Some people believe that the current administration has made a mockery of the executive branch and that we can barely handle finances and policy in our own country. With this in mind, how can we judge or police other parts of the world? With our current economic state resembling a roller coaster ride it would be safe to say that more attention should be directed to stabilizing our own economy before handling all other countries problematic situations.
I am not saying that we shouldn’t take action in Darfur, or any other pre-genocide/genocide declared area, but throwing American tax dollars at situations is the escape goat for Americans who would rather send mone
y than American forces.Protest, donate money, but the only realistic solution for the problem is cutting the red tape of the American government and stepping on the toes of the other countries to remove those in power in Sudan.
Until then we should sit back and solve our own problems before we decide we are most adept to solve the worlds.
4 comments:
Okay, I'm not trying to be a thorn in your side or anything, but I just would like you to clear something up for me. In this post you said both that:
"Maybe if we adopted a more isolationist ideology regarding foreign policy..."
and also
"I am not saying that we shouldn’t take action in Darfur, or any other pre-genocide/genocide declared area.."
You're kind of sitting on the fence.
There really is no "more isolationist" or "less isolationist" forms of government. You either get involved and impose upon another country (and by impose I do not necessarily mean it in the negative sense) or you don't.
So which side are you taking here?
Judging by this comment: "Until then we should sit back and solve our own problems before we decide we are most adept to solve the worlds." I'm thinking you want the United States Government to be isolationist.
Am I right...?
(And by saying a government is isolationist does not necessarily mean that the government is leaving others out to hang. Generally I think it just means that the ways of contributing aid are more reserved to humanitarian aid, etc. So it's not a "bad" thing to own up to, I suppose.)
kc-
Thank you. I realize that it appears I am sitting on the fence; however, I actually was just addressing the opposition. I merely suggest that by removing our politicians from everyone else’s business perhaps we would be on better terms with the rest of the world.
Also, with more defined focus on the problems here at home one would assume we would be able to solve our own; then, if you wish, we can point our fingers and poke our noses into everyone else’s affairs. Americans are highly regarded as arrogant because we believe we know how to run every other country better than they are running it currently.
Let me attempt to clarify my stance:
I do not oppose sending aid to pre-genocide/genocide declared areas. Save Darfur.
I disagree with sending tax dollars to other parts of the world when Americans are under-educated, underfed, and without shelter. My bleeding heart can only take so much before I must turn my attention to our struggling neighbors, our families here in America.
I believe that we should turn our efforts back onto the issues here at home to develop stability and safety in the American economy. For example, more and more families are defaulting on their mortgages as adjustable rates send their bills through the roof. Allow me to pose this question: If your family lost their home due to something as unfortunate as this, wouldn’t you rather politicians in Washington be focusing their efforts to prevent this type of lending instead of delegating and creating new government subsidized organizations to create more red tape?
Also, in addressing your thoughts regarding types of isolationism, I do believe that there are varying degrees. If one were to place isolationism and protectionism on a spectrum, I believe Americans should take steps to progress to isolationism. To be ultimately clear, I believe these steps should only be taken through non-interventionist military policy.
To prove my point regarding distinctive levels of isolationism one can look as far back in history as the Monroe Doctrine, 1823, or as recent as the updated American embargo against Cuba, 1999. In the former instance ex-President James Monroe told all European countries they could not colonize anywhere in the Americas, and the latter demonstrates how America completely severed economic, commercial, and financial ties with Cuba.
Educated Isolationism: Focusing the majority of political and economic efforts to promote growth and stability in one’s own country while still allowing leeway for the allocation of resources available to other countries in need.
Hope this gets me off the fence and you have a better understanding.
A very important aspect of making an argument is including the opposing side in your claim. Adam clearly states his view in the beginning regarding the ‘isolationist ideology.’ It’s reasonable to infer that he is merely addressing the other side when he says, ‘I am not saying that we shouldn’t take action in Darfur, or any other pre-genocide/genocide declared area.’ The opposing argument would address the fact that we should help countries in need regardless, especially if those resources are available.
He explicitly states his views about isolationism at the beginning and reiterates those thoughts at the end. So, clearly an isolationist ideology is his stand. However, with the implicit statement regarding Darfur we can reasonably come to the conclusion about what in fact he was implying: by making our own nation stable first, we would then be able to help other countries that desperately need it. He would be in favor of those actions under such circumstances.
If every argument had only explicit comments, it would be quite boring and we would never need critical reading again seeing as how most everything would be set on the table. So in regards to KC’s statement, I do not feel his argument was on the fence whatsoever. He stayed on topic and his argument left enough room to persuade you to his side and to simply address the other, which is a key component to any argumentative piece.
With that said, I agree America should stop lecturing the rest of the world on how to fix their problems when we can’t even fix our own. In addition, our ‘police’ mentality should be primarily focused on our land before we tell other countries how to restructure theirs. In a way, we are then viewed as hypocrites and as Adam stated, 'arrogant.'
Okay, I feel enlightened.
Thanks, both of you.
I understand now that it was just my misunderstanding of the wording of the post that lead to my diagnosis of Adam being "on the fence".
Post a Comment