Democrats Want to Move America Forward-TO THE PAST

Should America go Back into the cocoon it was in the 1920s and 30s? Between World War's I and II , the United States "withdrew" from the world of nations. We were determined to stay away from world problems until they reached our shores as they eventually did in Hawaii, in 1941. It was a time where the prevailing wisdom was that if we were neutral, we would actually be allowed to stay that way.

Despite the fancy words uttered in Berlin, Senator Barack Obama is preaching a return to the days of the 1930s. He is not seeking for America to become a citizen of the world, but seeking to RETREAT from that position. From dismantling free trade agreements such as NAFTA, to bringing our heroes home to spend those monies within our own shores, the truth about the Democratic party policy, is the change that they have been talking about is, in actuality a step backward. The essay below from today's NY Post was written by Victor Davis Hanson, it outlines the Democrat's trend toward Isolationism:

AS GOES AMERICA, GOES THE WORLD
Victor Davis Hanson

RUSSIA invades Georgia. China jails dissidents. China and India pollute at unimaginable levels. Gulf monar chies make trillions from jacked-up oil prices. Islamic terrorists keep car bombing. Meanwhile, Europe offers moral lectures, while Japan and South Korea shrug and watch - all in a globalized world that tunes into the Olympics each night from Beijing. "Citizens of the world" were supposed to share,in relative harmony, our new "Planet Earth," which was to have followed from a system of free trade, electronic communications, diplomacy and shared consumer capitalism.

But was that ever quite true? In reality, to the extent globalism worked, it followed from three unspoken assumptions:

First, the US economy would keep importing goods from abroad to drive international economic growth.

Second, the US military would keep the sea-lanes open, and trade and travel protected. The Americans, as global sheriff, would deal with the occasional menace, like a Moammar al-Khadafy, Slobodan Milosevic, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il or the Taliban.

Third, America would ignore ankle-biting allies and remain engaged with the world - like a nurturing mom who at times must put up with the petulance of dependent teenagers.

But there've been a number of signs recently that globalization may soon lose its US parent.

The United States may be the most free, stable and meritocratic nation, but its resources and patience are not unlimited. It pays more than a half trillion dollars a year to import $115-a-barrel oil that's often pumped at a cost of about $5.

The Chinese, Japanese and Europeans hold trillions of dollars in US bonds - the result of massive trade deficits. The American dollar is at historic lows. We are piling up staggering national debt. Over 12 million live here illegally and freely transfer more than $50 billion annually to Mexico and Latin America.

Our military, after deposing Milosevic, the Taliban and Saddam, is tired. And Americans are increasingly becoming more sensitive to the cheap criticism of global moralists. But as America turns ever so slightly inward, the new globalized world will revert to a far poorer (and more dangerous) place.

Liberals like Barack Obama speak out against new free-trade agreements and want existing accords like NAFTA readjusted. More Americans are furious at the costs of illegal immigration - and are moving to stop it. The foreign remittances that help prop up Latin America are threatened by any change in US immigration attitude.

Meanwhile, the hypocrisy becomes harder to take. After all, it is easy for self-appointed moralists to complain that terrorists don't enjoy Miranda rights at Guantanamo, but it'd be hard to do much about the Russian military invading Georgia's democracy and bombing its cities.

Al Gore crisscrosses the country, pontificating about Americans' carbon footprints. But he could do far better to fly to China to convince them not to open 500 new coal-burning power plants.

It has been chic to chant "No blood for oil" about Iraq's petroleum - petroleum that, in fact, is now administered by a constitutional republic. But such sloganeering would be better directed at China's sweetheart oil deals with Sudan that enable the mass murdering in Darfur.

Due to climbing prices and high taxes, gasoline consumption is declining in the West, but its use is rising in other places, where it's either untaxed or subsidized.

So, what a richer but more critical world has forgotten is that in large part America was the model, not the villain - and that postwar globalization was always a form of engaged Americanization that enriched and protected billions.

Yet globalization, in all its manifestations, will run out of steam the moment we tire of fueling it, as the world returns instead to the mindset of the 1930s - with protectionist tariffs; weak, disarmed democracies; an isolationist America; predatory dictatorships; and a demoralized gloom-and-doom Western elite.

If America adopts the protectionist trade policies of Japan or China, global profits plummet. If our armed forces follow the European lead of demilitarization and inaction, rogue states advance. If we were to treat the environment as do China and India, the world would become quickly a lost cause

If we flee Iraq and call off the War on Terror, jihadists will regroup, not disband. When the Russians attack the next democracy, they won't listen to the United Nations, the European Union or Michael Moore.

We may be on our way back to an old world, where the strong do as they will, and the weak suffer as they must.