@dh – to use the word “isolationist” because people don’t want to go to war IS a personal opinion. A John Bolton hard-rightwing one for that.

Posted by: b | Apr 30 2013 13:52 utc | 4

@5 “sane”

Posted by: guest | Apr 30 2013 14:02 utc | 6

She could have mentioned “fair play”…The USA doesn’t play fair it cheats, lies and scams. Uncle Sam is a hustler.

Posted by: Fernando | Apr 30 2013 14:11 utc | 8

I see what you are saying, but still seems strong. I mean, the first definition “is the belief that political rulers should avoid entangling alliances” doesn’t fit at all.
She can use it, but she’s going to catch some shit for it. I already saw on twitter someone else who caught it: http://washingtonexaminer.com/a-question-for-the-nytimes-if-i-dont-get-in-fights-with-my-neighbors-am-i-a-loner/article/2528481

Posted by: guest | Apr 30 2013 14:20 utc | 10

Another point I’d like to make if I may on the subject of journalism itself…..it comes up a lot on MoA. Whatever individual journalists write these days will be heavily edited to fit the agenda. (I used to be a journalist)

Posted by: dh | Apr 30 2013 14:55 utc | 12

Mmmmm, another reference to polls. It should be clear to anyone paying attention, the rulers of America don’t give a flying fuck about polls. They care only for their agenda. Introspection is an anathema to the USA. The world would be a safer place if the US were isolationist.

Posted by: ben | Apr 30 2013 15:11 utc | 14

Look on the bright side. Ron Paul, recently a candidate for president, was routinely denigrated as an “isolationalist” because he was anti-intervention. And now the majority of Americans are too! “Americans are exhibiting an isolationist streak!” After all, “intervention” itself is only a euphemism for bombing the shit out of some backward country.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Apr 30 2013 15:23 utc | 16

‘Whatever individual journalists write these days will be heavily edited to fit the agenda.’
Speaking of ideological editing and US interventionism. The NYT recently took liberties with a submission by Roberto Zurbano, an essayist and cultural critic in Cuba, where the weakening of the leftist government has been accompanied by a resurgence in racism:
Zurbano and “The New York Times”: Lost and Found in Translation, 4/6/13
http://www.afrocubaweb.com/alan-west-zurbano-nyt.html
Prominent Cubans defend Zurbano’s right to talk about racism, 4/21/13
http://www.afrocubaweb.com/defending-zurbano.html
The Country to Come: and My Black Cuba? by Roberto Zurbano, 3/13/13(The original article as submitted to the New York Times)
http://www.afrocubaweb.com/and-my-black-cuba.html

Posted by: Watson | Apr 30 2013 15:31 utc | 18

The word “isolationalst” wasn’t used in the New York Times/CBS News poll, of course. As b indicates that was journalistic license.
There were different questions on Syria and North Korea.
Syria — do something
North Korea – military action
Do you think the United States has a responsibility to do something about the fighting in Syria between government forces and anti-government groups, or doesn’t the United States have this responsibility?
62% – U.S. does not
(same as December poll result)
Which of these comes closest to your opinion? 1. North Korea is a threat to the United States that requires military action now. 2. North Korea is a threat that can be contained for now. 3. North Korea is not a threat to the United States at this time.
15% – Requires military action now, an increase from previous results ten years ago.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Apr 30 2013 16:13 utc | 20

Interestingly, Ms. Thee-Brenan’s speciality seems to be poll results….
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/t/megan_theebrenan/index.html
I’m not sure what this says about her impartiality.

Posted by: dh | Apr 30 2013 17:02 utc | 22

I have decided Megan is being provocative. Using the term ‘isolationist’ has New York Times readers, right and left, scrambling for a definition.

Posted by: dh | Apr 30 2013 18:22 utc | 24

Remember we are only talking about an isolationist streak here. Not full-blown isolationism.

Posted by: dh | Apr 30 2013 18:43 utc | 26

Instead of “Americans are exhibiting an isolationist streak,” she could have said that “Americans are exhibiting a preference for diplomacy.” Or Americans are exhibiting a preference restraint from starting wars.” Or “Americans are exhibiting an desire to weigh the costs and benefits of intervention.” Or “Americans are exhibiting a desire to know what their government is getting them into.” Or “Americans are exhibiting a desire for their government to aim before it shoots.”
In Megan’s bipolar world, if your not a warmonger, you must be an isolationist, which sounds suspiciously pacifist in her mind.

