Some US History (Lest we be doomed to repeat it)

[BoyNextDoor]

After WWI the US became relatively isolationist. Without going onto all the machinations suffice it to say the population was tired of war, there were domestic labor concerns and external political ideologies were seen as threatening.

There is a very similar process unfolding in the US today.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Except nobody right now appears to be concerned about "exterior political ideologies." Such are hardly ever discussed at all by RWs or LWs. There is jihadism but we're concerned with that as a terrorist threat, not as something that might have appeal to significant numbers of Americans.

 

[sr71plt]

There's a difference in isolationism (especially that in the United States after WWI) and "American First." The first was hermetical and emphasizing self-sufficiency similar to what China and Japan were trying to do in earlier centuries; the second is aggressive and greedy internationally. It would be impossible in today's world to serve up the isolationism of post-WWI. There's too much global interdependence now.

 

[EternalFantasy]

It's not after WWI. The US had always been an isolationist country up-to WWII, with a brief exception during WWI.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Except nobody right now appears to be concerned about "exterior political ideologies." Such are hardly ever discussed at all by RWs or LWs. There is jihadism but we're concerned with that as a terrorist threat, not as something that might have appeal to significant numbers of Americans.

I would observe that the current jihadism is based on a dispute over natural resources (mostly petrochemicals and water) the rhetoric of religion notwithstanding. And as such it is fundamentally a political dispute of who has the right to manage the resources and wealth they represent.

In other words, this whole thing is global energy policy and the self determination of arabs and is political.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

It's not after WWI. The US had always been an isolationist country up-to WWII, with a brief exception during WWI.

"Always" ?

My read of history leads me to believe that the US was relatively isolationist from Washington's farewell until the war of 1812 when the US declared war on GB and then there was another period of relative isolation from 1820 to the mid-1870s. From the 1880s on the US was very much involved in world affairs punctuated by the occupation of the Philippines during the Spanish American War and from then on through WW1 the US really could not be described as isolationist.

Form 1918 to 1928 the US was most derfinitly isolationist.

 

[EternalFantasy]

"Always" ?

My read of history leads me to believe that the US was relatively isolationist from Washington's farewell until the war of 1812 when the US declared war on GB and then there was another period of relative isolation from 1820 to the mid-1870s. From the 1880s on the US was very much involved in world affairs punctuated by the occupation of the Philippines during the Spanish American War and from then on through WW1 the US really could not be described as isolationist.

Form 1918 to 1928 the US was most derfinitly isolationist.

It's been the consensus, that the term isolationist refers to their involvement in Europe, and Europe's int'l projects.

So it was considered that they were isolationists, or did simply their own things, their own interest strictly, from 1776 until 1945.


Edit: Which keeps your thread on point tho. The Trump wave is trying to go back to that; US interests strictly. Or, America First

Why now, would be an interesting debate indeed.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Edit: Which keeps your thread on point tho. The Trump wave is trying to go back to that; US interests strictly. Or, America First

Why now, would be an interesting debate indeed.

Before Trump, the America First idea was most clearly represented by Pat Buchanan and his America First Party. And they're real isolationists, they want to end America's military presence abroad entirely, shut down our global network of bases, leave SK and Japan and Israel and Europe to fend for themselves. Haven't heard Trump say much about that.

 

[EternalFantasy]

Before Trump, the America First idea was most clearly represented by Pat Buchanan and his America First Party. And they're real isolationists, they want to end America's military presence abroad entirely, shut down our global network of bases, leave SK and Japan and Israel and Europe to fend for themselves. Haven't heard Trump say much about that.

Ur right, Trump won't do that.

We like to have cake and eat it too in north america. Hence this forum no?

He's doing america first economically, but assisting overseas. However I do not believe he intends on maintaining general world leadership. Obama did a great job passing that along to the Russians already.

 

[KingOrfeo]

However I do not believe he intends on maintaining general world leadership. Obama did a great job passing that along to the Russians already.

