American Juche

Thande

Donor
For those that don't know, Juche is North Korea's ideology, which is basically focused around isolationism and self-reliance. Actually it's probably not the best comparison here because I'm not suggesting a totalitarian United States here, but never mind.

There is a strong ideological slant to the U.S. national character - one which does not necessarily transcend that into political ideology, as would be considered populism - favouring self-reliance and isolationism. This is not by any means xenophobia, but rather apathy towards the outside world, and sometimes resentment when that world intrudes into one's concerns. I am of course overgeneralising here and it is certainly more true of the American interior than the seaboards, but I think it still differentiates the USA from, say, Canada.

In other words, while the majority of Americans seem in favour of a free market economy in theory, they see no contradiction in protectionist policies to 'protect American jobs', and a lot of people seem to consider the issue of the trade deficit with China objectionable not simply because it is unequal, but because it makes the USA dependent upon another country.

So, while it would be something of a leap for this attitude to transcend to the political and financial elite of the United States, I was wondering if we could see a situation where the USA is both isolationist and economically self-sufficient, with trade with other countries either actually banned or at least discouraged by very high tariffs. The difference with North Korea, of course, is that the USA is a large, diverse and democratic country with considerably natural and agricultural resources, so it would actually be capable of feeding itself and so on - albeit probably at a lower standard of living than OTL.

So is there a way to get to this situation? Perhaps starting with the current of isolationism pre-WW2 (the America Firsters and so on) combined with a different approach to combatting the Great Depression?
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Perhaps you could have the Taftite (conservative) wing of the Republican Party win out at the 1940 convention and beat Roosevelt. The election was actually closer than many think, even though the Republicans ran the largely unknown Willkie. Maybe a Taft-Vandenberg or Taft-James ticket would do the trick?

If Robert Taft wins the election (he has a good chance to if he can carry the Midwest), you'll see American isolationism become the norm. And I mean isolationism. Not just non-intervention in Europe, the Pacific, Asia, etc., I mean the USA doesn't even care about meddling in South America and the Carribean.

The economy is going to be a lot harder to control, but Taft may raise tariffs to discourage corporate entanglements. I believe though, that he was ardently free market (which he felt would fix the Great Depression, so nothing at all resembling a New Deal) so he might frown on stopping international trade.

But yeah, pre-WWII a Robert Taft administration is probably the best POD for the development of an American form of Juche.
 
Last edited:
For those that don't know, Juche is North Korea's ideology, which is basically focused around isolationism and self-reliance. Actually it's probably not the best comparison here because I'm not suggesting a totalitarian United States here, but never mind.

I was about to say ... NK Juche is more than "isolation" and more than "mistrust". It is, literally, an affirmation that the Kim regime can do no wrong when providing for its people. Juche (in its pure ideological form) strikes me as the Stalinist version of justification by faith -- believe in the Kim, and the "grace" of the bountiful self-sufficient state will follow. Of course, we outsiders know this is quite not the case. I agree that the US will probably not descend into NK Juche totaliarianism. The US might, however, move towards theocracy. Would theocracy and isolation work well together?

There is a strong ideological slant to the U.S. national character - one which does not necessarily transcend that into political ideology, as would be considered populism - favouring self-reliance and isolationism. This is not by any means xenophobia, but rather apathy towards the outside world, and sometimes resentment when that world intrudes into one's concerns.

I wouldn't place the accent of that paragraph on "apathy" about globalism. I'd place it on your other point, "resentment". It's really a matter of income and employment at the end. It's a white-collar fear of outsourcing. It's a blue-collar fear of having your manufacturing job shipped to China. I don't think that people actively sit around and think about this as a populist issue, even if eventually many behave in a populist manner. These dissatisfactions may end up being expressed as a populist issue, but that's only because legislators might not initially listen to their pleas about unemployment. The push-pull here often is the populist inability to understand that some globalisation is necessary to have a robust manufacturing, service sector, and professional economy. But try telling that to someone who lost his backroom accounting job to India.

a lot of people seem to consider the issue of the trade deficit with China objectionable not simply because it is unequal, but because it makes the USA dependent upon another country.

"And then they got up to shop at Wal*Mart." Bad paraphrase of the Bible.:p It's not logical to complain about trade imbalance, call for isolationism, and then go buy cheap clothes at a discount store. Consumers will eventually realize that a "strong isolationism" would hit them hard in the wallet.

So, while it would be something of a leap for this attitude to transcend to the political and financial elite of the United States, I was wondering if we could see a situation where the USA is both isolationist and economically self-sufficient, with trade with other countries either actually banned or at least discouraged by very high tariffs. The difference with North Korea, of course, is that the USA is a large, diverse and democratic country with considerably natural and agricultural resources, so it would actually be capable of feeding itself and so on - albeit probably at a lower standard of living than OTL.

