Free Post on Government

     The role of government in the U.S. should be more isolationist than its current form, which seems like it wants to intervene in every conflict that arises in the world. What originally spurred growth in the U.S. prior to the 1920's was a relative adherence to that rule, being truly active only in the west hemispheric portion that was relatively close geographically to the Continental United States. Of coarse they were involved in conflict, but it was close enough to be considered a feasible variable in national security. In addition, the conflicts helped to build up the size and power of the United States as a whole and did not solely appease a specific special interests group, like the annex of Texas. It can certainly be argued that Hawaii was added due to its crops which were profitable to the corporations in that field, but this argument does not consider other implications which set this event aside from the ones that trouble contemporary times. First, and to stress a previous point, Hawaii is quite close to the U.S.A. Thus, it can be seen as a strategic base to directly protect the U.S. as it is advantageous to post soldiers there. One of the common misconceptions that plague most people of the modern age is that people who are against foreign intervention are against any sort of intervention. Although a few individuals might reflect this ideology, most obviously do want the U.S. to focus its efforts on keeping peace. The key difference is that many people do not want to support wars half way around the world for an indefinite period of time with no clear victory or defeat; such a standard tends to decrease morale and hamper the American Spirit which is still valued today. Also, Hawaii had a very pro-American stance just before annexation,  to the point where they more or less asked for it. Its populace had been changed so that a significant amount of well-off Americans inhabited it. Third, it was also good for national trade. Now one might claim that intervention in the middle east is good for oil companies, but again such a point fails to consider the differences. Most oil companies are based in far-off foreign operations as that is where they obtain most of their staple product. The addition of Hawaii directly gave the U.S. a much-needed and otherwise nigh-unobtainable boost to various crops of profit and import. When oil companies receive control over oil, the price rarely goes down at all. In contrast, a conflict in this region tends to shoot the price up. Thus intervention in this region only helps the corporations and actually hurts the general U.S. population as a whole. Most people are indeed for corporations if they can provide the whole of the U.S. with something necessary and ethical. One may say that times have changed, and that the U.S. can never revert back to its isolationist roots. But such thinking is fatalistic and does not adequately address the problems of modernity. As time goes on, most societies become more industrial and as a consequence demand more autonomy. Whether American decides to intervene or not, the world will continue to progress nonetheless. Such believes to intervene anywhere where any lobbying group or rebel faction demands it is not plausible and more of a reflection of the country's rightward shift into Neconservativism. Just over fifty years ago Eisenhower, a Republican president and World War Two general, commented that the U.S. as it was could not hold itself together if it continued to hold so many bases so far away. If such a conservative and military-minded individual would think that way in a relatively recent period of time, it speaks volumes to the sordid state of affairs that America is in today.