Actually, it's Trump who's passing that along to the Russians already.

 

[Ishmael]

After WWI the US became relatively isolationist. Without going onto all the machinations suffice it to say the population was tired of war, there were domestic labor concerns and external political ideologies were seen as threatening.

There is a very similar process unfolding in the US today.

Why don't you be a little clearer?

In 1926 a law was passed that virtually banned ALL immigration. That law remained in force until 1952. Over that span of years the nation didn't suffer at all unless you want to make the case that the lack of immigration is to blame for the Great Depression or the start of WWII. So the use of the word "doomed" is quite histrionic.

The immigration law passed in 1952 was passed overwhelmingly by both houses of congress, vetoed by then president Truman, and that veto was soundly overturned by congress. (Apparently Truman wanted to keep the doors shut, but that is mere conjecture on my part.)

That law, most of which is still in force, gives the president extraordinary powers in deciding who gets in, who can be banned from entry, or even kicked out.

That being said, approx. 1 million souls are allowed to legally immigrate to the US annually, not including 'refugees.' Those souls include formal applicants and the H1B crowd. The only initiative that Trump has proposed re. legal immigration limitations is focused on the H1B portion of the law. A section that is, and has been, sorely abused by the multi-nationals taking advantage of the immigration portal to the detriment of US citizens. Having seen the H1B scam worked over the years I applaud his effort in that regard.

Ishmael

 

[KingOrfeo]

Anti-immigrationism, however, is only one part and probably not the most important part of isolationism; far more important are economic and military isolationism.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Ur right, Trump won't do that.

We like to have cake and eat it too in north america. Hence this forum no?

He's doing america first economically, but assisting overseas. However I do not believe he intends on maintaining general world leadership. Obama did a great job passing that along to the Russians already.

Actually, it's Trump who's passing that along to the Russians already.

I do not believe the US needs to be the worlds "mouth piece". It would be far better to retract a bit and let the world come to us.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Why don't you be a little clearer?

In 1926 a law was passed that virtually banned ALL immigration. That law remained in force until 1952. Over that span of years the nation didn't suffer at all unless you want to make the case that the lack of immigration is to blame for the Great Depression or the start of WWII. So the use of the word "doomed" is quite histrionic.

The immigration law passed in 1952 was passed overwhelmingly by both houses of congress, vetoed by then president Truman, and that veto was soundly overturned by congress. (Apparently Truman wanted to keep the doors shut, but that is mere conjecture on my part.)

That law, most of which is still in force, gives the president extraordinary powers in deciding who gets in, who can be banned from entry, or even kicked out.

That being said, approx. 1 million souls are allowed to legally immigrate to the US annually, not including 'refugees.' Those souls include formal applicants and the H1B crowd. The only initiative that Trump has proposed re. legal immigration limitations is focused on the H1B portion of the law. A section that is, and has been, sorely abused by the multi-nationals taking advantage of the immigration portal to the detriment of US citizens. Having seen the H1B scam worked over the years I applaud his effort in that regard.

Ishmael

I do not disagree.

 

[Hard_Rom]

America could afford a degree of isolationism during it's years of expansion across the continent. Then came a brief stint of colonial Imperialism with the war with Spain. The great distance between the war in Europe and the NA gave the US a sense of superiority that it was better than that. A lot of isolationism was a result of the Great Depression. Every country retracted it's global trade and contacts in an attempt to create home grown jobs and products. The British Empire for many years attempted to keep trade just within the Empire.

 

[Hard_Rom]

During America's heydays of expansion and just after it had a birth rate that bettered sub-Saharan Africa. You want growth without immigration better figure out a way for folk to afford 7-8 kids.

 

[tnman03]

Why don't you be a little clearer?

In 1926 a law was passed that virtually banned ALL immigration. That law remained in force until 1952. Over that span of years the nation didn't suffer at all unless you want to make the case that the lack of immigration is to blame for the Great Depression or the start of WWII. So the use of the word "doomed" is quite histrionic.

