Republican and Conservative political analysis and commentary

Dr. Paul is NOT an isolationist. Dr. Paul is non-interventionalist and a supporter of free trade. His supporters appreciate the coverage, but please revise the mis-information in your article.

Paul criticizes free trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA, which makes him anti-free trade in my opinion. I agree he's a non-interventionist, but he also wants to withdraw from NATO and the UN which makes him an isolationist.

You can spin it all you want, but that's reality of those stances.

Overall good article. Just replace "isolationist" with "non-interventionism"

His motto is:

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."

And as far as I know, even some FoxNews Republicans want to get out of the UN (though for different reasons, they don't support the war, hah!)

Again with the isolationism. I appreciate the coverage, but you people actually research anything before you write an article. Here's an idea.. since you're already on the internet, google "non-interventionism".

NAFTA & CAFTA are not free trade agreements. They are "managed trade agreements" and that's why he is critical of them. They are not free enough. Anyone who knows anything about economics would realize that Paul is the only candidate who supports true free trade.

Was George Washington an isolationist too then? Washington's words from his Farewell Address sound exactly like what Paul advocates:

".......Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all......

........In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated.........

........The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible..........

..........Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?.........

.........It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.........

.......Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.......

.......Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct. And can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it?..........

...........In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated..........

......The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible..........

.........Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?..........

..........It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world..........

.......Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies............

.......Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences........."

1. He's not an isolationist
2. He doesn't oppose free trade, he opposes managed trade
3. Ron Paul is not a populist, nor a "libertarian populist"
Faced with the pain of freedom, man begs for his shackles. – Gerry Spence
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
JosephTheLibertarian
View Public Profile
Send a private message to JosephTheLibertarian
Send email to JosephTheLibertarian
Visit JosephTheLibertarian's homepage!
Find all posts by JosephTheLibertarian
Add JosephTheLibertarian to Your Buddy List
post #4 Report Post
Unread Today, 09:27 AM
coastie coastie is offline
Member

About:
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Panama City Beach, FL
Posts: 18
Default

1. He's not an isolationist. He believes in diplomacy, completely free trade and non-intervention in the internal affairs of other nations. Any definition of isolationism would have to include protectionism, which is certainly not the case with Dr. Paul.
2. He doesn't oppose free trade, he opposes managed trade. Addressed in 1.
3. Ron Paul is not a populist, nor a "libertarian populist." A populist would tailor his message to be everything to every person (like John Edwards.) He is the opposite or a populist. He sticks to strict constitutionalism, which is a philosophy that precludes populism.
4. He's not anti-war, he's anti - unjust wars. He is against nation building and world policing. But he was gung ho in favor of going into Afghanistan, where our attackers actually were. Of course, what Bush has done in Afghanistan is no longer what we went there for. And Iraq is even further off the point.

5. He's not anti-immigration, he's anti - ILLEGAL immigration. In fact, he is careful to point out that his policies will cause such a robust economy that we will need more workers, including immigrants.

Your op-ed is good. But some of your terms and thoughts are a bit less than orderly.

Thanks for the article, A.K. Smith

Given the number of errors and misrepresentations, I'm quite proud of the people who commented and posted them politely.

As stated above, writers would do well to either contact the campaign, read the campaign literature and draw original conclusions, than presenting previously mis-reported information about the man.

Thanks for the article, and with thousands of Paul supporters campaigning as volunteers nationwide, I think he is going to surprise a lot of people.

My concern with Ron Paul is his "non-interventionist" or "isolationist" views. The way it is stated on his website is "Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations."

Now, I think Washington was our best president. But he lived in a different world climate. We were a very small country with few financial and military resources. Washington, in particular, wanted the U.S. to develop our own resources so that we could be independent. Today we are the dominant economy and military in the world. The world is inter-dependent--the old "it's a small world" statement is very true.

World War II showed us that the position of no entangling alliances is no longer viable. Had the boasts of Hussein been true or even the current designs of Ahmadinejad come to be true, the Ron Paul approach would be terribly dangerous.

Joel, Hussein boasted that he had ended his WMD programs and the UN inspectors did not reveal otherwise. Bush rushed in so he could claim uncertainty afterwards with regard to Hussein possessing WMD.

We didn't intervene in World War II. We were attacked by Japan and then the German ambassador delivered a declaration of war to our state department.

And Ahmadinejad? Why would you consider this man a threat to us? He certainly despises Israel, but he knows well that they have enough nukes that attacking them would be mutually assured destruction.