Pros And Cons Of Isolationism

Internationalism and Isolationism: Enough is enough! Internationalism, a political principle which transcends nationalism and advocates a greater political or economic cooperation among nations and people, and Isolationism, a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries, both have their pros and cons. Regardless, I wouldn’t want either policy to be in effect today. Internationalism has been seen as “the antithesis of isolationism, and in that sense, it has involved political commitments or ‘entanglements’ through multinational treaties as well as membership in international organizations.” There were some internationalists who thought in terms of a “universal community, a broad brotherhood of people with common concerns, needs, and aspirations that exists as a reality beyond the confines of nation-states.” Recently, internationalism took on a new meaning, under a doctrine of responsibility. The U.S. assumed the “burden of ‘policeman of the world,’ both unilaterally and multilaterally.”

Harding, who had rejected the league, claiming to favor a mythical ‘association of nations’ meant that the United States never joined the League of Nations.” Americans possibly remained sympathetic to internationalism. The Harding administration’s disarmament and foreign policy are evidence of that. “State Department support for hosting the Washington Naval Conference—held from November 1921 to February 1922—stemmed at least in part from the fear that, with the League of Nations a going concern, America might find itself more isolated than was desirable.” To put it simply, the Harding administration formed several relationships that, while they didn’t “support overt intervention abroad,” they did contradict the “fundamental basis of