PDA

View Full Version : Paul IS an isolationist




stones88
10-16-2007, 01:55 PM
and who cares?


i·so·la·tion·ism /
–noun the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.

No NAFTA, CAFTA, NATO, UN. any objections to that?

I think the problem is people preceive isolationism as running the country as an island. They don't realize you can still be diplomatic and have legitimate free trade with other countries.

foofighter20x
10-16-2007, 02:02 PM
No he's not... Your defintion is inaccurate.

Here's a better one (http://www.answers.com/isolationism&r=67):


i·so·la·tion·ism (ī'sə-lā'shə-nĭz'əm)
n.
A national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries.

How is military non-interventionism coupled with free and open trade (vis-a-vis managed trade under those so called "free-trade" institutions you named) isolationism?

If you want to see real isolationism, look at Japan during the Edo Period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Japan#Edo_Period) (~1610-1853), particularly their policy of Sakoku (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakoku). That's isolationism.

Methinks thou knowest not of that which thou speakest.

Green Mountain Boy
10-16-2007, 02:02 PM
Where did you get that definition?

stones88
10-16-2007, 02:03 PM
Where did you get that definition?

dictionary.com

Green Mountain Boy
10-16-2007, 02:04 PM
Here is Wikipedia's definition, Ron Paul supports one but not the other:

Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). In other words, it asserts both of the following:

Non-interventionism - Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.

Protectionism - There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism

DaronWestbrooke
10-16-2007, 03:03 PM
I was thinking about this and I wonder if we can turn the tables and when someone calls him that say 'yea- so what'? They expect the non-interventionist response, the don't expect us to blow them off and have to defend their accusation. Just a thought. I may play around on Free Republican or LibertyPost and see how they react.

nist7
10-16-2007, 03:24 PM
Get your facts straight. He's not an ISOLATIONIST he is a NON-INTERVENTIONIST.

Ron Paul fully supports economic relations with foreign nations.

stones88
10-16-2007, 03:51 PM
Get your facts straight. He's not an ISOLATIONIST he is a NON-INTERVENTIONIST.

Ron Paul fully supports economic relations with foreign nations.

By definition he is an isolationist, just like George Washington. Deal with it.

trispear
10-16-2007, 04:02 PM
No he's not an isolationist. He rejects the label as does wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism

"Not to be confused with the non-interventionist philosophy and foreign policy of the libertarian world view, which espouses unrestricted free trade and freedom of travel for individuals to all countries. This "libertarian isolationist" view is best defined as a policy of nonparticipation in foreign political relations, but free trade and affability to all."

FrankRep
10-16-2007, 04:09 PM
Non-Interventionalist

JoshLowry
10-16-2007, 04:10 PM
By definition he is an isolationist, just like George Washington. Deal with it.

Has has said himself that it would not be fair to call him an isolationist.

Here is the video. The conversation made at 4:30: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGFyh92HoCU

"Deal with it." :rolleyes:

J Free
10-16-2007, 04:37 PM
I was thinking about this and I wonder if we can turn the tables and when someone calls him that say 'yea- so what'? They expect the non-interventionist response, the don't expect us to blow them off and have to defend their accusation. Just a thought. I may play around on Free Republican or LibertyPost and see how they react.

That is the best approach. Because they will reply "isolationism got us into trouble with WW2"

And the answer is: No it didn't. It was our interventionism that led the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor. Multiple embargoes of oil. Our decision to take over the naval defense of British colonies in Asia at Churchill's request. Our pressure on the Dutch to stop selling oil to Japan. Our decision to send our naval forces (cruisers and subs) into Japanese shipping lanes to provoke a response. Our decision to arm China -- not because we gave a damn about China but because we wanted to keep our protected trading status with a neutered weak China.

Fact is that FDR quite deliberately and knowingly provoked the Japanese into attacking us so that he could override the isolationism of the public and get us into the war. Blaming the attitudes of the American people for what our government did in contravention of those attitudes is simply deceitful.

EvilTwinkie
10-16-2007, 04:55 PM
That is the best approach. Because they will reply "isolationism got us into trouble with WW2"

And the answer is: No it didn't. It was our interventionism that led the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor. Multiple embargoes of oil. Our decision to take over the naval defense of British colonies in Asia at Churchill's request. Our pressure on the Dutch to stop selling oil to Japan. Our decision to send our naval forces (cruisers and subs) into Japanese shipping lanes to provoke a response. Our decision to arm China -- not because we gave a damn about China but because we wanted to keep our protected trading status with a neutered weak China.

Fact is that FDR quite deliberately and knowingly provoked the Japanese into attacking us so that he could override the isolationism of the public and get us into the war. Blaming the attitudes of the American people for what our government did in contravention of those attitudes is simply deceitful.

