The Evolution of American Isolationism

The Evolution of American Isolationism â€Å"Isolationism† is a government policy or doctrine of taking no role in the affairs of other nations. A government’s policy of isolationism, which that government may or may not officially acknowledge, is characterized by a reluctance or refusal to enter into treaties, alliances, trade commitments, or other international agreements. Supporters of isolationism, known as â€Å"isolationists,† argue that it allows the nation to devote all of its resources and efforts to its own advancement by remaining at peace and avoiding binding responsibilities to other nations. American Isolationism While it has been practiced to some degree in U.S. foreign policy since before the War for Independence, isolationism in the United States has never been about a total avoidance of the rest of the world. Only a handful of American isolationists advocated the complete removal of the nation from the world stage. Instead, most American isolationists have pushed for the avoidance of the nation’s involvement in what Thomas Jefferson called â€Å"entangling alliances.† Instead, U.S. isolationists have held that America could and should use its wide-ranging influence and economic strength to encourage the ideals of freedom and democracy in other nations by means of negotiation rather than warfare. Isolationism refers to Americas longstanding reluctance to become involved in European alliances and wars. Isolationists held the view that Americas perspective on the world was different from that of European societies and that America could advance the cause of freedom and democracy by means other than war. American Isolationism Born in the Colonial Period Isolationist feelings in America dates back to the colonial period. The last thing many American colonists wanted was any continued involvement with the European governments that had denied them religious and economic freedom and kept them enmeshed in wars. Indeed, they took comfort in the fact that they were now effectively â€Å"isolated† from Europe by the vastness of the Atlantic Ocean. Despite an eventual alliance with France during the War for Independence, the basis of American isolationism can is found in Thomas Paine’s famed paper Common Sense, published in 1776. Paine’s impassioned arguments against foreign alliances drove the delegates to the Continental Congress to oppose the alliance with France until it became obvious that the revolution would be lost without it.   Twenty years and an independent nation later, President George Washington memorably spelled out the intent of American isolationism in his Farewell Address: â€Å"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.† Washington’s opinions of isolationism were widely accepted. As a result of his Neutrality Proclamation of 1793, the U.S. dissolved its alliance with France. And in 1801, the nation’s third president, Thomas Jefferson, in his inaugural address, summed up American isolationism as a doctrine of peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none†¦Ã¢â‚¬ Ã‚   The 19th Century: The Decline of US Isolationism Through the first half of the 19th century, America managed to maintain its political isolation despite its rapid industrial and economic growth and status as a world power. Historians again suggest that the nation’s geographical isolation from Europe continued to allow the U.S. to avoid the â€Å"entangling alliances† feared by the Founding Fathers. Without abandoning its policy of limited isolationism, the United States expanded its own borders from coast-to-coast and began creating territorial empires in the Pacific and the  Caribbean during the 1800s. Without forming binding alliances with Europe or any of the nations involved, the U.S. fought three wars: the War of 1812, the Mexican War, and the Spanish-American War. In 1823, the Monroe Doctrine boldly declared that the United States would consider the colonization of any independent nation in North or South America by a European nation to be an act of war. In delivering the historic decree, President James Monroe voiced the isolationist view, stating, â€Å"In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do.