When I talk to other folks about world affairs, I notice that a fair amount of them bemoan and criticize the wide expanse of US involvement as well as the amount of unrest and violence we see in the nightly news broadcasts. Add to this the monumental expenditures for our worldwide military presence and the incongruous nature of the rationale for this presence in some cases, such as the defense of Japan and/or South Korea, plus the need for targeting problems at home rather than abroad, and we have a lot of reasons for the electorate to get behind a candidate who advocates what I would call a New Isolationism. The question is, which side would take up the challenge? The Right advocates smaller government and less government spending, but the international corporate powers that hold sway over their media and finances would probably prefer the status quo with regard to world affairs, what with the need to protect their overseas interests and the need to continue massive amounts of military spending. The Left may say that compassion and a desire to help anyone anywhere dictates a more global presence. And Hillary would also not want to shake things up, I'm sure. Nonetheless, I expect that some day a political figure will seize on this groundswell of opinion and try to open up public discourse, but I don't know where on the politcial spectrum he or she would stand.