roachboy

isolationism is not an option.
neither is american unilateral military adventurism.
both are wholly obsolete, though the latter continues to twitch about as a function of the character of american "democracy" which only allows for no-confidence votes one day every 4 years.
false binary based on choices outmoded.

not sure what the alternative would be, though, simply because nothing coherent has been tried yet. something has been tried--the clinton model of multi-lateral agreements and a kind of inept usage of the military is a variant of the bush model of bilateral agreements and lunatic military action (lunatic because launched without a plan, because inept on a kind of mind-boggling scale.) so something has been tried---two ways of trying to figure out how to deal with globalizing capitalism, one geared slightly more toward a different status for nation-states, the other in preservation of the existing ideologcal notion of nation-states--both hobbled because the systems that are emerging outstrip thinking rooted in the older political order, older ways of thinking--but are still in the making, so nothing is certain.

and that is what freaks people out--nothing is certain.
in that context, isolationism is nothimg more than an incoherent fantasy of running away.

but this is a difficult process, trying to figure out how to think about a socio-economic configuration--or vast interlocked systems that would comprise--loosely---a configuration. i dont see anyone anywhere who fully has their head around this. so this globalizing capitalism--this multiplicity of processes--unfolds as if inevitably because the main actors think it is, and everything happens across great uncertainty with folk making up views of it as they go along.

i think this is why the cliche exists: may you not live in interesting times.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite