Excuse me? You’re not aware of the right’s current position of foreign wars?
There’s nothing new here. It goes all the way back to the founding of the U.S. In 1796 George Washington (assisted by Hamilton and Monroe) went on for several pages in his Farewell Address about the dangers of foreign entanglements. Here’s just a portion of what he had to say.
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.
Our detached and distant situation invites and
enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain
one people under an efficient government, the period
is not far off when we may defy material injury from
external annoyance; when we may take such an
attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any
time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when
belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making
acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving
us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as
our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.
Why forgo the advantages of so peculiar a
situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign
ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that
of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and
prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship,
interest, humor, or caprice?
And speaking of Monroe, in 1823 he declared that not only should Europe stay out of South America, but as for U.S. interests:
Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none.
And during the debate over the League of Nations, Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge’s attitude toward a world organization was summed upin his remarks to Congress.
In the prosecution of the war we gave unstintedly American lives and American treasure. When the war closed we had 3,000,000 men under arms. We were turning the country into a vast workshop for war. We advanced ten billions to our allies. We refused no assistance that we could possibly render. All the great energy and power of the Republic were put at the service of the good cause. We have not been ungenerous. We have been devoted to the cause of freedom, humanity, and civilization everywhere. Now we are asked, in the making of peace, to sacrifice our sovereignty in important respects, to involve ourselves almost without limit in the affairs of other nations and to yield up policies and rights which we have maintained throughout our history. We are asked to incur liabilities to an unlimited extent and furnish assets at the same time which no man can measure. I think it is not only our right but our duty to determine how far we shall go.
Of course, the very phrase “America First” dates to the isolation movement in the years before Pearl Harbor.
Different names, different targets, but the virus has been here for 250 years.
You guys do live in some sort of Liberal bubble don’t you?
The MAGA / right see globalism as a bad thing because what they see is their jobs and industries being outsourced or offshored.
The average Pennsylvania steelworker doesn’t care if Mexico or Japan or whoever gets more prosperous if the local plant get shut down.
Allow me to educate you.
The “America First” isolationist dogma goes back to at least before WWI where regular Americans question why their hard earn money should go to support other nations or their soldiers should be sent overseas to fight their foreign wars.
Yes, America is the best. But is it really our job to force the rest of the world to be better? Be better on your own!
If by “the best”, you mean down at #17.
And by an aggregated “happiness index”, the US is down at #22.
And with a Gini index of 41.8, America is the worst among all developed nations in the world for wealth inequality.
The whole intent of MAGA cultists is to make all this much worse.
I think that’s basically it. Mrs. Odesio, a native Arkansan, will often point out what industries used to be in the smaller towns here in the state. Usually because when we moved here I would frequently ask when driving through a small town, “What the hell do people do for a living here?” She might point out that this town used to have a shoe factory, this other place used to make seats for boats, and over here there was a factory that made railcars. A lot of those places started disappearing in the 70s and most were gone by the 1990s.
To a lot of those people, they just know the decent jobs that were available to grandpa are now done in other countries. Or as H. Ross Perot said of NAFTA, “That giant sucking sound” you hear is the sound of U.S. jobs going to Mexico.
And thus they switched from a system in which they did have representatives that they voted for in Europe making decisions that affected them, to the current system in which the EU is still making decisions that affect Great Britain, but Britain no longer has representatives.
And continue to be fed bullshit line that this is something other than capitalism itself that’s failed them.
Ah but we are # in terms of GDP and #1 militarily. So if all you care about is wealth and power, that’s a plus!
Maybe that’s a uniquely American view. Other countries can do a lot of things better than we do. But there’s no way in hell they can MAKE us do it their way!
You want to be “happy” or do you want to kick ass and get paid?
I saw this myself when I was in college. My university is a fairly prestigious school known mostly for engineering and business that was in the shadow of an mostly defunct Bethlehem Steel mill. Some years after I graduated, the steel mill was replaced with a steel mill themed casino and resort center. Pittsburgh has seen a similar transformation away from steel to more tech and life sciences and some advanced manufacturing.
The thing is, a lot of these tech jobs aren’t really accessible for most people.
Economically speaking, yes, I know free trade is generally a good thing as comparative advantages tend to make goods more affordable. But most people’s economic world tends to consist of their job and what they can afford.
