​

          The road to the White House has been rough on the republicans and the democrats with unexpected results turning in from both sides. As shown in the news, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have garnered huge support bringing all kinds of sensations to this year’s primary elections and caucuses. In fact, the sensations turned out to be more than just simple reactions to an uncanny businessman and an old socialist senator.

           What makes Trump and Sanders atypical politicians is that neither of them have been mainstream up until now. When they first announced that they would run as presidential candidates for their parties, the people including the media were doubtful as to how long they would last in their campaigns. With much surprise, however, Trump has managed to surpass his competitors as he continuously wins the primaries. Likewise, the senator of the small state of Vermont, Sanders has truly inspired a political revolution.

So, what has made them into a political sensation?

           In many ways, the political environment for any election is shaped by the varying needs of citizens and their reactions to preexisting policies. And as such, we can infer that the sudden sensation that Trump and Sanders have brought lies in differences to the so called figures at Washington.

           Although the two candidates are very different in how they address issues like healthcare, they both seem to share the same foreign policy goal that is distinct from previous administrations. It is that the United States should better adhere to the needs of its people by gradually distancing itself from foreign affairs. This could be considered as a move back to isolationism.

Why isolationism? “External Threat, Internal Weakness”

           The 9.11 terrorism attack has proven itself to be more than just a scar on the hearts of the American people. It has been recognized as a kind of stigmata or a reaffirmed objective of which the United States will not remain idle to any and all provocations. And despite the tragedies of losing many lives and crushed spirits, the war on terrorism united the people together giving birth to a patriotic crusade. However, things began to take a spiral as the war did not have a clear enemy-platform on which an effective preemptive strike could be made.

​

           Eventually, the war on terrorism highlighted as but not limited to the Iraq War still rages on. The operations to maintain stability in the Middle East still remains as a challenge with tensions growing bigger from the notorious Islamic State. So far, the United States has been dragged down from the daunting task of patching up the power vacuum it created while intervening in the region. Based on the current situation, the country would be able to lift a considerable burden if it were to adopt a viable exit strategy or disengagement.

           The United States has a comprehensive power portfolio, having elements of both hard and soft power. But by far, its greatest leverage lies in the power of the US dollar along with its huge economy. Unfortunately, the global financial crisis has greatly damaged the US dollar’s reputation as the standard currency not to mention leaving millions of Americans without jobs and homes. Although bailouts and other forms of pump-priming were put into practice, the United States’ economy has become less resilient over the years. Furthermore, as jobs are being outsourced, the lives of average Americans seem bleak at best. Without a foreseeable path for recovery, the country could retract by resorting to protectionist policies in remedying the situation.

           It has become likely that the United States will reset its priorities through addressing more of its immediate concerns such as cutting foreign military operations and incubating domestic businesses. The important question of whether isolationism could effectively address the country’s external threats and internal weakness has yet to be answered. However, it seems quite clear what today’s Americans want in this period of hardship; a set of more introverted foreign policies led by a domestically-tuned politician.