A Pattern of American Isolationism?

In the last few months we have heard a lot of rheteric about isolationism. After the failure of the Test Ban treaty, the Republicans in the Senate were accused of "dangerous isolationism" by the Democrats and much of the media. We are told that our nation's international influence has been harmed by a few radical elements in the Senate.

A week after the failure of the CTB treaty, Clinton vetoed a $12.7 billion foreign aid bill during the budget process. It was $2 billion short of what he had hoped for. "It seems to me to be the next big chapter in the new American isolationism" was Clinton's response to the bill he was presented.

Last month during debate over paying the dues owed to the UN, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said it was "unwise, illogical and wrong to hold our obligations to the United Nations hostage to an extremist agenda on international family planning.'' She went on further to refer to congressional Republicans as, "those who somehow prefer to be ostriches than eagles.''

The label of isolationism seems to be the current favorite of the Democratic party faithfull when responding to recent Republican policy. Yet, when the WTO meetings in Seattle are protested by labor unions and enviromental orginazations, among others, the same Democrats are not pointing the finger of isolationism at the protestors. I don't see Dan Rather refering to the protestors as radical extremists. In fact, Bill Clinton welcomes the protestors assuring everybody that the groups are making valid points that need to be addressed.

Is it isolationism to defeat a CTB treaty that, although well intended, falls short of providing adiquate enforcement as well as a ban on the testing of delivery systems necessary to bring the warheads over here? No more than it is to protest an international orginazation that is unwilling to consider labor concerns in developing countries.

Is it isolationism to refuse to add to an already huge $12.7 billion foreign aid bill when we have people at home in America who need help? No more than it is to protest an international coalition of 130+ countrys that doesn't require its members to comply with the enviromental laws that regulate how domestic corporations are forced to operate.

Is it isolationism to refuse to allow U.S. money to fund the murder of unborn babies in foreign countries? No more than it is to protest a WTO that won't even consider a system of sanctions for countries that violate provisions of the agreements.

Then why are the democratic faithfull so quick to label some of these cases as isolationism and not all of them? The answer is simple. There is a clear double standard when it comes to how objections to policy are handled. If your objections are based on conservative ideals, your instantly labeled as an extremist or a radical. Currently, the Clinton administration seems to be interested in convincing Americans that we are isolationists. The Democrats as usual would rather spend their time stirring up an emotional response from the people, instead of trying to convince people of the academic points to their argument. It is much easier to just tell you that the Republicans are isolationists, than to try to convince you that your tax dollars should be used to abort babies in other countries.

In time, this will change to another label. Regardless of the times, we cannot simply allow them to negatively label us, rather we must force them to use reason and logic to defend their views. It is a sad day when people would rather agree with irrational behavior than to be labeled as an extremist.