I tried that on my fervently neo-conservative aunt and she quite adamantly - and loudly said:

"Roosevelt tricked us into the war, he had to - so what? Are you saying we shouldnt have taken out Hitler? No one knew about the concentration camps until the War was over. The ends justified the means. No citizen wants war, they have to be led into war. "

I was so flummoxed I did not have an answer for this.

OptionsTrader
10-16-2007, 05:02 PM
Regarding the baseless assertion that Ron Paul is an isolationist, before repeating what you are told by others and not thinking for yourself it is always wise to read the words of the man to who you are referring.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Rep.+Ron+Paul%3A+I+advocate+ the+same+foreign+policy+the+Founding+Fathers+would&articleId=cc287b0f-941c-4b07-88e9-9e992810f700

Rep. Ron Paul: I advocate the same foreign policy the Founding Fathers would
By RON PAUL

Monday, Oct. 8, 2007

Any response to this paper's Friday editorial on my foreign policy position must rest on two fundamental assertions: first, that the Founding Fathers were not isolationists; and second, that their political philosophy -- the wisdom of the Constitution, the Declaration, and our Revolution itself -- is not just a primitive cultural relic.

If I understand the editors' concerns, I have not been accused of deviating from the Founders' logic; if anything I have been accused of adhering to it too strictly. The question, therefore, before readers -- and soon voters -- is the same question I have asked for almost 20 years in Congress: by what superior wisdom have we now declared Jefferson, Washington, and Madison to be "unrealistic and dangerous"? Why do we insist on throwing away their most considered warnings?

A non-interventionist foreign policy is not an isolationist foreign policy. It is quite the opposite. Under a Paul administration, the United States would trade freely with any nation that seeks to engage with us. American citizens would be encouraged to visit other countries and interact with other peoples rather than be told by their own government that certain countries are off limits to them.

American citizens would be allowed to spend their hard-earned money wherever they wish across the globe, not told that certain countries are under embargo and thus off limits. An American trade policy would encourage private American businesses to seek partners overseas and engage them in trade. The hostility toward American citizens overseas in the wake of our current foreign policy has actually made it difficult if not dangerous for Americans to travel abroad. Is this not an isolationist consequence from a policy of aggressive foreign interventionism?

It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationsists. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example.

I do not believe that ideas have an expiration date, or that their value can be gauged by their novelty. The test for new and old is that of wisdom and experience, or as the editors wrote "historical reality," which argues passionately now against the course of anti-Constitutional interventionism.

A Paul administration would see Americans engaged overseas like never before, in business and cultural activities. But a Paul administration would never attempt to export democracy or other values at the barrel of a gun, as we have seen over and over again that this is a counterproductive approach that actually leads the United States to be resented and more isolated in the world.

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, is running for the Republican presidential nomination.

Bob Cochran
10-16-2007, 05:03 PM
By definition he is an isolationist, just like George Washington. Deal with it.
You should deal with this severe ignorance problem you appear to have. When presented with several posts that precisely defined non-interventionism versus protectionism, you still made your stupid statement.

Original_Intent
10-16-2007, 05:14 PM
You should deal with this severe ignorance problem you appear to have. When presented with several posts that precisely defined non-interventionism versus protectionism, you still made your stupid statement.

You can lead a horse to water....

foofighter20x
10-16-2007, 05:48 PM
and who cares?



No NAFTA, CAFTA, NATO, UN. any objections to that?

I think the problem is people preceive isolationism as running the country as an island. They don't realize you can still be diplomatic and have legitimate free trade with other countries.

Using the definition you provided, international free-trade is a foreign economic commitment, which means that you just proved we are right in our assertion that Dr Paul is not an isolationist. Thanks. :)

johngr
10-16-2007, 06:00 PM
Reactionary conservatives in the 1980s were able to re-define the word "liberal". Rather than debating ideas on their merits they often smeared their opponents with "liberal". This device was more often used at the lower levels (George Will and Phyllis Schlafly never used it that way, for example). "Isolationist" reminds me of that. I hate the political lexicon. Most of it is dumbed-down, imprecise and deliberately obfuscatory.

Adamsa
10-16-2007, 06:05 PM
Paul himself admitted that not all of his beliefs are do-able, we'd probably end up staying in the UN. :D

stones88
10-16-2007, 06:09 PM
Using the definition you provided, international free-trade is a foreign economic commitment, which means that you just proved we are right in our assertion that Dr Paul is not an isolationist. Thanks. :)

Legit free trade is not a foreign economic commitment. Freedom makes no commitments. Your welcome :)

I don't get why some of you are so offended. It's funny, I didn't realize there were so many smug people supporting a honest, decent man.

Everyone eager to cite wikipedia needs to take a valium and read the definition I used in my first post.

