Isolationism Vs. Non-Interventionism

I hear and read so many people misusing the terms isolationism and non-interventionism so much that I just have to jump in here and do my part to try and clarify the issue, at least in my small sphere of influence.  If you are following politics at all right now, you probably know where I’m coming from and in regards to who.

Ron Paul is constantly labeled an isolationist due to his view on foreign policy.  I will attempt to prove that label incorrect by simply explaining the definition of the two terms in question.  I think part of the problem is that once a person is labeled incorrectly it propagates via ‘parrots’ that don’t care to investigate if the claim is correct or that the term in use is being used properly according to its definition.

Isolationism: the policy or doctrine of isolating one’s country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one’s country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities. via dictionary.com

Non-Interventionism:  is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is “strategic independence”.[1] Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US PresidentsGeorge Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul.[2]

Nonintervention is distinct from isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration. Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their policies from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade.  via wikipedia.com

As you can see, just from simply looking up the definition of the two terms there is a clear distinction between the two.  I’ll admit that the definitions are very similar, but through a little reading and educating oneself, it is easy to see that when people call Ron Paul an isolationist, they are incorrect.  The term they should be using is non-interventionist.

But don’t take my word on it.  Simply take the two definitions, compare his stance on foreign policy to the two, and come to your own conclusion as to which Ron Paul should be labeled.

I have done this and my verdict:  Dr. Ron Paul is a NON-INTERVENTIONIST.


A Foreign Policy of Freedom

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Education, Government, Politics, Ron Paul and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s