Re: Isolationism, Pearl Harbour Day, Dictionary.com

[newbitech]

Today is the anniversary of the day the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. A radio announcer just mentioned the "awoke a sleeping giant" quote that is often cited on this day in history.

He referred to this day as the day America dropped its isolationist foreign policy.

How can so many people be misinformed about what isolationism is? This is an especially important question for me to answer as a Ron Paul supporter because so many critics of my candidate for president cite his "isolationist foreign policy" as being weak on national defense.

Well I wanted some quick research and I was a little dismayed by my findings. I understand what Ron Paul's stance is, but you really have to do some digging and twisting to shake the isolationist label.

Ron Paul often uses the quote from Thomas Jeffersons inaugural address - "entangling alliances with none".

When I do a dictionary.com search for "isolationism", this is what I get.


The doctrine that a nation should stay out of the disputes and affairs of other nations. The United States practiced a policy of isolationism until World War I and did not pursue an active international policy until after World War II. (See “entangling alliances with none.”)

I followed the link to "entangling alliances with none" and this is what I get.


A phrase President Thomas Jefferson used in his first inaugural address in 1801, calling for a cautious, isolationist foreign policy. (See isolationism.)

So I can see how people are misled on Ron Paul's foreign policy agenda and it is a very easy point to attack without some additional resources to back it up. We cannot just say... see thats what the founding fathers wanted. The founding fathers agree!

If we are to go back to the days of our founding fathers, then we will go back to the days of true isolationism! We certainly do not want that do we?

Ron Paul seems to be adopting a partial belief of what the founding fathers suggested. Ron Paul agrees that we need to drop the protectionism on economic issues. This ties in to trade, politics, and ultimately a troop presence.

Its not hard to see how many could construe this policy as either flawed, incomplete, or hypocritical.

We need to distinguish the fact that Ron Paul is not advocating a non-interventionist policy towards economics and politics with our neighbors. BUT HOW!

It took WW1 to change America's protectionist ideas about trade and politics with the world. It took WWII and Pearl Harbor to change America's non-interventionist ideas about military involvement with the world.

How do we separate the two and more importantly, how can Ron Paul get passed basic dictionary.com searches with the public at large when most of the public at large probably has no idea how to use dictionary.com?

Interesting to dig a little deeper. I am not as quick to blame people for being ignorant about Ron Paul's ideals on foreign policy as I was yesterday. On the surface, Ron Paul is in fact isolationist according to a cursory search at dictionary.com, and seemingly the history books agree.

How to handle this?

[Jobarra]

The United States was an Interventionist country prior to Japan attacking us. It is in fact a major part of why they attacked us.


In response to international condemnation particularly by the United States, Britain and the Netherlands of the 1931 conquest of Manchuria, the creation of the Manchukuo puppet government, in 1933 Japan withdrew from the League of Nations. On January 15, 1936, Japan withdrew from the Second London Naval Disarmament Conference which had refused parity of Japan's naval forces with other major navies (notably the U.S.). The 1937 Japanese attack against China was condemned by the U.S. and by several members of the League of Nations, particularly Britain, France, Australia, and the Netherlands. These states had economic and territorial interests, or formal colonies, in Southeast Asia, and had become increasingly alarmed at Japan's military power and willingness to use it, which they saw as threats to their control in Asia. In July 1939, the U.S. terminated the 1911 U.S.-Japan commercial treaty. These efforts failed to deter Japan from continuing the war in China nor from signing both the Anti-Comintern Pact with Nazi Germany and the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy forming the Axis Powers.

The Tripartite Pact, war with China, increasing militarization and Japan's withdrawal from the League of Nations eventually led the U.S. to embargo scrap metal and gasoline shipments to Japan and to constrain its actions and close the Panama Canal to Japanese shipping. In 1941, Japan moved into northern IndoChina.[2] The U.S. responded by freezing Japan's assets in the U.S. and embargoing all oil exports to Japan.[3] Oil was Japan's most crucial imported resource; more than 80 percent of Japan's oil imports at the time came from the United States[4] To secure oil supplies, and other resources, Japanese planners had long been looking south, especially the Dutch East Indies. The Navy was certain any attempt to seize this region would bring the U.S. into the war and was reluctant to agree with other factions' plans for invasion. The complete US oil embargo changed to the Naval view to support of expansion toward support for an invasion of the Dutch East Indies and seizure of its oil fields. In August 1941, Japanese Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoe proposed a summit with President Roosevelt to discuss differences. Roosevelt replied Japan must leave China before a summit meeting could be held.[citation needed]

Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor)

Not sure why people persist in rewriting history to make it seem like we were non-interventionalist at the time.

[newbitech]

Jobarra,

thank you posting a very relevant piece. Are we trying to rewrite history or is Dictionary.com and The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

LYING TO US? notice the wikipedia aritcle says [citation needed].

Also, please respond to the relevance in the dictionary.com linkage to isolationism and Thomas Jefferson inaugural address as it relates to Ron Paul's policy stance of "entangling alliances with none" and advocating a foreign policy that is based on the founding fathers policy of isolationism.

Thanks.