Posted by: JohnH | Apr 30 2013 19:49 utc | 28

“Is it certainly not isolationist to not wanting to wage another useless war. There surely are other means to interact with other countries.”
That’s gonna be a hard sell, pal. There are lots of kids in American growing up now, growing through their adolescence towards military age, for whom America always being at war in far-away countries for ill-defined reasons is the new normal!! And guess which view of the conflicts are being inculcated in them? A childishly exceptional;ist and triumphal;ist one. Isn’t it nice, they’re being raised with 19th Century notions.

Posted by: Mooser | Apr 30 2013 20:56 utc | 30

31) I wish that was true. However from the same poll

While the public does not support direct military action in those two countries right now, a broad 70 percent majority favor the use of remotely piloted aircraft, or drones, to carry out bombing attacks against suspected terrorists in foreign countries.

Posted by: somebody | Apr 30 2013 21:26 utc | 32

@32 Drones are considered cheap and effective I guess. A quick clean fix. We have yet to see the long term effects.

Posted by: dh | Apr 30 2013 21:38 utc | 34

Short term effects: might makes right. No law required unless by way of lip service.

Posted by: ruralito | Apr 30 2013 21:54 utc | 36

Isolationism used to be a positive term.
I suspect the reason why it’s no longer such has something to do with the
American ruling class being unduly composed still, of two of the three components the
famous isolationist Lindbergh depicted in his famous pre-war oration.

Posted by: Ken Hoop | Apr 30 2013 22:48 utc | 38

I actually believe that consensus between Governing and Governed exist, no discrepancies here. The U.S. foreign policy is dominated by so-called Idealists, followers of Wilsonian doctrine, which is to say: they intervene and engage in wars whenever they can and when fit “American vital national interest”.

Posted by: neretva’43 | Apr 30 2013 23:45 utc | 40

“The term “isolationist” is meant to be a pejorative that implies someone out of touch with reality, like flat earthers or peaceniks.”
in American (pervert) political culture, yes. In rest of the world Isolationism is simply Realism “type” of foreign policy (Russia, China etc.) which many countries adhere.

Posted by: neretva’43 | May 1 2013 0:26 utc | 42

Actually dh, it’s a term used by liberal interventionists, neocons, and free traders of every stripe. That pretty much includes 95% of Congress and the Senate.
And, yes, anyone who advocates against warmongering and shipping jobs overseas is considered spineless, a gutless coward. The term is used to intimidate, to stifle debate, and as a way to take the issues of war and “free” trade off the table. (In foreign policy, all issues are on the table but peace, fair trade, and negotiating with your enemies!)

Posted by: JohnH | May 1 2013 1:19 utc | 44

@45 I know we’ve been over this, but I still think it is too strong. It has too much historical baggage, and it really sets up something specific – a current aversion military interventions – as being synonymous with protectionism, diplomatic disengagement, and autarky.
She made a boo boo.

Posted by: guest | May 1 2013 1:54 utc | 46

To me it brings up memories of Al Gore lecturing Ross Perot about the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff on Larry King Live.
She’s calling us all Ross Perot.

Posted by: guest | May 1 2013 1:58 utc | 48

@47 Yes guest but it’s precisely the ‘historical baggage’ that makes it so effective. People need to be whacked on the head. And that is my last word on the subject.

Posted by: dh | May 1 2013 2:10 utc | 50

b hit it
With violence apparently being the only acceptable communication to her. . .
There are other modes of behavior. How about China’s? No interference in other countries’ internal affairs, certainly no military attacks, mainly economic investment, infrastructure assistance and commercial interactions, particularly currently in Africa, where China is most active.

Posted by: Don Bacon | May 1 2013 3:10 utc | 52

It was more then a mention, it was a wrong way of thinking, which is why we have her in therapy. It’s for her own good. We’re from MOA and we’re here to help her.

Posted by: Don Bacon | May 1 2013 3:46 utc | 54

Make that left-over bagels.

Posted by: dh | May 1 2013 3:54 utc | 56

OT: Saudi Arabia warned the United States IN WRITING about Tamerlan Tsarnaev in 2012, and rejected his application for an entry visa to visit Mecca in 2011
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2317493/BOMBSHELL-Saudi-Arabia-warned-United-States-IN-WRITING-Tamerlan-Tsarnaev-2012-rejected-application-entry-visa-visit-Mecca-2011.html
Right wing pushes Saudi connection to the goons, Saudis push back blaming US incompetence.

