For a country such as England, who currently have no exports (certainly not enough for 60 million people to live on), this is a very bad idea indeed.

Good philosophy and we need a strong dose of it right now to purge our system of this urge to engage in brainless nation building and meddling in the affairs of countries and peoples who don't have the foggiest notion of what we are trying to accomplish, and who don't agree with it.

Also we should start to think about protecting our borders, our workers, our manufacturing and industrial base and our jobs, and forget about importing cheap doo-dads to sell at Wal-Mart or the Dollar Store to our trailer park intelligentsia.

Down with Woodrow Wilson! Long live George Washington!

True isolationism is defined at the strict limitation of political, economic and cultural relations with foreign countries. The only governments that follow such policies are the lunatics who run basket-cases like Burma and North Korea. The use of the term 'isolationism' in American political discourse has a very different meaning. It is used (mainly by pundits and journalists) in a sophistic, Orwellian sense: limits on military intervention=isolationism=doubleplusungood. The old saw that isolationism caused the depression and WWII is also trotted out, although it is false. The depression was caused by the ponzi-scheme economics of the 20s(1); WWII was caused by Adolph Hitler and the many European politicians he was able to dupe and intimidate. Isolationism had nothing to do with either catastrophe. In 2006, it is only a term used to justify military intervention in the Middle East (and occasionally, in Latin America) and dodge the controversial topic of immigration. These are issues that need to be debated by the public, not decided by a 'political class' whose wealth, power and prestige depends on silencing debate Orwellian phrases like 'The dangers of isolationism.' (1)The US makes loans to Germany; (2)the Germans use the loans to pay reparations to the French; (3)the French use the reparations money to pay the interest on their war loans to the British; (4)the British use this money to pay their war loans to US; loop back to (1), until US stock market crashes, loans to Germany dry up, the banking system collapses and world trade contracts=Great Depression.

I think the last time we went with this way of thinking we ended up with two world wars. There is a certain amount of responsibility that comes with being a superpower. Now that the USA is the only superpower it is even greater. We are now more than ever a bigger target and if we do not take the fight to them, they are going to bring it to us.

I agree with it to the extent that I don't think we should be the world's policeman. I also strongly disagree with aggressive actions like the Iraq conflict and the Vietnam War. But should we help vulnerable countries who lack even the most basic needs to survive? Definitely.

Well I sort of agree with it, but I don't like all the others around here taking up my space with their comments.

Vacuum packaged nationalism.

Isolationism is a very broad concept. On one hand, one should respect the soveriegnty of other nations and on the other hand one cannot stand idly by when others do not show the same respect. Economically, completely cutting oneself off to trade from everyone else is detrimental and always has been. Japan, deprived of many of the natural resources that most industrial economies need, didn't become a great power until it opened its doors to trade.

Eventhough most people don't really think of it this way, until the mid 20th century, our national policy was Isolationism. Back then, it was a little more plausable, but today, not a chance. At least not for the USA.

Nop very unfriendly if u ask me :)

Isolationism is not an option in a world where the ability to utilize technology and capital flows determine the very economic well-being of a nation. From currency markets to fighting international terrorism, we rely on a system of allies to pursue our national interests. Building walls around nations never works--at the end of the day it only serves to stifle economic competition and innovation. Economies of scale have never been achieved by way of isolationism; developing nations have never achieved a higher standard of living by not allowing new ideas and investments to enter their borders. Isolationism doesn't allow nations to move forward.

In a globalized market and dynamic world economics in play this simply isn't a tenable option. For those nations attempting to modernize the worst possible solution would be for them to isolate themselves. This only retards growth, technological migration and cultural evolution leaving the nations people in the dark ages.

Why is the rest of the world America's responsibility?

One of the worst options possible. A nation should always attempt, diplomatically, to make as many allies as possible. Ideas should be shared between countries and law-abiding citizens should be able to travel between them. Other nations can help one another with food, fuel, and more. And, besides, if we were isolationists, that would mean no Nintendo here in the US! The horror that that would be!

