Neo-isolationism

David L., good friend and a neoliberal scientist himself (he's right on the science, wrong on the neolib), sends in this earlier article from the Christian Science Monitor, from 1999, titled Leading versus Dominating. That is, in fact, the central point. I'm all for an active American foreign policy, but from the point of view that we're rich bastards who can afford to help. The US spends something like a small fraction of 1% of GDP on foreign assistance, though polls consistently show Americans believing that the US gives 10-25% of GDP. That's shameful for such a rich country. And much of it goes towards manipulating political and economic positions of those leaders from which the US wants favors.

The neo-isolationism versus global activism of the sort that seeks to extend American power is, in some ways, a false debate. What the world admires about the US is its relative openness, its occasional generosity, its capacity to let intelligence and creativity flourish, and its willingness to help when others are in trouble. The dark side is the imperial one -- for much of American foreign policy has been centered on the geopolitical game of gaining imperial footholds around the globe. That is the reality that cannot be denied, only ignored. It also doesn't have to be the neoliberal reality it is -- we can do better than that. The US is a creative country that can rethink global politics for the better.

So, we don't have to be isolationists. That's a ridiculous option when it's clear that globalization renders the notion archaic, if not downright medieval. But the US can be non-isolationist respectfully, generously, creatively, and in such a way that we help others flourish in ways of their own choosing. The US may not always like those choices. But it would be a good thing if the American rhetoric of choice and opportunity matched its policy.

William Fulbright, one of those thinkers:

...the late Sen. William Fulbright who decried America's "arrogance of power." Fulbright shunned the grandiose temptation to convert the world and argued instead that "we have the opportunity to serve as an example to the world by the way in which we run our society."

One of the great shames -- tragedies -- of who we are, or more accurately who our leadership is at present, is the opposite example. It needs to change soon.