I never did cotton to the term “isolationist” as it was coined in the late 30′s as a label for those in favor of our traditional non-intervention foreing policy. I personall prefer the term “nutrality.”—Bill P.
Yo Bill. If you are using IE as your browser, I heartily recommend spell check as an add-on. It has saved me many times from ‘mistooks’. Opera has a built-in that does the same thing and Firefox no doubt is similarly equipped. Correct spelling goes a long way to reinforcing whatever point you might be trying to make at the time. It’s not just pedantry.
Just FYI.
The 1930′s US policy was a flawed SELFISH, nightmare based upon having OCEANS to defend you. You can refer to it as ‘nutrality’, and attempt to put lipstick on the pig if you prefer, but it was neutrality between the psychopath and his victims. The US position was like standing on the street-corner when some innocent was being attacked by a goon and not getting involved because the innocent was not directly related to you. Not MY job, man. I’m all right.
Now sometimes that might be the ‘practical’ thing to do in life but most times we don’t try to pretend that it is the ‘good’ thing to do as well.
Unhappily now the Oceans no longer can be counted upon to protect you, and ‘isolationism’ (which is what it really was and is), simply won’t work any longer. If you don’t worry about what ‘they’ are doing in far-off places, then they will eventually bring those places to you.
Neutrality only works when you can’t see any real difference between the sides, and neither presents a far greater danger to you. This was NOT true in the 30′s, and it’s not true now.