You need someone to watch your back and you need someone to be on your side.

It never works. . .it isn't good for your population in terms of education, economy or future. America was all about Isolationism for about ohh. . .a couple of years before we stupidly picked a fight with the brits that led to the burning of our capital. (War of 1812). Isolationism doesn't work for humans as a species. . .we are too curious and we like to explore new ideas. . .

Today, isolationism is nearly impossible to put into action. It sounds great on paper, but it does not work in reality. Clinton tried this against Iraq and several other Arab countries; all in failure. Iraq still made thier weapons, despite agreements, resolutions, and so on. Im hearing from so many people that the US has no right to police the world. If we really don't, why does everyone look at us when there is a problem? If we do not have a right to police the world, then I ask, who does? At least one nation has always policed the world. Most countries today that we think are great for democratic reasons actually tried to control the world one day. I believe that if there is a problem (like the recent Iraq crisis) force is the best, and sometimes only, option to use. Using military force is effective. However, if you are going to use force, use it correctly. Do not fire a $300 million dollar missile like Clinton tried. Isolationism has hardly ever worked effectively.

Isolationism is very, very difficult for me to rate. The father of our country, George Washington warned us in his farewell address of involving ourselves in foreign affairs. However, folks, that was over 200 years ago. The world has changed. Then, people traveled by horseback and covered wagons. Now, we have global communications, cars, cruise ships and airplanes. If isolationism was a virtue, yes World War II would not have occured, at least not for America. However, although it was not the reason we entered the war, our entrance into the war stopped the mass murdering of the Jewish religion, which had reached 6 Million deaths. If isolationism is a policy which will allow 6 million people to die while we sit and do nothing, then to hell with isolationism. I do admit that sometimes we "stick our nose" where it does not belong, but in cases like WWII, sometimes, some nation that is powerful enough to stop the deaths must intervene.

Isolationism is something contratry to co-operation & engangement in this interwovned globalised world.. Isolationism also leads to further fuelling of nationalism, an isolated country always looks inwards & as history suggests it's not a good idea at all & even it has severve economy fallouts , it's political implications are severe too...for instance iran, a country which has be isolated since the reign of "khomeini". Fair enough. But USA continued this policy even after the ascendancy of Khatami to power(the only democratically elected leader of iran & a moderate) , But this has neither helped america nor iran. The obdurate stand of america only drowns Khatami voice & makes the hardliners more vociferous.... But many suggest that iran sponsors terrorism against israel which in turn is like sponsoring terrorism against america,Accepted. But Khatami has repedately said that only talks which he described as "DIALOUGE BETWEEN CIVILISATION" can help the cause! Peace begets peace & hate begets hate!

All these free trade agreements are making me sick. The outflowing of Americas' wealth which is downgrading the U.S. to second class world citizenship is making me sick. The moving of U.S. big businesses and factories to 3rd world countries is making me sick. The influx of wanna be uneducated people is making me sick. The enept attitude of big business and congressional decisions to make as much as they can at U.S. expense is making me sick.The buying up of U.S. lands and businesses by foreigns is making me sick. I could go on and on but I'm sick. I HAVE TO GO TO THE DOCTOR. SIGN IN AT THE DESK WHERE THE SECRETARY IS FOREIGN AND SEE A NURSE WHO IS FOREIGN AND SEE A DOCTOOR WHO IS FOREIGN. I HAVE TO HAVE THREE INTERPRETERS IN ORDER TO COMMUNICATE. I'm for isolationism in many respects.Foreign policy shouldn't dictate what we eat. drink,or drive. Keep what's ours here and keep what's yours there.

well let me think of one word that describes pat "NAZI".YOURS TRULY SYNGIN

Retreat is never a good strategy.

Real smart. "How to lose friends and alienate people - and nations." Just 'cause you have no friends doesn't mean you have no enemies. When attacked, you stand alone.