Green Mountain Boy
10-16-2007, 06:14 PM
Legit free trade is not a foreign economic commitment. Freedom makes no commitments. Your welcome :)

Free trade involves entering into contracts. Contracts are commitments.

stones88
10-16-2007, 06:15 PM
Reactionary conservatives in the 1980s were able to re-define the word "liberal". Rather than debating ideas on their merits they often smeared their opponents with "liberal". This device was more often used at the lower levels (George Will and Phyllis Schlafly never used it that way, for example). "Isolationist" reminds me of that. I hate the political lexicon. Most of it is dumbed-down, imprecise and deliberately obfuscatory.

Isolationist no doubt has a negative connotation. Protectionism has a positive connotation. Ironic, but I don't think people should freak out when someone calls Ron an isolationist though.

Clearly there are some VERY sensitive supporters though.

JosephTheLibertarian
10-16-2007, 06:17 PM
Legit free trade is not a foreign economic commitment. Freedom makes no commitments. Your welcome :)

I don't get why some of you are so offended. It's funny, I didn't realize there were so many smug people supporting a honest, decent man.

Everyone eager to cite wikipedia needs to take a valium and read the definition I used in my first post.

You need to understand that protectionism and free trade are two entirely different things. Ron Paul is for the latter of the two. ;)

stones88
10-16-2007, 06:23 PM
Free trade involves entering into contracts. Contracts are commitments.

k? when the government is making the contract, then it's not free trade.

trispear
10-16-2007, 06:45 PM
Everyone eager to cite wikipedia needs to take a valium and read the definition I used in my first post.I guess that's an attack on me, since I'm the only one who cited wikipedia.

Why don't you just say "I reject your reality and insert my own.":rolleyes:

Dr. Paul does not want to be called an isolationist. He does not fit the criteria of an isolationist. The old media tries to smear him by calling him an isolationist. Hence I won't play their into their game and will not call Dr. Paul an isolationist.

werdd
10-16-2007, 07:21 PM
non-interventionist

foofighter20x
10-16-2007, 07:50 PM
Everyone eager to cite wikipedia needs to take a valium and read the definition I used in my first post.

And I think you need to stop being a troll. :rolleyes:

stones88
10-16-2007, 08:13 PM
And I think you need to stop being a troll. :rolleyes:

right, how am i a troll?

stones88
10-16-2007, 08:18 PM
I guess that's an attack on me, since I'm the only one who cited wikipedia.

Why don't you just say "I reject your reality and insert my own.":rolleyes:

Dr. Paul does not want to be called an isolationist. He does not fit the criteria of an isolationist. The old media tries to smear him by calling him an isolationist. Hence I won't play their into their game and will not call Dr. Paul an isolationist.

insert my own reality? isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. can you not apply the definition of isolationist from dictionary.com to ron paul? no, you chose to ignore it and use a different definition. hypocrite.

and that was hardly an attack. you must have been one pampered child.

trispear
10-16-2007, 08:29 PM
insert my own reality? isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. can you not apply the definition of isolationist from dictionary.com to ron paul? no, you chose to ignore it and use a different definition. hypocrite.

and that was hardly an attack. you must have been one pampered child.You really are ready to go ad hominem, aren't you?

JosephTheLibertarian
10-16-2007, 08:46 PM
k? when the government is making the contract, then it's not free trade.

Ron Paul believes in free trade among individuals and companies... not by governments

stones88
10-16-2007, 08:53 PM
Ron Paul believes in free trade among individuals and companies... not by governments

cool

Artemus
10-16-2007, 09:09 PM
Theres no need to call a square a rectangle.

trispear
10-17-2007, 01:37 AM
Theres no need to call a square a rectangle.Actually, a square is a special kind of rectangle, a subset if you will...

There's no need to call a rectangle a rhombus!:) (Similiar features with some overlap, but with differences. That may be more apt.)

LibertyEagle
10-17-2007, 02:22 AM
By definition he is an isolationist, just like George Washington. Deal with it.

Deal with the fact that you are wrong. Not to mention the fact that you are contradicting Dr. Paul.

TheEvilDetector
10-17-2007, 03:32 AM
I tried that on my fervently neo-conservative aunt and she quite adamantly - and loudly said:

"Roosevelt tricked us into the war, he had to - so what? Are you saying we shouldnt have taken out Hitler? No one knew about the concentration camps until the War was over. The ends justified the means. No citizen wants war, they have to be led into war. "

I was so flummoxed I did not have an answer for this.

"Bush tricked us into the war, he had to - so what? Are you saying we shouldnt have taken out half the middle east? No one knew about the millions of civilian casualties until the War was over. The ends justified the means. No citizen wants war, they have to be led into war. "

TurtleBurger
10-17-2007, 07:18 AM
Being anti-war doesn't mean you are isolationist, or vice versa. The real isolationist in this race is Duncan Hunter. His hatred of anyone or anything that is not American is a good picture of isolationism. He wants to bomb the hell out of anyone who annoys him, and shut out everyone else with fences and harsh trade restrictions.