Posted by: guest | May 1 2013 4:06 utc | 58

#38 Ken Hoop Thanks for that link (well no link but I looked it up). His speech is impressive (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBooiuDDlv0).
It sounds so contemporary. He had to defend himself from antisemitism. He defended himself well from those anglophile people in the US that pushed us into WWI and at that time into WWII. Times have not changed much in the last years when those same forces are still trying to push us into another war.
It is too bad that Lindberg did have antisemitic tendencies and some really deluded ideas about Nazi Germany, but one has to accept that he was an American patriot. He was wrong at the time but his point is correct for today.

Posted by: ToivoS | May 1 2013 4:14 utc | 60

This is what Saudi Arabia considers Al Queida

But the court ruled last month that their Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association, which called for peaceful change, the rule of law, free elections and a parliament, was “like al Qaida” because it challenged the legitimacy of the absolute monarchy.

Posted by: somebody | May 1 2013 5:48 utc | 62

Excrementalist tendencies are a MSM condition of employment.

Posted by: rjj | May 1 2013 9:10 utc | 64

65)disillusioned?

Posted by: somebody | May 1 2013 14:21 utc | 66

@65 How about “reservist” or maybe just “conservative”.

Posted by: JBradley | May 1 2013 20:41 utc | 68

@somebody#63
Considering the longstanding project of purging State of Arabists and replacing them with Zionists, the fact that “borderline isolationist” was used by an anonymous State Department official who favors stronger intervention in Syria is telling:

But for many of the officials closest to the Syria issue, the “mood is, we should have been doing more a long time ago,” this official said. Elsewhere within the State Department there is sympathy for an Obama administration facing few good options in Syria — alongside a sense the White House should have known this day of red line reckoning would come.
And for some, that translates into great frustration with the Obama administration’s policy on Syria thus far. “It is borderline isolationist,” said a third State Department official familiar with deliberations on Syria, referring to the administration’s approach. “They are learning all the wrong things from Iraq.”
In this official’s view, the White House policy to contain the crisis within Syria’s borders and to force Bashar al-Assad’s regime into negotiations faces slim odds of success because Syria’s ruler sees the conflict as an existential threat to the ruling family. The calculus grew more complicated last week when eight senators forced the White House to share its view of widespread reports of the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons, no matter how much top administration officials couched the language in qualifiers.
“The issue of chemical weapons is extremely problematic for the strategy of containment because it is not even the question of the weapons falling into wrong hands, it is the precedent this is setting,” said the third official, noting that Turkey and the Arab Gulf states are surely watching to see how the Americans will respond to Syria’s crossing of the proverbial red line. And then of course there is Iran. “If we are going to demonstrate an inability to respond we could be creating a big problem for us and our allies in the region down the line.”
This official and others who favor greater intervention in the region swiftly acknowledge that there are no risk-free options and a whole slew of problematic and potentially lethal unknowns. But they argue that inaction presents greater risk.
“That is not who we are and what we do and how we have protected our interests for the last 60 years,” said this official. “That is not how you do it in the Middle East; you can’t sit back as a country that borders a NATO ally, Iraq, Israel goes up in flames.”

Posted by: Rusty Pipes | May 1 2013 23:37 utc | 70

“In this official’s view, the White House policy to contain the crisis within Syria’s borders and to force Bashar al-Assad’s regime into negotiations…” (from #70)
How can anyone possibly think Obama’s policy on Syria is about forcing Assad into negotiations? When Assad was offering to negotiate months ago the FUKUS governments poured scorn on the idea and dismissed any attempt to negotiate with Assad as futile. Their insistence on the necessity and inevitability of Assad’s ouster has preempted any negotiations from taking place with the Syrian government. Obama has endorsed the violent insurgency in Syria and thinks it is a price the Syrian people have to pay in order to achieve his political objective of deposing Assad.

Posted by: JBradley | May 2 2013 0:53 utc | 72

@spoleta I guess you’re referring to comment #4…
@dh – to use the word “isolationist” because people don’t want to go to war IS a personal opinion. A John Bolton hard-rightwing one for that.
Posted by: b | Apr 30, 2013 9:52:54 AM | 4
I think b. was talking about Megan’s use of the ‘i’ word.

Posted by: dh | May 2 2013 1:21 utc | 74

Maybe the question is put the wrong way. The issue is not to be isolationist or not to be isolationist, the alternative to what the US is doing now would be to take a constructive role.
Like – it is ok to support democracy, it is not okay to support Al Qeida because they are just about to finish off your enemy, it is not ok to have dictators you like and dictators you dislike and it is not ok to support counterrevolutionary coups …. I guess the list is endless.

