Poll: Americans More Opposed to Intervening Abroad Than Any Other Time In Last Half Century

[jct74]

Poll: Americans More Opposed to Intervening Abroad Than At Any Other Time In the Last Half Century

Jesse Walker | Dec. 4, 2013 11:52 am

The Pew Research Center and the Council on Foreign Relations have released their periodic survey (http://www.people-press.org/2013/12/03/public-sees-u-s-power-declining-as-support-for-global-engagement-slips/) of American attitudes toward foreign policy. Here's how they summarize the results:


Growing numbers of Americans believe that U.S. global power and prestige are in decline. And support for U.S. global engagement, already near a historic low, has fallen further. The public thinks that the nation does too much to solve world problems, and increasing percentages want the U.S. to "mind its own business internationally" and pay more attention to problems here at home.

Yet this reticence is not an expression of across-the-board isolationism. Even as doubts grow about the United States' geopolitical role, most Americans say the benefits from U.S. participation in the global economy outweigh the risks. And support for closer trade and business ties with other nations stands at its highest point in more than a decade.

In other words, the public is pretty much getting it right, saying yes to trade but no to political and military intervention. Needless to say, this was not how things looked a decade ago. Indeed, Americans are even more sour on intervention today than they were a year after the fall of Saigon:


http://cloudfront-media.reason.com/mc/jwalker/2013_12/pewpoll.jpg?h=464&w=311


While 52 percent today think the U.S. "should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own," only 38 percent disagree. Pew reports that this is "the most lopsided balance in favor of the U.S. 'minding its own business' in the nearly 50-year history of the measure."

For the rest of the Pew numbers -- including an additional survey of the Council on Foreign Relations' members, who as you might expect are more enthusiastic about projecting power abroad -- go here (http://www.people-press.org/2013/12/03/public-sees-u-s-power-declining-as-support-for-global-engagement-slips/).

http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/04/poll-americans-more-opposed-to-interveni

[cajuncocoa]

That will change as soon as there no longer is a Democrat in the Oval Office. Sean and Rush will be ready to warm up the war drums.

[ZENemy]

I think the well of lies is growing dry.

Its getting harder and harder for them to convince even the ignorant that we somehow; NEED to invade other countries.

This is a good thing but, we are dealing with power hungry ego maniacs that have no problem killing their own subjects via a false flag to secure their wars.

[Christian Liberty]

That will change as soon as there no longer is a Democrat in the Oval Office. Sean and Rush will be ready to warm up the war drums.

If libertarians can't win, should we throw our energy into opposing Republicans, for this reason?

[Gaudius]

A free state may legitimately invade a right-violating (illegitimate) state in the one and only purpose of establishing a regime with significantly increased respect for the natural rights of the individual, but the free state is not obliged to do so. In order to be legitimate, such an invasion has to cause less violation of rights (collateral damage) in the long-term perspective than those violations which the invasion is trying to free the individuals from. Rationally regarded, the free state should only undertake an intervention if it is in accordance with the self-interests of its own citizens in the long-term perspective.

[Christian Liberty]

A free state may legitimately invade a right-violating (illegitimate) state in the one and only purpose of establishing a regime with significantly increased respect for the natural rights of the individual, but the free state is not obliged to do so. In order to be legitimate, such an invasion has to cause less violation of rights (collateral damage) in the long-term perspective than those violations which the invasion is trying to free the individuals from. Rationally regarded, the free state should only undertake an intervention if it is in accordance with the self-interests of its own citizens in the long-term perspective.

One post and we've already got blatant utilitarianism. Ugh....

"Lesser rights violations" are still violations of rights. And "free state" is a contradiction in terms.

[Origanalist]

"A free state may....

According to whom?

[Christian Liberty]

"A free state may....

According to whom?

Him... I guess...

[eduardo89]

Pew Poll: Support For Non-Interventionism Reaches Highest Point In Nearly Five Decades (http://********************.com/pew-poll-support-for-non-interventionism-reaches-highest-point-in-nearly-five-decades/)


Americans’ appraisal of what the U.S.’s role in the world should be has shifted dramatically since Pew first began conducting their surveys, most noticeably during the Vietnam War and after the invasion of Iraq commenced:

Continue Reading (http://********************.com/pew-poll-support-for-non-interventionism-reaches-highest-point-in-nearly-five-decades/)

[Origanalist]

Has the point of saturation finally been reached? It seems so, at least until the next "attack".

[eduardo89]

Has the point of saturation finally been reached? It seems so, at least until the next "attack".

It's been too long...there must be another false flag terrorist attack to shore up support for Lindsey Graham's reelection!

[Christian Liberty]

It's been too long...there must be another false flag terrorist attack to shore up support for Lindsey Graham's reelection!

Just for curiosity, do you think 9/11 was a false flag?

[eduardo89]

Just for curiosity, do you think 9/11 was a false flag?

Al-Qaeda has always had CIA support and the MIC had a lot to gain from endless war. I don't believe in some of the absurd conspiracy theories, though.

