Isolationism

[Erazmus]

I am so sick of people labeling Ron Paul an isolationist. Anyone who says this has no clue what they are talking about. Let’s first visit some definitions of the word. I think we need to reeducate the populace (mostly the old media) in regards to their political vocabulary.




i•so•la•tion•ism
n. A national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/isolationism




Main Entry: iso•la•tion•ism
Function: noun
: a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=isolationism




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 prevent trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.

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




Definition:

1. avoidance of international relations: a government policy based on the belief that national interests are best served by avoiding economic and political alliances with other countries

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/isolationism.html

So clearly, by definition, Ron cannot be an isolationist. While he advocates nonintervention, he does not promote social / economic isolationism. He believes we should talk with other countries. He believes in diplomacy. He promotes legal forms of immigration. He promotes a free market. And he promotes trade with other countries.

So, the next time you encounter a person who calls Ron Paul an isolationist. Ask them to define isolationism. When they fail, and they will fail, educate them.

Thanks for listening. :D

[DeadheadForPaul]

The isolationist label is wrong for 3 reasons.

1.) Isolationism involves economic isolation. Paul promotes free markets.

2.) Isolationism involves keeping ourselves out of diplomatic relations. Dr. Paul believes that we should maintain friendly relations with all nations that wish to form mutual friendships. Diplomatic isolationism is not part of his platform. The neocons have created diplomatic isolationism by lessening the number of friends and increasing the number of enemies

3.) Critics of Paul seek to label him an isolationist in order to suggest that he does not want a strong military. WRONG. Paul believes in strong national defense. He just disagrees with the imperialist goals of those advocating nation-building. We can stand strong without interfering in the internal affairs of other nations!

[Erazmus]

I think, for the most part, we've covered the same things. :) You added the part about critics wanting to label him such so that it makes people think he's week on defense. I agree with you and glad you added that.

I think if we can tell people definitively what the word means via definition, it holds stronger ground, more difficult to refute. I think people should take this approach when speaking to people who are misinformed. ;)

I think Ron is right when he says we are sort of isolationists now. We have fewer allies and more enemies than every before (you also covered this in your post). :)

[jj111]

Ron Paul Isolationism in his own words

7/5/07 Radio Interview with Michael Smerconish

9:40 minute

Michael Smerconish: Do you call this view of the world an isolationist policy?

Ron Paul: I don’t. Some like to accuse me of that, but I’m the opposite of an isolationist. I’m a free-trader, and I like low tariffs; I like travel, and I like to be friends with everybody. I think what we have today is diplomatic isolationism. When you think about it, we have more enemies and less allies than ever before, we go it alone, and I think we have become an isolationist nation. But my position is a lot different than that.

Michael Smerconish: One other on this score. I love having this conversation. I’m generally enthused about what you say our foreign policy should be. What do we do about our friends in Israel?

Ron Paul: I think just like so much of our foreign policy has unintended consequences, I think we have literally put Israel in a weakened position. Israel can take of herself. She has 200 or 300 nuclear weapons. Nobody’s going to touch her. She can take care of anybody over there. By us perpetually giving Israel money, Israel can’t do what she has to do for herself – they have to get permission from us, or we say “we won’t give you our money unless you take orders from us.” And besides, Israel without us there taking care of her day to day, Israel would be more likely to pursue peace with Syria. They want to now, but we stop Israel from pursuing any peace treaty with Syria. So I think in the long run, we harm Israel. A lot of people won’t accept that, but I sincerely believe that. Israel is very capable. The whole problem with my position is they say “you don’t care about Israel”, but if what I say could possibly be true, we may be doing Israel more harm than good.

[Erazmus]

Thanks for that great transcript of the interview jj111. Most appreciated.