Isolationism

   The time may be ripe for renewed demands from the Radical Righteous to isolate America from alleged dangers posed by dealings with other nations.
   "Close the borders," they say. "America for the Americans," they chant, insisting that the U.S. is big enough and strong enough to survive and grow on its own, with no need to have anything to do with others.
   That may have been true in the 19th Century, when there was plenty of room to expand westward. But that's not true today.
   It's tempting to withdraw into one's shell, like some kind of national turtle or armadillo. On a personal level, it may be psychologically or emotionally helpful, short term. If no one can get in, you can't get hurt. The downside is that you have few, if any, personal relationships.
   On a national economic level, this strategy may also be helpful for a brief time. But, like the turtle or armadillo, eventually the creature must come out of its shell or unwind and extend itself beyond the protective shell in order to survive.
   Just as a person cannot grow emotionally without a strong relationship, a nation cannot grow economically without strong trading relationships with others. History has shown that economic isolationism doesn't work.
   Adam Smith, the founder of modern economics, knew that, and said as much some 250 years ago. The principle of growth through trade remains a solid theme in economics. This was proven again nearly 100 years ago, when the U.S. tried to shield itself from a worldwide economic slide by withdrawing into its shell and hardening a protective tariff wall to prevent imports. However, other nations did the same, so international trade tanked and the worldwide Depression worsened.
   
   Business executives are often the first to lead the cheer for free competition, but usually only to the extent that the game is rigged in their favor. Similarly, politicians supported by corporate donations follow the "free enterprise" line and do their paid-for best to smooth the high road to profits for their corporate donors and supporters.
   Mercantilism, the dominant economic policy in the 17th and 18th Centuries, at root has this basic theme: Whoever gathers the most gold wins. To do this, nations in the colonial era limited imports to raw materials and imposed high tariffs to keep out competition. At the same time, the finished products were exported to the colonies and to other nations at high profits, making the home country more wealthy at the expense of others.
   Eventually, however, the imbalance was so strong as to bring poverty to others at their own expense while the dominant country had plenty of cash but little else. It reduced others to beggary while the wealthy wallowed in money.
   So as the gap between the super-wealthy one percent and the rest of the working population widens, we can expect to hear more cries from the top that the way to prosperity is to strengthen the tariff walls, keep out competition, ease the alleged burden on the wealthy and wait while the benefits trickle down to the rest of the population.
   Except for one thing. Voodoo economics, as it was called during the era of Reaganomics, doesn't work, and it never has.