, short-sighted idiots who want to cut aid; and corporate bastards who will continue their covert operations in secret. That's how we keep ending up in the mess we're in, we don't verbalize the difference.

[hogwyld]

20. We should take care of our own first!!

Let the other countries take care of their own issues. We need to bring all of our troops home, stop the foreign aid we send to other countries and spend it here for our own infrastructure and education needs. Slash our defense budget to be inline with the rest of the world's. Pay off all of our national debt, and then develop a manhattan project for energy self sufficiency. The world did fine for eons before there was a U.S., and will be fine without us being everywhere meddling.

[sandnsea]

25. That is not isolationist

Not wanting the military to rule the world, or the US to rape the world of its resources, is NOT being isolationist. It's wanting to engage the world on an equal footing, not an imperialist footing. I don't know anybody who would say they don't want coffee or chocolate, or that foreign countries shouldn't profit from their own resources. I don't know anybody who thinks we should let people starve to death or watch genocides like in Rwanda.

People see the difference between meddling interference and respectful participation, that's all. It's dangerous to advocate isolationism, not to mention politically stupid if you don't understand what people really mean.

[chicofaraby]

27. Not killing brown people is not "isolationist"

Wanting to stop American hegemony isn't "isolationism." It's common sense.

And good manners.