[enhanced_deficit]

http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/04/poll-americans-more-opposed-to-interveni

http://cloudfront-media.reason.com/mc/jwalker/2013_12/pewpoll.jpg?h=464&w=311

Who can blame them?

http://truthalliance.net/Portals/0/Archive/images/news/2012/09/tsa-grope.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=qIIUkV1hqPdIhM&tbnid=umpkiE_g-CdoJM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthalliance.net%2FArchive%2FNew s%2Ftabid%2F67%2FID%2F9651%2FFOIA-Letters-Reveal-Shocking-Cases-Of-TSA-Groping-Genitals.aspx&ei=k36gUsmSBpS4kQe4xoCACQ&bvm=bv.57155469,d.eW0&psig=AFQjCNFg9jnG9GojNJJMJgkeayOwPrJ7uw&ust=1386335627414358)http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/natural-health/images/tsa_patdown.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=W3AIE6rU4e0ZWM&tbnid=smhUahdp0x4jdM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalhealingcenter.com%2Fnat ural-health%2Fonline-petition-for-banning-tsa-groping-in-texas%2F&ei=9n6gUvj-N8zIkAes-IDgDQ&bvm=bv.57155469,d.eW0&psig=AFQjCNFg9jnG9GojNJJMJgkeayOwPrJ7uw&ust=1386335627414358)
http://fedupflyers.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Grope-a-dope-13.png (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=8HAwK1rvgQUasM&tbnid=VWA6rV39cIdDtM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffedupflyers.org%2Fresistance-101%2Fplanes-trains-and-lamebrains&ei=iX-gUoKhLtOkkQfVlICYBw&bvm=bv.57155469,d.eW0&psig=AFQjCNFg9jnG9GojNJJMJgkeayOwPrJ7uw&ust=1386335627414358)http://fromtheleft.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/tsa-cage.jpg?w=640 (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=Se8B6kUnZ1ZrdM&tbnid=7KzD5K_Avo8_BM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffromtheleft.wordpress.com%2F2010% 2F12%2F25%2F56-year-old-rape-survivor-arrested-for-refusing-tsa-grope%2F&ei=34CgUs3lKYKTkQfztYDoAg&bvm=bv.57155469,d.eW0&psig=AFQjCNFg9jnG9GojNJJMJgkeayOwPrJ7uw&ust=1386335627414358)

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1098520%21/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/grope-web.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=awBzBFvp6TOr3M&tbnid=WY_pR3EYIDjg6M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nydailynews.com%2Fnews%2Fnati onal%2Fcarol-jean-price-accused-groping-tsa-agent-florida-woman-demonstrating-treatment-received-article-1.1098521&ei=JIKgUtKNAsuFkQeHpYGoAQ&bvm=bv.57155469,d.eW0&psig=AFQjCNHPiU5dW-Bi-MlRYTv756P3nm568Q&ust=1386337161076141)


A woman was thrown in jail on battery charges after supposedly “groping” a TSA officer at a Florida airport: (http://www.nbc-2.com/story/18819291/woman-accused-of-groping-tsa-agent)



We might be weak in world geography know how but it may be centuries before US Americans would fund again occupation of Palestinians or bombing of Iraqi civilian shelters to serve mideast dictators/oppressors.

[Henry Rogue]

Every once in awhile we get a little speck of good news on these forums. I welcome that.

[donnay]

Has the point of saturation finally been reached? It seems so, at least until the next "attack".

Or false flag event. Israel is chopping at the bit to bomb Iran back into the stone age.

[donnay]

Al-Qaeda has always had CIA support and the MIC had a lot to gain from endless war. I don't believe in some of the absurd conspiracy theories, though.

Absurd is knowing that the CIA and the MIC invented Al Qaeda and not being able to connect the dots past that.

Smedley D. Butler knew war was a racket. 9/11 was a pretext for an endless war on terror.

[AngryCanadian]

That will change as soon as there no longer is a Democrat in the Oval Office. Sean and Rush will be ready to warm up the war drums.

We shall see. Lets hope that isn't the case. But judging the tweets on twitter by fake libertarians imposing as Republicans. Are you aware that the Republicans are having Military Salute Mondays on twitter? lol.

[thoughtomator]

Just for curiosity, do you think 9/11 was a false flag?

The most obvious clue to that is WTC7. Didn't get hit by a plane, physics of its destruction exactly match that of a controlled demolition, plus many other supporting pieces of data along those lines.

[cajuncocoa]

If libertarians can't win, should we throw our energy into opposing Republicans, for this reason?
Here's what I will do (not encouraging anyone to follow...everyone should make their own voting decisions, but since you asked): I will look at each and every individual candidate without regard for whatever political party to which they belong. I will make my decision accordingly based on where they stand on all issues, especially those to which I assign a priority (foreign policy, civil liberties). If no one passes the cajuncocoa smell-test, I will stay home. Right now, Rand Paul is my candidate.

[Christian Liberty]

Here's what I will do (not encouraging anyone to follow...everyone should make their own voting decisions, but since you asked): I will look at each and every individual candidate without regard for whatever political party to which they belong. I will make my decision accordingly based on where they stand on all issues, especially those to which I assign a priority (foreign policy, civil liberties). If no one passes the cajuncocoa smell-test, I will stay home. Right now, Rand Paul is my candidate.

My post was actually a little more black and white than I intended. I, too am supporting Rand Paul, despite him not being a "libertarian" in the strictest sense of that word. And I totally agree that the party doesn't matter, in and of itself. I assume you all knew I wasn't referring to libertarian leaning Republicans like the Pauls (Ron Paul is definitely more libertarian than Republican, as well) when I threw that out there.

I was really intending to compare the establishment "right" to the establishment "left" when I made by statement. I had "Republicans" like John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, etc. in mind when I made my statement, as compared to Democrats like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Barack Obama (I know he can't run again, but simply for the sake of argument), etc. If faced with a choice between an establishment Republican and an establishment Dem, I think a Dem is preferable, because of the reasons you pointed out...

[Lucille]

999 was on FOX this morning. From what I gathered, he believes the rise in "isolationism" is solely because the wrong warmongers are in charge.