Are Americans ready to resume the industries that have been delegated elsewhere to make way for a service/professional economy? I'd say not, once the ramifications of an ironclad isolationism such as a more expensive Wal*Mart on the scene, coupled with the necessity for more people to work in more labor intensive occupations. The introduction of a relatively early POD would afford this option: if the development of American isolationism began before the automation of industry and professions, then the current American service model economy could be modified over time to meet the needs of isolationism. Americans now are at the point of no return; and one wonders if Americans would still pursue the course they have given globalism's potential for wealth creation.
 
America First was a group based on the idea of a strong America. They saw no issue with a strong America not picking sides, their most common slogan was "defense of Britian is defeat of Germany." This according to Lindy was not endorsing the Nazi's but merely pointing out that picking a side meant America was getting involved in outside matters not its concern.

So OTL Pearl Harbor pretty much ruined the whole organization, yet assume for this matter the impossible occurs. During Pearl Harbor, America First goes on the offensive not in weeks but in hours of the attack. They denounce the Japanese, and make points of how if the US was concerned with itself, such an attack would be impossible.

It supports war - as OTL it never was opposed to it- and at the same time is leery of a European War. However with Hitler declaring war they can do little. American First plays on the idea of "American spirit" and "hard work" making a backroom deal with FDR to support the war, but every so often speaking out against larger government controls.

So when the war ends America First still has a large membership, and while many point to their stance on not fighting Germany, many others share an idea with the group. America First remains a activist group, stressing how America needed to defend itself, and said defense can include Europe, but must not depend on it. As a collection of wealthy, anti-communist, pro-military, and pro-American people it was little time before people began trying to get American First support.

The first move into politics was when Eisenhower was elected. With the HUAC hearings going on, America First was active in backing McCarthy, and many other Republican congressmen pushing to root out the communist threat. Yet it was when Kennedy became elected that America First moved out in full force. A series of political ads, and lobbyist moves spoke out againt the Peace Corps "why help others when we have poor in America?" the fight in Vietnam "communism is a threat only on our shores," and yet they staunchly defended the handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis "we faced the commies, and they backed down at our strength!"

By the mid-1960's America First set down its ideals in a ninety page essay entitled "Homefront Values." It listed many things from the needs of keeping the American economy strong, by scarificing the strength of allies, how the military needs not just bombs but men willing to fight, the idea of the home was expanded upon to include suburban chores like gardens, community projects, and much more. While it started off a mere exercise in political thought, it was adopted by the Boy Scouts of America, due to its pro-American message, as well as it stressing self reliance. By 1970 young men begin arriving on the work scene raised to think ill of the liberal hippie who takes, and taught "be prepared in body and mind, so the nation can be prepared for freedom, and democracy."

Homefront Values stood out the most in the Midwest and Southern States, but it started gaining a foothold in the more moderate areas of the US. With the gas crisis on, the failure of Vietnam, and Nixon fresh in everyone's mind many Americans saw the use in working to support themselves. Gardens started popping up in the most middle class of cities, President Ford approved a bill to allow federal funding to work on community classes to teach home repair, as well Homefront skills.

When the economic boom of the 1980's came about many started to turn away from America First, yet by then it was well entrenched in American politics. Religous groups preached their idea of self reliance leading to salvation, schools prefered the methods of teaching children the skills to think things out for themselves, and many conservatives looked fondly at the idea of an Aerica free of outside interests, and able to do as it wished.

While Homefront values continue they are merely paid lipservice, even though tending the garden is now considered part of the sunday routine, it seems a part of American values. The 2008 Presidental Campaign almost proved with with VP candidate Sarah Palin saying "Out in the community gardens, working hard on the Homefront, that is where the real Americans are," while President Obama viewed it from a more liberal position, "We cannot preach a message of self reliance, while ignoring the needs of the nation. No longer can we point at those in poverty and ask when they work their gardens."
 

Hendryk

Banned
I was wondering if we could see a situation where the USA is both isolationist and economically self-sufficient, with trade with other countries either actually banned or at least discouraged by very high tariffs.
Presumably, an America reluctant to open its borders to foreign goods would also be reluctant to open them to foreign people. Apart from a trickle of Europeans, one might expect to see little immigration, at least of the legal sort.
 

Thande

Donor
Presumably, an America reluctant to open its borders to foreign goods would also be reluctant to open them to foreign people. Apart from a trickle of Europeans, one might expect to see little immigration, at least of the legal sort.

Not necessarily. As I said, the disinterested attitude in the outside world I mentioned does not = xenophobia. Broadly speaking I think believers in this idea would be more than willing to welcome immigrants providing they wholeheartedly embraced the idea of being American save for a few kooky old-country traditions (as would be seen). Especially if they were educated people fleeing persecution from foreign wars.

Whites would be favoured over Asians and blacks would probably not be considered so much, but that's pretty much OTL at this point anyway.
 
Thew main issue is that to create Juce you need government with higher control over the nation. So from first grade throughout adulthood one is presented Juce as the idea standard for an american.

Being what America is someone will object to this, so you'd need it to be a political idea, almost a fad that becomes a norm. It is not required, but it is considered acceptable for Americans to engage in such matters.
 
Top