† But by the mid-1800s, a combination of world events began to test the resolve of American isolationists: The expansion of the German and Japanese military industrial empires that would eventually immerse the United States in two world wars had begun.Though short-lived, the occupation of the Philippines by the United States during the Spanish-American war had inserted American interests into the Western Pacific islands - an area generally considered to be part of Japan’s sphere of influence.Steamships, undersea communications cables, and radio enhanced America’s stature in world trade, but at the same time, brought her closer to her potential enemies. Within the United States itself, as industrialized mega-cities grew, small-town rural America - long the source of isolationist feelings - shrank. The 20th Century: The End of US Isolationism   World War I (1914 to 1919) Though actual battle never touched her shores, America’s participation in World War I marked the nation’s first departure from its historic isolationist policy. During the conflict, the United States entered into binding alliances with the United Kingdom, France, Russia, Italy, Belgium, and Serbia to oppose the Central Powers of Austria-Hungary, Germany, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire. However, after the war, the United States returned to its isolationist roots by immediately ending all of its war-related European commitments. Against the recommendation of President Woodrow Wilson, the U.S. Senate rejected the war-ending Treaty of Versailles, because it would have required the U.S. to join the League of Nations. As America struggled through the Great Depression from 1929 to 1941, the nation’s foreign affairs took a back seat to economic survival. To protect U.S. manufacturers from foreign competition, the government imposed high tariffs on imported goods. World War I also brought an end to America’s historically open attitude toward immigration. Between the pre-war years of 1900 and 1920, the nation had admitted over 14.5 million immigrants. After the passage of the Immigration Act of 1917, fewer than 150,000 new immigrants had been allowed to enter the U.S. by 1929. The law restricted the immigration of â€Å"undesirables† from other countries, including â€Å"idiots, imbeciles, epileptics, alcoholics, poor, criminals, beggars, any person suffering attacks of insanity†¦Ã¢â‚¬  World War II (1939 to 1945) While avoiding the conflict until 1941, World War II marked a turning point for American isolationism. As Germany and Italy swept through Europe and North Africa, and Japan began taking over Eastern Asia, many Americans started to fear that the Axis powers might invade the Western Hemisphere next. By the end of 1940, American public opinion had started to shift in favor of using U.S. military forces to help defeat the Axis.   Still, nearly one million Americans supported the America First Committee, organized in 1940 to oppose the nation’s involvement in the war. Despite pressure from isolationists, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proceeded with his administration’s plans to assist the nations targeted by the Axis in ways not requiring direct military intervention. Even in the face of Axis successes, a majority of Americans continued to oppose actual U.S. military intervention. That all changed on the morning of December 7, 1941, when naval forces of Japan launched a sneak attack on the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. On December 8, 1941, America declared war on Japan. Two days later, the America First Committee disbanded.   After World War II, the United States helped establish and became a charter member of the United Nations in October 1945. At the same time, the emerging threat posed by Russia under Joseph Stalin and the specter of communism that would soon result in the Cold War effectively lowered the curtain on the golden age of American isolationism. War on Terror: A Rebirth of Isolationism? While the terrorist attacks of Sept 11, 2001, initially spawned a spirit of nationalism unseen in America since World War II, the ensuing War on Terror may have resulted in the return  of American isolationism. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq claimed thousands of American lives. At home, Americans fretted through a slow and fragile recovery from a Great Recession many economists compared to the Great Depression of 1929. Suffering from war abroad and a failing economy at home, America found itself in a situation very much like that of the late  1940s when isolationist feelings prevailed. Now as the threat of another war in Syria looms, a growing number of Americans, including some policymakers, are questioning the wisdom of further U.S. involvement. â€Å"We are not the world’s policeman, nor its judge and jury,† stated U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Florida) joining a bipartisan group of lawmakers arguing against U.S. military intervention in Syria. â€Å"Our own needs in America are great, and they come first.† In his first major speech after winning the 2016 presidential election, President-Elect Donald Trump expressed the isolationist ideology that became one of his campaign slogans - â€Å"America first.† â€Å"There is no global anthem, no global currency, no certificate of global citizenship,† Mr. Trump  said on December 1, 2016. â€Å"We pledge allegiance to one flag, and that flag is the American flag. From now on, its going to be America first. In their words, Rep. Grayson, a progressive Democrat, and President-Elect Trump, a conservative Republican, may have announced the rebirth of American isolationism.

