Cleveland, maybe. He refused to annex Hawaii. Or maybe Hayes, Garfield, or Arthur, weak presidents in a country that had been weakened by civil war.
Woodrow Wilson supposedly tried for neutrality in WWI. There's some debate about that. How neutral was he going to be when his mother was born in England and all his grandparents were born in Scotland or Ireland? Wouldn't real neutrality have involved not trading or financing parties to the conflict?
But Wilson points up a problem with the idea of isolationism. When he was claiming to be neutral in Europe's war, he was forcefully intervening in Mexico. He had the excuse of Pancho Villa's raid on New Mexico, but even "isolationist" presidents haven't had much trouble getting involved in other countries in our own hemisphere.
About Rand Paul: It's hard to believe that he didn't know what isolationism is after his father's been accused of it so many times by so many people. Three possibilities: 1) Maybe a staffer wrote his article, 2) maybe he's pulling our legs, "reappropriating" the term "isolationist" and applying it to his opponents, or 3) maybe he really didn't know, in which case, what's he doing planning to run for president?
Pancho Villa came across the American border, and on March 9, 1916, Villa led several rebels in a raid of Columbus, New Mexico, and killed American citizen non-combatants.
So, in a nutshell, Rand Paul is about as nuts as his father!
Would i vote for him?
Only if he comes and licks my disease-ridden toes!