Is Ron Paul Really an Isolationist?
Ron Paul criticizes the US military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Pakistan, opposes foreign aid, refuses to unconditionally support Israel, and denies that war with Iran is absolutely necessary. Because of these views, conservatives label him as an “isolationist. This criticism exposes a disturbing simplicity in traditional Republican thinking about American interaction with the world.
An isolationist is one who believes his or her nation should close itself off from interaction with the world. Because Republicans view Paul’s opposition to rushed wars and entangling alliances as isolationism, they must believe this is the primary way America should interact with the world. In reality, however, Paul is not an isolationist.
To start, Ron Paul supports completely free trade. He is against tariffs, quotas, and other trade barriers that slow the free movement of goods and capital. He also supports ending economic sanctions and embargoes, believing the best way to increase friendly relations with a nation’s people is to trade with them (see: Japan).
Further, Paul supports increased immigration and free movement of people. This leads to the exportation of our cultural influence, which is much more powerful than any military influence.
Finally, Paul opposes the invasion of other countries, particularly without a declaration of war. It’s difficult for anyone to argue that ten year military operations in the Middle East shouldn’t be considered wars.
Ron Paul’s campaign summarizes his foreign policy with the following quote from Thomas Jefferson: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” – Thomas Jefferson
I’ll admit that my foreign policy positions lean to the hawkish side, especially when compared to Paul’s. I think an Iran with nuclear weapons would increase danger in the world. I believe foreign aid is a powerful tool to influence foreign governments to adopt policies favorable to the US. I even would have supported the initial operations in Afghanistan had there been a declaration of war.
However, the point of this post isn’t to support Ron Paul’s positions. It’s simply to counter Republican accusations that Ron Paul is an isolationist. Ron Paul supports free trade, open diplomacy, free travel, and cultural exchange with the people of the world. Republicans, on the other hand, often support hawkish warfare policies and a force-over-persuasion ideology that lead to global animosity toward the US. You decide which of those sounds more “isolationist.”
I agreed with your post. I am not a Ron Paul fan, but I think a skill most people could use in evaluating candidates is to take a step back and try and see things the way they really are. Good insight.
“Further, Paul supports increased immigration and free movement of people.”
Explain what u mean by this.
You can find a full list of Paul’s positions on immigration here:
http://www.issues2000.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm
The general trend is that he wants the flow of immigrants to be regulated by the labor market, rather than the government. He also believes immigrants shouldn’t be able to access the welfare state without contributing it, thereby preventing the subsidization and resulting increase in immigrants.
Paul would probably be considered relatively “liberal” on immigration by some traditional Republicans but he is still conservative when compared to the full spectrum of views.
Some of Dr. Paul’s ideas need to be studied and possibly implemented. The problem with American foreign policy is: we have no foreign policy, and haven’t had for a while. We cannot
“buy” friendship with other countries, but we need to interact with them in the way the is beneficial
to both – not one-sided. And endless wars have done us so much harm economically we may never recover. We cannot solve all the world’s problems, and should not try. Some countries have been mired in internal conflicts since the beginning of time as we know it. Do we have all the answers? A resounding no, would suffice. However, we can help them take a look at their problems, especially in Africa, and work with them to help bring about solutions. Government agencies are not always the answer – we need to encourage other types of aid and nation
building. Thank you for this post. I have been concerned that we back off of really looking at
ideas which seem brash and bold without realizing that “debate” really helps us see the challenges
and answers before us – or work toward solutions. Dr. Paul has served a long time in Congress
and is a “balance” to some of the liberal ideas that have taken us to where we stand now.
Ted Freeway,
If it is not too much to ask, I’d like you to write a post on why Ron Paul’s position on reverting back to the gold standard is a good idea (or a bad idea). I recall from my econ courses (taken back in the 80s and early 90s, mind you) that the gold standard was a bad idea. You are my favorite economics wonk these days. I’d like your opinion.
Thanks,
Mr D