Lee v. Weisman (1992) - Prayers at School Graduation

Lee v. Weisman (1992) - Prayers at School Graduation How far can a school go when it comes to accommodating the religious beliefs of students and parents? Many schools have traditionally had someone offer prayers at important school events like graduations, but critics argue that such prayers violate the separation of church and state because they mean that the government is endorsing particular religious beliefs. Fast Facts: Lee v. Weisman Case Argued: November 6, 1991Decision Issued:Â  June 24, 1992Petitioner: Robert E. LeeRespondent: Daniel WeismanKey Question: Did letting a religious officiant offer a prayer during an official public school ceremony violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?Majority Decision: Justices Blackmun, O’Connor, Stevens, Kennedy, and SouterDissenting: Justices Rehnquist, White, Scalia, and ThomasRuling: Since the graduation was state-sponsored, the prayer was deemed in violation of the Establishment Clause. Background Information Nathan Bishop Middle School in Providence, RI, traditionally invited clergy to offer prayers at graduation ceremonies. Deborah Weisman and her father, Daniel, both of whom were Jewish, challenged the policy and filed suit in court, arguing that the school had turned itself into a house of worship after a rabbis benediction. At the disputed graduation, the rabbi thanked for: ...the legacy of America where diversity is celebrated...O God, we are grateful for the learning which we have celebrated on this joyous commencement...we give thanks to you, Lord, for keeping us alive, sustaining us and allowing us to reach this special, happy occasion. With help from the Bush administration, the school board argued that the prayer was not an endorsement of religion or of any religious doctrines. The Weismans were supported by the ACLU and other groups interested in religious freedom. Both the district and appellate courts agreed with the Weismans and found the practice of offering prayers unconstitutional. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court where the administration asked it to overturn the three-prong test created in Lemon v. Kurtzman. Court Decision Arguments were made on November 6th, 1991. On June 24th 1992, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that prayers during school graduation violate the Establishment Clause. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy found that officially sanctioned prayers in public schools were so clearly a violation that the case could be decided without relying upon the Courts earlier church/separation precedents, thus avoiding questions about the Lemon Test entirely. According to Kennedy, the governments involvement in religious exercises at graduation is pervasive and unavoidable. The state creates both public and peer pressure on students to rise for and remain silent during prayers. State officials not only determine that an invocation and benediction should be given, but also select the religious participant and provide guidelines for the content of the nonsectarian prayers. The Court viewed this extensive state participation as coercive in the elementary and secondary school settings. The state in effect required participation in a religious exercise, since the option of not attending one of lifes most significant occasions was no real choice. At a minimum, the Court concluded, the Establishment Clause guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise. What to most believers may seem nothing more than a reasonable request that the nonbeliever respect their religious practices, in a school context may appear to the nonbeliever or dissenter to be an attempt to employ the machinery of the State to enforce a religious orthodoxy. Although a person could stand for the prayer merely as a sign of respect for others, such an action could justifiably be interpreted as accepting the message. The control held by teachers and principals over the students actions forces those graduating to submit to the standards of behavior. This is sometimes referred to as the Coercion Test. Graduation prayers fail this test because they put impermissible pressure on students to participate in, or at least show respect for, the prayer. In a dictum, Justice Kennedy wrote about the importance of the separating church and state: The First Amendments Religion Clauses mean that religious beliefs and religious expression are too precious to be either proscribed or prescribed by the State. The design of the Constitution is that preservation and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility and a choice committed to the private sphere, which itself is promised freedom to pursue that mission. [...] A state-created orthodoxy puts at grave risk that freedom of belief and conscience which are the sole assurance that religious faith is real, not imposed. In a sarcastic and scathing dissent, Justice Scalia said that prayer is a common and accepted practice of bringing people together and the government should be allowed to promote it. The fact that prayers can cause division for those who disagree with or are even offended by the content simply wasnt relevant, as far as he was concerned. He also didnt bother to explain how sectarian prayers from one religion could unify people of many different religions, never mind people with no religion at all. Significance This decision failed to reverse the standards established by the Court in Lemon. Instead, this ruling extended the prohibition of school prayer to graduation ceremonies and refused to accept the idea that a student would not be harmed by standing during the prayer without sharing the message contained in the prayer.

IgG deficiency Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

IgG deficiency - Case Study Example IgG1 and IgG3 subclasses have antibodies that act on protein antigens and therefore inhibit roles of the antigens. Antibodies of IgG2 and IgG4, however, acts on antigens of â€Å"carbohydrates and polysaccharide† to impair functions of the antigens (Porth, 2011, p. 361). Defficiency of IgG2 leads to â€Å"sinusitis, otitis media, and pneumonia† that arise from bacteria that are embedded in polysaccharides. Examples of such bacteria are â€Å"S. pneumonia, H. influenza type b, and N. meningitidis† (p. 361). McMillan, Feigin, DeAngelis, & Jones (2006), however, argue that IgG4, unlike the other subclasses, do not have a binding effect that leads to cytotoxicity. No cause of IgG has been identified but genetics is suspected o play a significant role. Parents transfer genes to their children and the genes are responsible for protein development in the body of the offspring. Transferred defective gene is likely to imply defective development of elements of cells that relate to that gene and this suggest high susceptibility of IgG deficiency for people whose parents have the complication (Johns Hopkins University, n.d.). There is no treatment for IgG deficiency but management approaches exist. the approaches target specific infection that arise from the deficiency and not the deficiency. Some of the management approaches, according to The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2015), are vaccine against pneumonia and other live vaccines. â€Å"OPV2, BCG, yellow fever,† vaccines are however contraindicated. The recommended vaccines reduce susceptibility to the infections and therefore undermine pathophyliology of IgG deficiency (n.p. ). While these aim at preventing occurrence of associated complication, treatment of the complication is an alternative measure to managing IgG deficiency. Infections such as allergies may reoccur and require constant antibiotic medication. In extreme cases, however, direct