“If our Founding Fathers wanted us to care about the rest of
the world, they wouldn't have declared their independence from it.”
-- Stephen Colbert
Last week, the Wall Street Journal released the results
of a new poll
on Americans view of foreign policy. As is often the case with foreign affairs,
Americans seem to simultaneously desire tougher engagement and greater
isolationism.
55 percent of those surveyed
believed that “We need a president who will present an image of strength that
shows America's willingness to confront our enemies and stand up for our
principles." Indeed, as applied to President Obama, 36 percent of
respondents agreed that “He is too cautious and lets other countries control
event,” compared to only 15 percent who claimed he is “too bold and forces
issues with other countries.”
At the same time, 47 percent of
Americans are calling for a “less active” foreign policy, with only 19 percent
calling for a more active policy.
Isolationism has been a theme throughout
American history, on both sides of the political spectrum. Even God Bless
America seems to promote this view, its opening line referencing the storm
clouds gathering “far across the sea.”
After over a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan
(one of which was launched/fought under ostensibly false pretenses) and the
longest recession since the Depression, it’s understandable that many would
seek strength through a retreat from global affairs.

Armed with the facts,
citizens change their views—a lesson policymakers could learn to emulate—and
indeed, they are right to do so, not only because America has a duty to play a
leadership role in combating global poverty, but because many elements of
foreign aid have proven to be some of the most effective uses of government
funds.
In its 2014 annual letter,
the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation calculated that since 1980 alone, foreign
aid has helped to save 100 million children
at an average cost of about $5,000 per life: a bargain so good the only
question is why we don’t do more.
As America
continues to look back at our own Civil War at its 150th
anniversary, I’m reminded of what John Stuart Mill wrote in The Contest in America in 1862:
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the
decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that
nothing is worth a war, is much worse…A man
who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more
about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has
no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men
than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for
ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need
is, to do battle for the one against the other.
While the
battles of Baghdad and Kabul come to a close, the war on preventable disease
and extreme poverty wage on. Are we willing to fight to end those scourges, if
not with blood, than with treasure?
We ought to
be, and not because there isn’t suffering in our own backyards that demands our
concern and attention—there is—but rather because our lives and liberty are
degraded by casting aside our gaze and pretending like our wealth is ours to
hoard, rather than a tool to be used to bring justice, peace, and a modicum of
dignity to all people, everywhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment