Comments on: Poll finds “Fortress America” and “New Isolationists” http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2007/11/28/poll-finds-fortress-america-and-new-isolationists/ Tracking the 2008 U.S. campaign Mon, 8 Sep 2008 16:10:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Geoffrey Hellman http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2007/11/28/poll-finds-fortress-america-and-new-isolationists/#comment-333171 Geoffrey Hellman Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:26:30 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2007/11/28/poll-finds-fortress-america-and-new-isolationists/#comment-333171 It seems a serious mistake to call these respondents "isolationists". Progressives are anti-imperialist and often anti-capitalist; they oppose policies and practices of these "isms" when perpetrated by their own country as well as by any other (e.g. plundering the worlds' wealth for profit regardless of social and human costs, waging wars of aggression, e.g. Vietnam, Iraq II, etc.). But many of them would want to see the United States actively engaged internationally in a variety of positive ways, e.g. leading the way in combatting global warming and other forms of environmental degradation, leading in fighting against diseases such as aids, malaria, virulent influenza, etc., promoting the United Nations' efforts against world hunger, poverty, oppression of women, nuclear and other weapons proliferation, etc., supporting quality education of all children, reducing levels of violence, etc. All this is obviously at odds with traditional "Taftian" isolationism, which is rooted in nationalism, not a progressive, humanitarian internationalism. Once these crucial distinctions are made, the poll results should not be at all surprising. Geoffrey Hellman Professor and Chair Department of Philosophy University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN 55455 It seems a serious mistake to call these respondents “isolationists”. Progressives are anti-imperialist and often anti-capitalist; they oppose policies and practices of these “isms” when perpetrated by their own country as well as by any other (e.g. plundering the worlds’ wealth for profit regardless of social and human costs, waging wars of aggression, e.g. Vietnam, Iraq II, etc.). But many of them would want to see the United States actively engaged internationally in a variety of positive ways, e.g. leading the way in combatting global warming and other forms of environmental degradation, leading in fighting against diseases such as aids, malaria, virulent influenza, etc., promoting the United Nations’ efforts against world hunger, poverty, oppression of women, nuclear and other weapons proliferation, etc., supporting quality education of all children, reducing levels of violence, etc. All this is obviously at odds with traditional “Taftian” isolationism, which is rooted in nationalism, not a progressive, humanitarian internationalism. Once these crucial distinctions are made, the poll results should not be at all surprising.

Geoffrey Hellman
Professor and Chair
Department of Philosophy
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN 55455

]]>