The immigration law passed in 1952 was passed overwhelmingly by both houses of congress, vetoed by then president Truman, and that veto was soundly overturned by congress. (Apparently Truman wanted to keep the doors shut, but that is mere conjecture on my part.)

That law, most of which is still in force, gives the president extraordinary powers in deciding who gets in, who can be banned from entry, or even kicked out.

That being said, approx. 1 million souls are allowed to legally immigrate to the US annually, not including 'refugees.' Those souls include formal applicants and the H1B crowd. The only initiative that Trump has proposed re. legal immigration limitations is focused on the H1B portion of the law. A section that is, and has been, sorely abused by the multi-nationals taking advantage of the immigration portal to the detriment of US citizens. Having seen the H1B scam worked over the years I applaud his effort in that regard.

Ishmael

That's a good assessment.

 

[Ishmael]

During America's heydays of expansion and just after it had a birth rate that bettered sub-Saharan Africa. You want growth without immigration better figure out a way for folk to afford 7-8 kids.

Demographically challenged I see.

ZPG is 2.1 children/woman fertility rate. Anything above that and your population is growing, below that it's falling.

Further, for what reason do you want rapid population expansion? There really are only three reasons. The first being the need for a larger industrial workforce, hardly the case in the US.

The second is the need for a growth in your military available population. This was very important back in the days of massive armies facing each other in the field. Given the lethality of today's weapons systems that's hardly the consideration that it once was.

The third is to supplement your tax base. The theory being that the more folks you have paying taxes the more money the government will have to spend, or continue to fund give away programs. The 'give away' programs are the reason that the European nations have been engaged in wholesale immigration. As more and more 'cradle to grave' entitlements were made available, the lower the fertility rates fell, the more foreign labor they had to import, much to their detriment. And that is precisely the reason that certain sectors of our political class, both democrat and republican, want to flood the US with the uneducated, unskilled, and unhealthy. MORE MONEY FOR THE GOVERNMENT!!!! Or so they think anyway. At the rate that robotics and AI is being deployed those uneducated, unskilled, and unhealthy will have precious little to do thereby becoming just another net drain on the economy. Robots work 24/7, don't take vacations or sick leave and never ask for a raise, what's not to like about that? It is a death spiral from which no nation can recover.

Ishmael

 

[Christobal]

I would observe that the current jihadism is based on a dispute over natural resources (mostly petrochemicals and water) the rhetoric of religion notwithstanding. And as such it is fundamentally a political dispute of who has the right to manage the resources and wealth they represent.

In other words, this whole thing is global energy policy and the self determination of arabs and is political.

And then would be this. The US is a leading oil producer and doesn't need the mideast near as much.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=26352

 

[BoyNextDoor]

And then would be this. The US is a leading oil producer and doesn't need the mideast near as much.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=26352

We do if we want OPEC and Russia to depress production. It is not about petrochemical independence (never was) it is about supply-side control.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The British Empire for many years attempted to keep trade just within the Empire.

An isolationist global empire. Curious paradox.

 

[Christobal]

We do if we want OPEC and Russia to depress production. It is not about petrochemical independence (never was) it is about supply-side control.

Then we just drill and frack more. More pipelines to Canada.

The supply line has shifted from the middle east. Russian oil has never been a major factor in the US.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Then we just drill and frack more. More pipelines to Canada.

We can't, they won't let them through the border wall. (What, you hadn't heard?!)

 

[Hard_Rom]

We can't, they won't let them through the border wall. (What, you hadn't heard?!)

Don't worry there will be oil taps for you to hook up to. And one way doors for soft wood lumber.

What we have to figure out is how to put some sort of EM filter atop the wall. Keep American programming from coming in. Maybe we should ask the Chinese how they do it.

 

[doowdniw]

In 1926 a law was passed that virtually banned ALL immigration. That law remained in force until 1952.

Both parents came over in 1947. But they were WASPs and came from England through Canada, so I'm sure that made a difference.