By a highly disputed index-
However, several aspects of the index have received criticism. Some scholars have criticized how the factors are weighed, in particular how an additional year of life expectancy is valued differently between countries;[2][3] and the limited factors it considers, noting the omission of factors such as the levels of distributional and gender inequality.[4] In response to the former, the UNDP introduced the inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI) in its 2010 report, and in response to the latter the Gender Development Index (GDI) was introduced in the 1995 report.[5][6] Others have criticized the perceived oversimplification of using a single number per country.[7][8]
It’s a combination of nativist thinking (“I want to buy from American producers!”) combined with a notion that the way things were in the 1950s and 1960s is the natural and normal state of affairs.
The people who are against globalism don’t understand that the post-WWII economic landscape was a huge aberration, and that the US was dominant primarily because of the first-world economic powers of that era, we were the only ones who came out of WWII with intact industries, and even more than that, thriving industries. So we were able to dominate many market sectors and supply the world with products for some period of time, until the other nations got their footing and started to compete with us.
Fast forward to 2026, and these people see globalism as giving away “our” jobs to those people elsewhere, when they should rightfully be in the US, and all those goods and services being produced by Americans.
Never mind the ideas of competitive advantage, or the fact that we’re somewhat the victims of our own success with higher labor costs due to more stringent labor and safety laws versus places like China, Vietnam, and Mexico. In their minds, that’s all secondary to where the jobs ought to be.
It’s a philosophy born out of ignorance, but good luck explaining that to them.
Most people are ignorant. That’s why they teach the Prisoner’s Dilemma game theory thought experiment in business school. People make decisions based on what they perceive is in their immediate best interest given the information they are presented, even when mutual cooperation would produce better outcomes.
My conservative inlaws are always going on about some crap they bought at the local thrift store that’s “Made in America”. They say they wouldn’t mind paying a bit more for stuff made in America but they bitch about high prices just as much too.
I feel this is the key factor. The magas just assume America is superior to all other countries. Therefore, the only reason America isn’t ruling the world, economically and politically, is because we’ve chosen to accept artificial restrictions on our powers in order that other countries can pretend to be our equals.
They hold similar feelings on race, in which they assume white people are superior to all other races. The only reason white people aren’t ruling everything is because of artificial restrictions that give other races an advantage.
Case in point:
Because there must be bogeymen to explain economic disruption and displacement, which are features, not bugs, of capitalism. Capitalism, thus far, is the only economic system that has lifted millions (billions?) of people out of the soul-crushing poverty that was typical for most people for most of human history.
Is that because capitalism is inherently benevolent? Nope. It’s just ruthlessly efficient, so it needs limits and guardrails (e.g., no insider trading or predatory pricing or gouging or monopolies). The best capitalism is one that surrenders maximum profits for the best overall human benefits. The Elizabeth Warren Capitalism, if you will, which is opposed fiercely by the super wealthy.
But even if Warren had her way, there would still be disruption and displacement, which is why Dems push for training in emerging industries (e.g., green), also fiercely opposed by multiple lobbies.
People don’t understand Comparative (not Competitive) Advantage Theory, which is widely proven and accepted and that shows free trade increases the standard of living in all nations, even those with an across-the-board competitive disadvantage.
They’d rather believe charlatans like Trump who promise them they’ll bring back manufacturing jobs, and family farms, and coal, etc., and create prosperity by tariffing the shit out of those foreign bastards who have been taking advantage of us.
It amuses me to no end that my little Honda Ridgeline is the most “American” pickup truck out there, with 75% US parts and it’s assembled in Alabama.
But those folks you mentioned probably couldn’t wrap their head around the idea that a Honda could be more American than a big Ford dually.
This was impressed on American brains by My Big Fat Greek Wedding, in which Gus was explicitly kseno-phobic.
If anyone can remember a little over 26 years back, when the SDMB was already a thing, the Battle in Seattle against the World Trade Organization. When anti-globalism was the biggest issue on the left. I don’t even know any longer how to square my memories of another time with what nowadays passes for reality.
You are far from alone in that. Reality has utterly jumped the shark and we have entered a Twilight Zone episode about alternate timeline(s).
The Left was afraid of economic exploitation by ruthless, amoral international corporations. The modern Right thinks that ruthless, amoral international corporations are insufficiently cruel and bigoted and prioritizes hatred over self interest.
Also, the Left tends to see international-anything as an extension of the Evil Americans while the Right sees it as an extension of the Evil Jews and/or Communists.
At this point I’m just hoping the civilization-ending meteor arrives soon.