The mistake that you make, and that others make in pursuing the false argument, against misunderstood boogeymen, such as the lead article attacks, is in assuming that the Washington/Jefferson foreign policy--which actually dates from 1793, not 1787--ever involved disengaging from the world. We were always engaged. We were not entangled in those engagements. There is an immense difference.
As for the present situation: The nearest analogy is the War that the Marines--then a part of the U.S. Navy--and an American Naval force fought with the Barbary Pirates in 1801, in Thomas Jefferson's first year in office. Then as now, no one suggested that Americans allow their interests to be trampled upon. Surrender was never an option. It is certainly no option for American Conservatives today.
On the other hand, I seriously question the Conservative credentials of anyone who feels a need to label other Conservatives with whom he may disagree on one or two issues with a special handle. That is not helpful at a time when Conservatives again appear to be in the minority--albeit a very large minority, only a hair shy of taking back the country.
It is just sloppy argument for the essayist above to set up his personal druthers as a reason for other people to change their values. If he cannot answer the argument that he patronizes on its merits, he ought to save his reflections on his personal history for his grandchildren. There are very powerful legal, pragmatic and moral issues involved in the debate over the proper role of American Foreign policy. The essayist mentions Rome. Does he really reflect very deeply on what happened to Rome? Or why? Cute insults directed at others do not meet those issues.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site