WASHINGTON - Americans are turning away from the world, showing a tendency toward isolationism in foreign affairs that has risen to the highest level in four decades, a poll out Thursday found.
Almost half, 49 percent, told the polling organization that the United States should "mind its own business" internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own, the Pew Research Center survey found. That's up from 30 percent who said that in December 2002.
Results of the survey appear to conflict with President Barack Obama's activist foreign policy, including a newly announced buildup of 30,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan to fight Taliban and al-Qaida extremists.
"Isolationist Sentiment Surges to Four-Decade High," the nonpartisan research center headlined its report on the poll about America's role in the world.
Only 32 percent of the poll respondents favored increasing U.S. troops in Afghanistan, while 40 percent favored decreasing them. And fewer than half, or 46 percent, of those polled said it was somewhat or very likely that Afghanistan would be able to withstand the radicals' threat.
Forty-one percent of those surveyed said the United States plays a less important and powerful role as a world leader than it did a decade ago, up from 25 percent who said that just before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the report said.
Bad economy blamed Pew Research Center President Andrew Kohut said in an interview that the "very bad economy" appeared most responsible for the growth of isolationist sentiment. He said the public was also "displeased with the two wars we are waging, in Iraq and Afghanistan."
While isolationism and unilateralism reached four-decade highs among the public, the stature of China increased.
Among Americans polled, 44 percent said China was the world's leading economic power compared with 27 percent who named the United States. In February 2008, 41 percent said the U.S. was the leading economic power, while 30 percent said China.
A majority of Americans surveyed, or 53 percent, see China's emerging power as a threat to the United States.
The United States is seen by a comfortable majority, 63 percent, as the world's leading military power.
Concerning the Middle East, about half, or 51 percent, of respondents said they were more sympathetic toward Israel than to the Palestinians, who drew 12 percent. Fourteen percent supported neither side, while 19 percent offered no opinion.
The findings come from two surveys. The first poll, of 2,000 adults, was conducted by telephone Oct. 28 to Nov. 8 and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. A subsequent poll of 1,003 people conducted from Nov. 12-15 had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
While it is good to see more people being skeptical of military interventionism, I wonder what the word "isolationism" means in this survey, and why they use it. Isolationism tends to increase during times of economic distress. This is probably why the disastrous Smoot-Hawley tariff act passed in 1930 following the stock market crash of 1929. Since the foreign policy of C4l, non-interventionism, is often confused with isolationism, I wonder if this survey trend is indicative of an actual increase in support for non-interventionism foreign policy, or just a "we need to worry about our own business" while the economy is bad type of sentiment. Obama and his supporters have shown me that many opponents of Bush's Iraq war policy were not looking for a fundamental change in how our foreign policy works, but people how just had disdain for Bush's style, or some details about his strategies and such.
Posted by Daniel Schmid on 03/30/09 Last updated 03/30/09
In late July/early August I'm going to go visit Washington DC. I'm pretty excited because I've never been there...
Hopefully I'll have time to make my rounds and 'boo' the FED, IRS, Department of Education, Department of Energy, the White House, Department of Commerce, Treasury Department, Congress, etc. etc. Basically anything that's not in the Constitution, is ignoring the Constition, or doing a bad job of protecting it I intend to "boo" and "heckle."
Ron Paul left the Republican Party in 1988 to run as the Libertarian candidate. He chose to do so when he became dissatisfied with the direction the Party was going. He later came back to the Party. Add to this the fact that Rush doesn't share the same views on many issues, especially the Bush administrations handling of the "War on Terrorism" and you have the reason Rush refers to Paul as a Libertarian. Many people in the party do not believe that Ron Paul is a true Republican, but rather a misplaced Libertarian. But when Ron Paul first became a Representative, his beliefs were inline with the traditional Republican Party views. The party has changed more than Ron Paul has, so there is a friction between the two camps that many can't reconcile.
The Kremlin published its priorities Monday for an upcoming meeting of the G20, calling for the creation of a supranational reserve currency to be issued by international institutions as part of a reform of the global financial system.
The International Monetary Fund should investigate the possible creation of a new reserve currency, widening the list of reserve currencies or using its already existing Special Drawing Rights, or SDRs, as a "superreserve currency accepted by the whole of the international community," the Kremlin said in a statement issued on its web site.
The SDR is an international reserve asset, created by the IMF in 1969 to supplement the existing official reserves of member countries.
The Kremlin has persistently criticized the dollar's status as the dominant global reserve currency and has lowered its own dollar holdings in the last few years. Both President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin have repeatedly called for the ruble to be used as a regional reserve currency, although the idea has received little support outside of Russia.
MOSCOW, March 16 (Reuters) - Russia has proposed the creation of a new reserve currency, to be issued by international financial institutions, according to the text of its proposals to the April G20 meeting published on Monday.
Russia has significantly reduced the dollar's share in its own reserves in recent years but has gained little traction on proposals to make the rouble a regional reserve currency in the former Soviet bloc.
"We urge the reform of the international currency and financial system," Russia said in its proposals to the G20, which were published on the Kremlin Website, www.kremlin.ru. Russia proposed tasking the International Monetary Fund (IMF) with researching the possibility of widening the list of reserve currencies, creating a new reserve currency, or using the IMF's special drawing rights (SDRs) as a super-reserve.
One of the requirements of a fiat currency is that the people who use it perceive that it is a decent store of value. If the dollar continues to lose its value, why shouldn't it be replaced as reserve currency? Is the dollar too big to fail?
I like the idea of competing currencies, even on a world-wide basis. If the global central bankers can't provide a currency that is a decent store of value, then the people should have the right to use a currency that fulfills that basic requirement.
In the same way the US banks and manufacturers are 'too big to fail', so is the dollar.
And it's backed by a bellicose, internationally-approved President.
Competing global COMMODITY currencies would be not so competitive regarding exchange rates, etc. I'm wondering if the term 'competing' is distasteful to businesses and governments.
Maybe a better term would be "free-market currency" (because the best would be chosen), or "natural currency"?
Disclaimer: This website has moved. Please visit campaignforliberty.org
Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]
RSS feed
