This article examines the post Cold War political landscape in America, and

explains the various points of view of the government and public attitude. As

experienced after other shocking events such as the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor

and the Vietnam war, political ideology becomes divided between internationalists, who

believe in multilateral cooperation and effective international organizations and

isolationists who are against international involvement, thus “at the water’s edge.”

     The interesting aspect of this study to me, since it was obviously written prior to

our current war on terrorism and the situation in Iraq, is the relevance of these diverse

ideologies in today’s debate of America’s role in international affairs. Much like the

positions after the Cold War, there are those who believe we should focus on

domestic issues, and those who think we must act as the police for the world.

     After the attacks of September 11, 2001, it became clear to the Bush

Administration, and subsequently to the American public, that is was imperative for the

United States to lead the world against a common terrorist enemy. This effort gained

universal, bipartisan support and resulted in social and financial commitments from world

leaders and their constituencies. It could be argued that too much emphasis was directed

to the war on terrorism, as in the invasion of Iraq in the name of national security,

however, the same arguments and political leverage were used to facilitate action as by

FDR in World War II and LBJ in the Vietnam war.

     I believe that there will always be those isolationists, the world is becoming

smaller and more connected, requiring coordination and collaboration of countries to

work for a common good for all.