Are people just not interested in U.S. foreign policy?

The Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States of America in 2008 seems to have not known Africa was a continent and seemed largely ignorant and apathetic towards having information about political topics, especially international ones. And she got a lot of support and defense for that position from people with anti-intellectual sentiments.

“People” is of course a large and varied group. So when you say “people”, yes there are many people who are ignorant (and/or in self-denial, because it would be emotionally terrifying to their ego-identity to notice what’s actually happening in the world and that they are supporting it) and disinterested in US foreign policy, including many candidates and people in elected office. And there are far too many people who don’t know or care and/or who subscribe to comforting/inciting backwards notions offered by the corporate media. (I define “too many” as enough to possibly elect people such as Palin or Trump or Bachmann). And, there are others who are interested.

Demographics and how systems of ideas and emotions permeate them are complex. In general, I think there’s far too much ignorance, apathy, and denial out there, greatly aided by the corporate media’s intentional narratives and omission of information.

Similarly for policy, it’s too complicated and nearly meaningless to make blanket statements about what’s more important. Everything on the planet is linked in some way. Foreign policy involves the entire planet so it is more significant, but the level of influence is greater on domestic issues because of jurisdiction. For example, international trade treaties are massively significant, especially if they involve surrendering national rights to set environmental policies that affect international corporations (e.g. TPP), as are wars. But our government has more direct control over what happens here in the USA. I also think that there’s yet another sphere of politics which the media ignores because it is the tool of one faction, and that is international mega-corporations and the mega-rich versus ordinary people and their influence on governments and laws (and domination of the economy via wealth and property accumulation), in which the corporations have been increasing their domination for a long time. That last sphere seems more important that the national or international level, and less important that the level of environmental/ecosystem destruction and species extinction.

It should come as no surprise that Americans exhibit little interest in U S foreign policy. Americans in general are appallingly ignorant of the world they live in, and this trend is accelerating right in step with the other factors defining us as a nation of dummies. The evidence is beyond dispute for anyone paying attention.

Speaking for myself: I’m traveling on business and don’t have time this week to be as active as usual.

As far as the Sanders resolution goes – I have no problem with its failure. It sets a terrible precedent. The US would have the option of micro-managing every other nation’s foreign policy, which I think is imperialistic, stupid, and breaking the sovereignty if every country that claims to be our partner,

If Sanders wants to anything useful, he ought to start with getting the War Powers Act to deal with Iraq and Afghanistan 17 years later….

I care a lot about foreign policy, but I have no faith in the current administration to do anything positive in any way,

@elbanditoroso: “As far as the Sanders resolution goes – I have no problem with its failure. It sets a terrible precedent. The US would have the option of micro-managing every other nation’s foreign policy, which I think is imperialistic, stupid, and breaking the sovereignty if every country that claims to be our partner,”

I’d love to hear your reasoning here. How in the world is the stopping of participating in the atrocities in Yemen imperialistic?

Nope, more people are interested in finding out if Selena Gomez was really fat-shamed, or if she is just being overly sensitive.

Foreign and domestic policy are linked at the hip, but domestic policy understandably draws the focus of our citizenry, which is much more aware of domestic and local issues. But the decline in public concern with foreign affairs is consistent with the factors aggravating the trend. Such factors as the precipitous decline in print journalism and particularly the virtual elimination of emphasis on civic education in the nation’s beleaguered public schools. All of the combined rot portends a grim future regarding civic responsibility.

I am very interested in US foreign policy, I am just not interested in discussing it with strangers on the internet.

@canidmajor: “I am very interested in US foreign policy, I am just not interested in discussing it with strangers on the internet.”

Are you interested in talking about domestic issues with strangers on the internet?

@thisismyusername: “Are you interested in talking about domestic issues with strangers on the internet?”

@canidmajor – I did go back, and it appears that it’s ok to chat about “domestic” issues with strangers on the internet. What’s the difference here? Curious.

Well. We’ve (the US) gone from bad, to worse, to hypocritical with such things. I mean. We’re all upset about Russia messing with our elections, when we’ve been super guilty of the same in other countries.

Most people definitely don’t care about foreign policy. I guess it’s potentially low on their priority lists though.

Well, @thisismyusername, I thought it would be just flat out rude to say that I just don’t want to discuss this with you, on your question, because I find your attitude to be objectionable about most things.

Does that explain it better?

^ Had a suspicion you were just trolling. Didn’t know you were game for this.

This should get fun….

:)

this is great. :)

“Ah, Fluther, gotta love it. When a question asks for specific opinions on a thing, there are always a couple who have to express that they find it not worth expressing an opinion. Which kind of makes a statement of its own kind.

Thank you to those who expressed actual opinions.”

It isn’t so much that people aren’t interested in foreign policy, people in general aren’t interested in almost everything, except what’s going on in Hollywood and sports. I am constantly amazed that so many people don’t seem to watch the news, where they could learn so much about the dangers that face us all every day.

@thisis – I think you are misunderstanding what I wrote, or perhaps I need to be clearer.

I am not in favor of Saudis beating the crap of Yemenis. I am not against seeing the whole Yemen conflict stop. I really don’t care who ‘wins’ in Yemen – it’s one set of terrorists versus another set of corrupt politicians. I don’t give a care about what the end game is. The Yemen Civil War is just another Arab/Moslem tribal conflict.

