The president and Congress have the responsibility to deal with other nations toward solving global problems. This year one impediment is "tea party" candidates pursuing an isolationist agenda. Shades of the John Birch Society!
Here are examples, as described recently by Citizens for Global Solutions:
In Kentucky, Rand Paul wants funding of the U.N. to become voluntary and wants the U.S. to "withdraw from and stop funding many U.N. programs."
Senate candidates Sharron Angle in Nevada and Clint Didier in Washington want to see the U.S. out of the U.N.
In Maine, the Republican Party platform now calls for the abrogation of the U.S. Treaty on Rights of the Child and the "Law of the Sea Treaty."
Fortunately these and similar candidate positions don't have credibility with the majority of voters in most places. Still, there is a need for enhanced support for a different view of the role of the U.S. in the world of nations. This alternative view arises from acceptance of the idea that this country and the world will be better off if cooperative global engagement rather than "go it alone" is the norm.
This is not strictly a partisan matter. However, there is overall a difference between Democrats and Republicans today in Congress on the issue. For instance, on U.N. funding, ratification of human rights and arms control treaties, nuclear disarmament, climate change legislation and most recently ratification of the New START Treaty, Democrats in Congress are as a whole far more open to international cooperation.
Partisan or not, crimped rigid positions on how the U.S. should relate to others will not serve even the interests of this country, let alone the chances for peaceful and civilized relations among nations.