The Arkitekt
columnist: The Arkitekt

Topic: Foreign Policy
Ron Paul, Non-Intervention, and the Real Isolationists

---

A look at one of the more distorted positions held by Ron Paul, and a comparison of conventional thinking.

---

by The Arkitekt
(Libertarian)
Sunday, December 9, 2007

            To be particularly honest, it is a source of constant frustration for me that the movement, at which Ron Paul stands center, is referred to as a revolution.  This frustration is not sourced with the actual word "revolution," or even the meaning it denotes, but rather that those of us engaged in it must refer to it as so. 

There is nothing revolutionary about the ideas; it is an unfortunate fact that implementing them would be a revolution.  It follows closely, therefore, that I am also greatly vexed when the sound ideas expressed by Paul and his fellow revolutionaries (you and me) are called fringe, radical, or impractical.  In essence, the last century saw politicians "fix" what was not broken, and jam the gears of liberty and progress in so doing.  Now, we revolutionaries wish to return to that which worked well, even then, without the resources we posses now, yet we are cried down as seeking to implement foolish policies.  That general mumbling shout against us, which never seems to be clear enough to outline its arguments, is raised when discussion touches upon the gold standard, states governing themselves, and most of all, when we speak of foreign policy.  Time and again, Paul and the rest of us are dismissed as isolationists for supporting a once standard policy of non-intervention in world affairs.

            Intervention is defined in the dictionary as the "interposition or interference of one state in the affairs of another."  That is, specifically, the act or fact of altering the affairs of one state by the willful action or coercion of another state.  There are many examples of such intervention in world history, should one wish to educate themselves as to more exactly what it means.  Our combat engagements (since there is no declared war) in Iraq are a form of intervention.  Our economic sanctions against Cuba are another.  Of course, in the interest of fairness, there have been plenty of positive instances of intervention as well, such as the liberation of Vichy France.

            Isolation, on the other hand, is defined as "a policy or doctrine of nonparticipation in international economic and political activities."  That is, specifically, the decision of one country to focus the entirety of its citizenry and industry within its own borders.  Thus, no trade, no talking, no participation with the rest of the world in any form.  Those of you who have taken even the most rudimentary of economics courses know how wonderful trade is in creating wealth.  Those of you who study history will know how woeful a decision it is to isolate one's country from participation in its community.  And that, really, is the most important distinction:  participation. 

            What exactly does that distinction mean?  It means we should be diplomats and moderators, instead of judge and jury.  It means we should trade fairly for what we want, instead of moving into a country with our military to regulate the resources we covet.  Some would argue this is dangerous, with how many enemies we have abroad.  Abe Lincoln said "I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends."  That is exactly the attitude we should base our foreign policy upon.  We have injured many, justly and unjustly, but the time is not too late for us to adopt a policy with which we could convince the world that we are friends.  Don't worry about OPEC cutting off our oil supply; trust me, they may not like us, but boy do they LOVE our money, and they don't want to stop getting it any time soon.  Of course, looking past that "soon" mark, one could easily see a time in which China and India are capable of buying all the oil produced by those countries, and if we have done nothing to repair our friendship by then, imagine how much worse things could get.

            That, of course, brings me to my next point.  Is there any difference between our position if we isolate ourselves by pulling back, or if we isolate ourselves by pushing everyone else away?  McCain and others have called Paul an isolationist, because the think he wants to cut back our role in the world.  Those same people, even if they don't realize it, are isolating us by creating a world in which no other nation wishes to deal with us.  In one of these two scenarios, we have a measure of control over how we are perceived, and whether or not we will be a welcome participant in the international community.  In the other, our role is dictated by others, who can choose whether or not, and probably not, to deal with us at all.  Rudy McHuckneyson (modified to show tax-hike-Mike's 15 minuets) all wish to further our continuing isolation, blind to a future in which other nations would not be required to deal with us, the sole super power, but might take their friendship and business elsewhere to China, India, or whomever else steps up.  Does anyone here honestly think that history has stopped, that the world will continue to look as it does now for the rest of eternity? 

            Ron Paul, the man derided by many as an isolationist, is the only one with the correct foresight required to see exactly what kind of isolation we are currently creating for ourselves.  By advocating PARTICIPATION rather than INTERVENTION, he wishes to steer us upon the course which will best form a world in which our children and grandchildren may thrive, instead of living in the fear we have learned to accept.  The simple fact of the matter is, Ron Paul is the only candidate who has the salt required to lead our country into further greatness.  Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, McCain, Thompson, Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Biden…  THESE are the real isolationists.

Did you like this article?
If you did, Thumb It!
104 thumbs so far

2007 The Arkitekt, all rights reserved.
Published: Sunday, December 9, 2007
Last modified: Sunday, December 9, 2007

The views expressed in this article are those of The Arkitekt only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. The Arkitekt is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.

Report violation by The Arkitekt of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.