It's a naive approach when you just say "keep to yourself and everyone will be ok." Intervention is needed, but it's done in terrible ways sometimes. Take the Philippines in the early 1900s. Emilio Aguinaldo didn't want American right-wing leaders, he wanted his nation to be independent. Another instance was the guerilla warfare in the early '80s in Central America during the Iron-Contra scandal. Reagan supported killing squads to assist in the killing of hundreds of thousands innocent people in those nations. The U.S. needs to help other nations with other types of relief.

bad we cant live in peace without taking part in foreign affairs.

grossly misunderstood.

Make that a 3 1/2, actually. I am really not a nut, so I will admit that there are some fatal flaws in isolationism. Where would South Africa, Rwanda, Mozambique, and all those other African countries be today if no one had intervened? But there are times when I wish everyone would just keep their noses out of everyone else's lives (Vietnam, Israel v. Palestine, Korea) so at times the idea of isolationism tempts me. As a result of America's butting into Vietnam because of certain people's neo-McCarthyism, thousands of Americans died. Same in Korea. As far as Israel and Palestine, I gave up on them a while back, but Bill Clinton almost made them wake up. ALMOST being the key word. Face it, you are not going to bring an end to Communism in China. You are not going to convince Yasser Arafat that Israel is not from hell. There are certain matters out there that do not need to and should not ever turn into world affairs, but because people feel this desire to meddle, a lot more suffering and death than necessary is caused. I completely disagree with Pat Buchanan's isolationist views, that no one should ever try to offer any kind of assistance to anyone else and the US should just go nuke anyone who provokes them, but I do believe that the world could use less interference. Take care, everyone!

this isn't really an option any more...

I am revisiting my rating and comment here, having re-read the definition in the corner which talks about isolationism as being a policy that applies to economics and foreign affairs. Of course, I am adamantly against isolationism in economics (e.g., protectionism). I think that businessmen crossing borders is a wonderful thing because they always "come in peace" (b/c they need voluntary cooperation to earn profits, find good workers, etc). I tend to be skeptical about sending armies across borders for the reasons in my original opinion which follows... I think it's precisely the changing nature of world affairs -- their complexity, the escalation of terrorist threats above traditional military threats -- that makes it unfortunate that "isolationist" thought is considered almost as a slur today. When you see the hatred for America in much of the world, how can you not realize that our role as "policeman of the world" is creating untold resentment that may one day backfire on us. Sure our goals tend to be good (excepting Clinton bombing a random aspirin factory in Sudan to change the news cycle), but so are those of most policemen -- and still you tend to not like it when they come nosing around your business, right? The same is true in world affairs. Given our deep commitments worldwide, true isolationism is no longer viable (extricating ourselves is now more provocative than sitting there), but I welcome Bush's embrace of a greater "humility" abroad. I think that points the right direction. It's interesting that, as Pearl Harbor becomes a big movie this summer, recently declassified documents are showing that FDR deliberately withheld decoded information from those military commanders in Hawaii about the pending attack from Japan. Before that happened, public opinion was solidly with great aviator Charles Limbaugh and the "America First-ers" who have been unfairly tarnished in history books by fans of our duplicitous 31st president.

Isolationism has much in common with nationalism, ut there are some major differences though. Switzerland for instance tends to be very isolating in their policy, but is seldom to be blamed for being more nationalistic than other European countries. However, it's not democratic to be isolationistic, & it doesn't increase the wealth in the world either. Another fear is that lack of cooperation through isolationsim will make the world less peaceful & make politicans want to use more money on military affairs. I think we should be really glad that the isolationism hasn't had much success the last decades. I would have made it much more difficult to be an exchange student in Chile, to make sushi in my home with my exchange brother from Portugal or eating couscous at an Egyptian restaurant at Norway's national day, the 17. of May! And imagine how much more difficult it would be to get tourist visas to different countries if the countries of the world weren't cooperating! :-(

It was great policy for the United States in the 1790s, but it just isn't possible these days, based on several hugely important factors, including the global economy and the current level of military technology. With all the benefits associated with international trade, and all the potential catastrophes associated with nuclear and biological weapons, countries can't afford to cover their eyes and hope nobody sees them.