Isolationism is a foreign policy adopted by a nation in which the country refuses to enter into any alliances, foreign trade or economic commitments, or international agreements, in hopes of focusing all of its resources into advancement within its own borders while remaining at peace with foreign countries by avoiding all entanglements of foreign agreements. In other words, it asserts both of the following: 1. Non-interventionism – Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense. 2. Protectionism – There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.
Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence".[1] Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul.[2]
- Wikipedia -
Dr. Paul is a non-interventionallist, not a isolationist - there's a difference.
Your Wiki article is misguided and wrong. Both Jefferson and Washington rejected non-intervention arguments and intervened and waged war in order to protect American interests abroad during the first Barbary war. Many at the time argued that we shouldn’t be concerned with interests in the Old World but that argument was rejected by both Jefferson and Washington. Thus the pervert Ron Paul is dead wrong and clueless about the Founders.
Ron Paul is an isolationist or a non-interventionist depending on the issue. He has a love for Islamic dictatorships and terrorists. He hasn’t a clue though about freedom and would be a disaster if ever given enough power.
Pearl Harbor put an end to the isolationism or non-interventionism of Robert Taft the Elder who returned to conventional patriotism thereafter along with Colonel McCormack, John Flynn and the America First Committee generally. Lindbergh volunteered to fight the Nazis and was allowed to do so late in the war. Neville Chamberlain (the British paleoPaulie) was unceremoniously dumped in the trash can of history by Winston Churchill and Parliament and the Tory Party after his disgraceful cowardice at Munich. But for Churchill the Brits would have wound up a goose-stepping and German speaking nation which would not have bothered Chamberlain.
Your definitions from Wikipedia which will post anything, true or not, seem to suggest that non-interventionism amounts to isolationism PLUS plenty of trade deals and diployak.
Personally, I believe that the United States military has generally proven to be a far more effective diplomatic means than any stripe suited diployakking nation betraying aristocrat carving up our interests to get along with the similar good old boys on the other side of the table enjoying caviar, Dom Perignon and exotic taxpayer provided entrees as they take care of one another's privileged personal and family interests at the expense of those of normal citizens.
If there ever was a day for the paleoPaulie cowardice, eccentricity and general insanity masquerading as his foreign policy, it is long gone and it won't be back again.
I wish paleoPaulie well on his one and only area of competence: going after the Federal Reserve Bank. He should chair the subcommittee unless and until the moment he deviates into the avenues of his insanity. Then, he should leave public life.