Posted by: somebody | May 2 2013 6:59 utc | 76

The US was isolationist before 1917 only in the sense that it didn’t want to take on Europeans powers head to head.
According to Wikipedia, “the Monroe Doctrine was a policy of the United States introduced on December 2, 1823. It stated that further efforts by European nations to colonize land or interfere with states in North or South America would be viewed as acts of aggression, requiring U.S. intervention. At the same time, the Doctrine noted that the United States would neither interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal concerns of European countries.”
It was an attempt to establish a US sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere. Hardly isolationist. It went to war against Mexico in 1845, wresting away California. Hardly isolationist. And its mercenaries repeatedly conducted attacks in Central America and the Caribbean and installing puppet regimes. In 1898 it added colonies in Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines. Hardly isolationist. And it prevented Colombia from taking back its region of Panama in 1903. All this while subjugating the indigenous people of North America.

Posted by: JohnH | May 2 2013 14:58 utc | 78

who say ‘Bring the troops home.’, ‘We should mind our own business’, ‘Put America first’
One of these things is not like the other two.

Posted by: ruralito | May 2 2013 21:21 utc | 80

nuh-uh, putting America first is not, necessarily, isolationist.

Posted by: ruralito | May 2 2013 22:01 utc | 82

80) “Bring the troops home” is not necessarily isolationist. Maybe just the realization that they do not defend. They attack.
After the end of the cold war NATO, without any political discussion or democratic decision process in the member countries, switched from a “territorial defense pact” to “defending the economic interest”. It is a euphemism for robbery.

Posted by: somebody | May 2 2013 22:22 utc | 84

@ 85 I think you’re just looking for a stupid argument about nothing. Go pick on someone else.

Posted by: dh | May 2 2013 22:45 utc | 86

Historically, in context of the U.S. foreign policies these terms are meaningless. They like to name certain policy after the seated president who presided at the time. But one thing is constant throughout U.S. history: expansionism. Marauding one, and from inception of empire.
Alexander Hamilton had envisioned China as good and potential market for American product and Philippines should had served as a bridge to the Chinese market, that’s why they occupied it.
Take and look on timeline
(Hamilton 1791, pp. 20 21).

“Ironically, the United States had a long history of salivating over the prospect of opening up China as a market for U.S. production. As far back as its first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, China represented “an additional and extensive field for the enterprise of our merchants and mariners, and as an additional outlet for the commodities of the country”

From: Michael Perelman site.
Opening Japan 1853

“When Commodore Matthew C. Perry’s four-ship squadron appeared in Edo Bay (Tokyo Bay) in July 1853, the bakufu (shogunate) was thrown into turmoil. Commodore Perry was fully prepared for hostilities if his negotiations with the Japanese failed, and threatened to open fire if the Japanese refused to negotiate.”

1866

A heavily armed US schooner in that same year sailed up the Taedong river towards Pyongyang, opening fire on the angry crowd which gathered on the banks only to be grounded by the tide, the crew massacred. Five years later this provided the pretext for a US attack on Kanghwa. 650 Koreans were killed in what was referred as the “Little War with the Heathen”

http://ongenocide.wordpress.com/2013/03/25/the-korean-genocide-part-1-before-the-us-occupation/
All in all it worthless discussion Isolationism vs. whatever.

Posted by: neretva’43 | May 3 2013 1:32 utc | 88

87) I understood that not wanting to have a democratic discussion on troops abroad and secret services abroad and at home, large segments of the US army and security got privatized.
So the slogan should be about Budget and Taxes, how about “No tax dollars for war lords”?
However, the issue is much larger than that as US workers do get cheated by “their” multinational corporations looking for the cheapest bidder world wide (and the best tax haven) on a larger scale than US citizens profit from cheap low quality consumer goods. And it is those multinationals whose interests spark these costly wars. And this model does not do any good in other countries as they get dependent on this type of production. Isolation is good if you want to develop own industries and local production.
I guess the – very international, not “isolationist” but politically neutral and protecting its workforce and industries – Switzerland would be a good model if the real interests of US citizens got heard.
Switzerland manages three (or four) national identities. Seen from here, US national identity seems precarious as this strange publication listing US citizens of European descent shows. Going along with this, US interest would be to integrate with Latin America democratically – not driven by multinationals and the gun as before.

Posted by: somebody | May 3 2013 9:16 utc | 90