Isolationism Versus Interventionism

994 Words4 Pages
Gena Cooke CHA3UI-01 Mr. Pellerin Sept. 14th, 2012 Isolationism vs. Interventionism: An Ongoing Debate The debate between isolationism vs. interventionism is an ongoing and current debate in the United States. Isolationism is a policy of remaining separate from the affairs or interests of other nations, especially the political affairs of other countries. Interventionism on the other hand, is a policy of intervening in the affairs or interests of other nations using government and military power. The debate between these two policies is a difficult topic to side with and it has been a policy that many presidents have had different views on. Isolationism sounds like the right choice, staying out of other countries business’ and protecting its own country but on the other hand, seeing as America is superpower and has a powerful military, why should it not help out other countries in need of political reinforcement and aid? Although there are many great points in favour for interventionism as the policy for the United States, a more peaceful and “keep to itself” nation is the more favorable policy. The United States could worry about its own problems, keep to the original policy of President George Washington, “the great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have as little political connection as possible...” and other countries may respect America more because of their seclusion from international issues that are unimportant to it. In regards to the famous campaign speech of Albert Beveridge in 1898, a senator from Indiana, he believed in a nation that should rein the world, saying things like, “shall the American people continue their resistless march toward the commercial supremacy of the world?”(Beveridge,)ical e United States, I believe in a more pea, he believed in an imperialist nation, he
Open Document