It’s amusing and telling how republicans and "libertarians" are willing to outright lie and smear Ron Paul like they do with that "isolationist" charge. Ron sets the record straight. He’s right, and those who persist are simply liars.
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
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.
Damn right, not to even mention the fact that it’s none of your
business — ever, under any circumstances — who anyone else associates with or trades with, irrespective
of arbitrary lines drawn on a map.
So, apparently, it is now the case that to be "isolationist" is to
advocate against killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people
across the world and brutally terrorizing (that’s right) and "policing"
hundreds of thousands of others in the name of imposing our system of
governance upon them; all on the basis of increasingly tenuous
arguments that all basically reduce to some kind of political Precautionary Principle.
It’s so interesting to me how the right is fooled, and falls for certain
political policies on the exact, precisely identical basis as those on the
The irrational fear of Islamic fundamentalism is motivated by the same "precautionary" fear that motivates
enviro-nut policy, and pretty much every other "menace" that everyone
runs to the voting booth to assuage, having been utterly fooled by the
most recent crop of politician-bots.
Nightmares are powerful things. As we leave childhood, we believe ourselves immune to their very real power to scare us half to death. But is that true, or are the nightmares simply repackaged by those clever enough and in a position to gain from our being fooled? It kind of reminds me of santa claus, elves & the north pole. We think we set him, them, and it aside; but we really just take up a more sophisticated version in the form of god, angels, and heaven.
Our propensity to be utterly fooled and foolish knows no bounds.
That three-part documentary is on the web. Haven’t seen it, yet, so I’m not advocating its accuracy.