What I do have a problem with is the colossal arrogance of the United States to pass laws that essentially dictate another country’s foreign policy. The Saudis bought the arms from us. Now Sanders decides that he doesn’t like what the Saudis are doing.

What gall he has to tell Saudi Arabia what its foreign policy should be. Sure, patch it up with “humanitarian benefit” but in the end, a noisy senator from New Hampshire is trying to force his own version of foreign policy on a sovereign country. That is the problem.

Would the US like it some other country’s politicians tried that on us? Doubtful.

@thisis – the question you asked me is far too glib and simplistic

you wrote: How in the world is the stopping of participating in the atrocities in Yemen imperialistic?

It is imperialistic of the US (or any other country) to attempt to manage another country’s foreign affairs. That’s what the British Empire tried to do. And the French when they ruled parts of the world. And the Dutch… And so on.

My interpretation of your Q and the details @thisismyusername was that you specifically wanted to know why people didn’t engage in your previous Q. My first post answered that.
I regret that I responded to your juvenile goading and posted again.
Please stop sending me PMs when I don’t agree with you. I would have thought that my lack of response whenever you do that would have discouraged you, apparently not.

@canidmajor: “My interpretation of your Q and the details @thisismyusername was that you specifically wanted to know why people didn’t engage in your previous Q. My first post answered that.”

As is often the case, your interpretation is completely wrong. People != you. This is a question about people overall. Many people I meet in real life are quite interested in so-called domestic issues, but don’t seem to engage or show interest in U.S. foreign policy.

The reason I mentioned Yemen is because it’s a huge deal right now, and something very big just happened.

So, you decided to interpret this as “Why didn’t @canidmajor respond to my question?”. If you don’t want to answer a question of mine, my suggestion – as always – is to not answer it. You don’t have to try to sabotage a question or duck in to tell me that you don’t want to answer it. It’s very simple – just skip it. You are not required to answer every question.

@canidmajor: “Please stop sending me PMs when I don’t agree with you. I would have thought that my lack of response whenever you do that would have discouraged you, apparently not.”

As you are well aware, I don’t send you PMs when you disagree with me. I have sent you PMs to remind you that you don’t need to police me, and that questions are optional.

There are other conservatives, such as @elbanditoroso, @seawulf, or @KNOWITALL that choose to respond. But that’s their choice. You can sit out any conversation that offends you. Honestly.
Thanks!

They only care once their drones start returning in bags.

@elbanditoroso: “What I do have a problem with is the colossal arrogance of the United States to pass laws that essentially dictate another country’s foreign policy. The Saudis bought the arms from us. Now Sanders decides that he doesn’t like what the Saudis are doing.”

We’re not simply selling arms to Saudi Arabia. The US is providing logistical and intelligence support for them. The U.S. military is refueling Saudi bombers mid-air. This isn’t Saudi Arabia’s policy that the Sanders/Lee resolution is attempting to change – it’s the United States’.

@elbanditoroso: “What gall he has to tell Saudi Arabia what its foreign policy should be. Sure, patch it up with “humanitarian benefit” but in the end, a noisy senator from New Hampshire is trying to force his own version of foreign policy on a sovereign country. That is the problem.”

Vermont. :)

Aside from the U.S. involvement in Yemen, however, it appears that you are suggesting that US arms sales should have no strings attached. In other words, we should be selling to North Korea and Iran. This is where things get interesting, and we start to see some of the connections between domestic and foreign policy.

@thisismyusername I think many Americans, including myself (who is actually interested in politics in all ways), tend to not believe what we hear as far as US Foreign Policy. We are told one thing, we hear another, it all depends on your news outlets. When the trust is gone on information received, people do tend to tune out. Which is probably the goal, I’d say.

@KNOWITALL: “When the trust is gone on information received, people do tend to tune out. Which is probably the goal, I’d say.”

Good point!

@elbanditoroso – Just an update on the U.S. and Saudi Arabia: Trump administration approved $1 billion in arms sales, including more than 6,500 missiles yesterday, citing how pleased they are with Saudi’s actions in Yemen.

You are deiberately missing my point. It is the Saudis who have the choice to use the missiles. It is not for the US to dictate. Your mention of 6000 missiles is interesting but not relevant to the principle.

Can I assume you feel the same thing about EULAs, that dictate, what you are allowed to do with the software you bought?

@elbanditoroso – You haven’t responded to why you don’t think it’s US involvement if the US is providing intelligence and logistical support (mid-air refueling) for the Saudi bombing. I’m interested in how this works into your “free market” approach to global arms dealing.

And I missed if you stated whether you would sell weapons to Iran and North Korea.

I’ve been extremely busy the last few months, and have not been very active.

There’s US foreign policy, and there’s the news media’s spin on it. Just about all information comes from news outlets, and I have learned through hard personal experience that I can’t trust the news. So, unless I am personally involved, I can’t say I know what’s going on in any particular part of the world.

It doesn’t matter if it’s Fox News, CNN, ESPN, the BBC, or XYZ Nightly News. They can’t be trusted to tell a story straight.

Best to pay attention to all of the news/media sources, then glean what could very well be the truth by what is said/repeated by all.