I'm beginning to think that some people have a decided misunderstanding of the term, "Isolationist". The republican's and self identified conservative's (RSIC), familiar refrain when discussing Ron Paul is, " I like Ron Paul, but not his foreign policy. He's an isolationist". This is an odd, and mistaken claim, by self professed republicans and conservatives in the fact that Ron Paul's foreign policy stance is much closer to Senator Robert Taft's (Mister Republican) and Russell Kirk's, the founder of modern day conservatism than it is to neo conservatism, aka wilsonian liberalism.
The mistake seems to be in conflating "isolationism" with "non-interventionism". These RSIC's have been so conditioned into thinking that our present day foreign policy of hyper intervention is constitutionally sanctioned. Over 900 bases in over 130 countries? Since WW2, there have been five actual wars (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq 1, Iraq 2 and Afghanistan) with no congressional declaration of war? No, I don't count the AUMF dodge (and other congressional approvals to do the UN's job) used to get us into Iraq. The constitution is fairy unambiguous when it comes to war. AUMF just highlighted how ridiculously off track we have become as a country from the origins of the United States constitution. Now, on top of the wars we have had numerous "military engagements" such as Bosnia and Libya. Ok, so back to the charge of Isolationist. Ron Paul is anything but an isolationist. He would try, and "try" is the operative word, to engage with all nations in trade and commerce. Now, and here is another hangup the RSIC's seem to constantly have about trade and commerce with all nations, is what if that nation doesn't want to have trade and commerce? So what? They don't. There is something to be said about self determination. This doesn't give us cause to wage war. This is his view toward the middle eastern countries. Attempt trade and commerce and if it isn't requited, then accept it. This ties in with foreign aid, which is a subsection of foreign policy. Paul's position? No foreign aid to any country. Why? No, not because he's a monster who wants little children to die, but rather because it is giving, as he has said in his own words, "money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries". It never ends up in the right hands. One cry I hear a lot is that he hates Israel, because he wants to end our aid to them. Guess what, we give far more in aid to Israel's self professed enemies than to Israel. He wants to end foreign aid to all, thus it's a net gain for Israel. In contrast, our neo-conservative and progressive friends, but I repeat myself, believe in sanctions. Now, sanctions really are isolationist and really do kill innocent children. Go figure.
On top of conflating "isolationism" with "non-interventionism", a common mistake of RSICs is to confuse foreign policy with national defense. Foreign policy is our policy of relations with other countries of the world. National defense is, just as it says, the defense of our sovereign nation. These are certainly inter-related but at the same time most definitely not the same concept. Ron Paul's national defense policy is to protect and strengthen our borders. Again, his foreign policy is to reach out to other countries via trade and commerce. Part of his national defense policy is to bring home those troops in Germany, North Korea, Japan and other places and have them stationed in the US, you know, actually defending our nation. As an aside, one of the maddening things, at least to me and it's my entirely unread blog, is this either/or stance by both RSICs and libertarians in regards to Islamists. It's either, "They hate us because we're free" (RSICs) or, "They hate us due to our interference in their sovereign affairs" (most libertarians). When the reality is that it is both of these things. They tell us. They've told us time and time again. However, the fact is that we have control over one of those things. And this is where I have changed in my views. We can control our foreign policy in regards to the middle east. We can choose not to have bases in SA, Yemen, Qatar, Iraq, etc...This would alleviate that whole particular stated reason for Islamists' incessant hatred of us. The other thing is a deal breaker for me. Now, sure this country is a shadow of it's former self in terms of civil and economic liberties, but it still, especially in the middle east, is seen as a scion of individual liberty. That, we will not change. As a matter of fact, we will hopefully, with a Ron Paul victory, make our way back to liberty.
There are many videos on Youtube describing Ron Paul's foreign policy that are definitely worth watching. However, the absolute best way to understand his foreign policy and to see that it is not the dreaded "isolationist" variety is to read his books. The first being, "A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce and Friendship". This is a compendium of his speeches on the house floor over his many years as a congressman. This is his policy in his own words. Not twisted out of context snippets from the MSM or neoconservative media. The other book to read is, "The Revolution: A Manifesto". This is a great book in which he gives his policy prescriptions in various areas of governance, one of them being foreign policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment