It is 3:30 a.m and you are nearly finished with your homework. You need to ace the calculus test you’ll take in eight hours to save your grade. On top of that, you have two projects, one quiz, and an essay due that day. Your grades are suffering greatly and you are fully aware. All of a sudden, your phone chimes and the screen brightens. Marcia, a girl in your calculus class, has just asked you for help on problem 47 of last night’s homework. You reach for your phone to dial Marcia’s number. Instead of offering her help on 47, a problem you can’t solve, you explain the previous 46 questions. By the time you hang up, it is 5:30. You now have two hours until first bell.
You fail the test, your projects are mediocre, the quiz is a 60, Marcia fails as well. Report cards are sent home and you receive straight Cs. Thinking back, you realize it was the fateful all-nighter you spent helping Marcia that caused your grades to plummet. Were you heroic in trying to help her over yourself? Or were you just plain stupid? Looking at your report card, you launch the desk magnet with an ironic Gandhi quote across the room. The magnet lands face up and reads, “The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others.” Gandhi, however, was wrong. You were just plain stupid.
This is the story of America’s past, or lack thereof, with isolationism. You are the United States of America and Marcia is most countries that have had issues since World War I. Like you, the United States is not the best equipped to solve others’ problems. If the U.S doesn’t know how to solve problem 47, how is it going to give the world the answer?
Proponents of isolationism advocate for the avoidance of foreign affairs in order to devote a nation’s resources to self-improvement. If a country focuses on bettering itself, it will eventually be better equipped to help others. Take the U.S prior to the World Wars as an example. Our country prioritized domestic improvements and as a result we emerged as one of the strongest nations on earth. World War I, however, forced America to enter into the dangerous world of foreign affairs. Since the early twentieth century, solving other nations' issues has been the focus of our government. First it was stopping communism in Europe, Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba. Now it is stopping terrorism in the Middle East. Some argue that the United States's inadequacy in attempting to aid the Middle East is what vilified America and made us the target of countless terrorist organizations. In other words, the U.S gives others solutions to problems that are yet to be solved in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Instead of looking to the words of Gandhi, let us look to the much wiser words of Dimi who wrote, “Help yourself before you consider helping others.”
Lydia, this is an interesting issue. You write well, which makes this post enjoyable to read. I am a bit confused by your logic. I'm unsure about your actual intent with the post. The overall organization or layout seems muddled to me. First, you begin with a fairly long introduction, which, however creative it might be, takes away space you could use to strengthen the crux of your argument about isolationism. It seems trite to compare the geopolitical theory of isolationism with studying for homework. Second, you seem to imply that U.S. isolationism before WWI can be compared to potential isolationism in the 21st century. Your argument does not address the geopolitical changes that have occurred over the last century, and which make issues of isolationism more difficult to address now. Finally, you don't address those instances when interventionism is in our self-interest - in other words when taking care of others is in our best interest. I would argue that we have a definite interest is stopping the spread of Ebola and eliminating the military capacity of ISIS.
ReplyDeleteNone of this is to say that I think your argument is wrong. I just feel that you could have used the little space you have in these posts to craft a more convincing argument. While interesting, this feels a bit jumbled.
Have you ever read anything by Philip Roth? He wrote a book called "A Plot against America." This fiction novel hypothetically assumes that Charles Lindbergh had won the presidential election of 1940, instead of Franklin Roosevelt. I gather that Lindbergh was an ardent isolationist. Roth proposed a fictional world in which the U.S. did not intervene in the European war, and thus allowed the holocaust to gain momentum. If this is a topic that interests you, you might read that book.