Rand Paul op-ed: ‘I Am Not an Isolationist’

[Natural Citizen]

Isolationism is a phenomenon that extends beyond talk of physical combat in the Middle East. Or it should be. I know that it is politically convenient to discuss the phenomenon from within that pretext only but it just isn't practical from a point of scope relative to the duties that come with the office in whole. At the moment I cannot think of anyone who isn't isolationist from an economic perspective of foreign policy. In fact, we almost want to flirt with the notion that our leaders are actually trying to isolate the US in that regard.

Foreign policy is a big old tall glass of water. It is not just about physical combat in the Middle East. I think that it is impossible for anyone to try to say that they aren't isolationist in some way. It's just the way that it is.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

F the constitution, F the rule of law, if you want to fight ISIS do it with your own money and your own actions. That is not a theory that is f'n freedom.

 

[ProIndividual]

Isolationism is a phenomenon that extends beyond talk of physical combat in the Middle East. Or it should be. I know that it is politically convenient to discuss the phenomenon from within that pretext only but it just isn't practical from a point of scope relative to the duties that come with the office in whole. At the moment I cannot think of anyone who isn't isolationist from an economic perspective of foreign policy. In fact, we almost want to flirt with the notion that our leaders are actually trying to isolate the US in that regard.

Foreign policy is a big old tall glass of water. It is not just about physical combat in the Middle East. I think that it is impossible for anyone to try to say that they aren't isolationist in some way. It's just the way that it is.

Isolationism isn't just non-interventionism...it's also protectionism. If you are for total non-intervention unless it is DIRECT and MEASURABLE harm or imminent endangerment to your populace, then you aren't an isolationist unless you are also for some form of protectionism (like tariffs, or closed borders/immigration quotas, etc.).

Being a free market advocate and non-interventionist disqualifies you from being an isolationist. Being an isolationist disqualifies you from being a free market advocate (because of the necessary aspect of protectionism to its definition).

I am not isolationist in ANY WAY, as I am a free market advocate (not lukewarm either, but radically free market - which is the only real kind of logically consistent free market advocacy), and am against protectionism ENTIRELY therefore.

Conflating "non-interventionism" with "isolationism" is a problem that pops up when people don't know what isolationism actually is per an encyclopedia.

 

[Champ]

This recent policy "shift" or "clarification" (whatever you want to call it) Rand is talking about is personally sad to me. I think what originally drew me to Ron Paul back in 2007 was his foreign policy. I liked how gutsy and common sense it was, and had at that point in my life, never heard a single other politician draw such a distinct and peaceful line to when to initiate force (basically never).

Now we have one of our only hopes in the political arena saying this. Even if Rand is doing this to play politics, he's catering to this aggressive, all powerful government approach, that every nation is still trying to cling to, and something that pockets of resistance around the world are trying to overcome. More fuel and legitimacy to the idea of the authoritative state and government, from the currently most powerful and influential member of the GOP and arguably the most likely GOP nominee.

Disappointing.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Isolationism isn't just non-interventionism...it's also protectionism. If you are for total non-intervention unless it is DIRECT and MEASURABLE harm or imminent endangerment to your populace, then you aren't an isolationist unless you are also for some form of protectionism (like tariffs, or closed borders/immigration quotas, etc.).

Being a free market advocate and non-interventionist disqualifies you from being an isolationist. Being an isolationist disqualifies you from being a free market advocate (because of the necessary aspect of protectionism to its definition).

I am not isolationist in ANY WAY, as I am a free market advocate (not lukewarm either, but radically free market - which is the only real kind of logically consistent free market advocacy), and am against protectionism ENTIRELY therefore.

Conflating "non-interventionism" with "isolationism" is a problem that pops up when people don't know what isolationism actually is per an encyclopedia.

I think that there exists waaaay too many isms. I suppose it's what we get when everyone wants a say so.

 

[newbitech]

This recent policy "shift" or "clarification" (whatever you want to call it) Rand is talking about is personally sad to me. I think what originally drew me to Ron Paul back in 2007 was his foreign policy. I liked how gutsy and common sense it was, and had at that point in my life, never heard a single other politician draw such a distinct and peaceful line to when to initiate force (basically never).

Now we have one of our only hopes in the political arena saying this. Even if Rand is doing this to play politics, he's catering to this aggressive, all powerful government approach, that every nation is still trying to cling to, and something that pockets of resistance around the world are trying to overcome. More fuel and legitimacy to the idea of the authoritative state and government, from the currently most powerful and influential member of the GOP and arguably the most likely GOP nominee.

Disappointing.

I believe what this boils down to for me is taking an objective look at current events. I agree with the overall concept of the non aggression principle. When it comes to the nitty gritty details of actually applying this principle is where I begin to have problems.

I think one of the failures in understanding across the board is how relationships between individuals scales up to relationships between groups of individuals.

For instance, I make analogies about being a third party to witnessing a mugging on the street corner. The United States of America is a third party to Radical Islam killing and raping Kurdish Sects in northern Iraq.

If we apply the same broad principles of non aggression in both circumstances, a break down occurs. I believe anyone trying to argue that 3rd party violent intervention in the street corner mugging would be out of their mind to assert that the 3rd party is violating NAP.

Yet, in the case of the United States of America, we will hear the assertion that the United States of America is acting as policeman of the world, or that the United States of America CAUSED the violence by intervening in the first place.

So we have an inconsistent application of a core principle that breaks down precisely because of the scale between relationships.

It's easy to argue from both sides in my opinion. What is not easy to do is understand the difference or why a difference exists in the first place.

I think all of us here pretty much agree that the United States of America was the aggressor in Iraq and made the false justification of aggression in the first place. I also think all of us here pretty much agree as well that the best course of action is no action at all for the interests of the United States of America. I also think that many of us here pretty much agree that sending in the military to intervene once again under false pretenses would be an aggressive action that violates principles of non aggression and would therefor be morally wrong.

The disappointing part to me is how some of us so easily pick apart Rand Paul's words to only support a one sided argument.

Rand Paul has found a way to make his ideas, opinions, and principles relevant to the national debate. This is already an extremely difficult thing to do regardless if your dad is Ron Paul.

Now that he is a relevant part of the national debate, his job is to persuade people to take his positions. Rand Paul is already light years ahead of his dad in terms of influence. This is a very important key to successfully educating the other 90% of people who never agreed with you and I and Ron Paul.

Ron Paul took 30 years to hit his ceiling of 10% influence. The education campaign is ongoing, it never stopped, but it was greatly boosted by having a voice in the national debate. The biggest problem that I always ran in to, and to this day I continue to run in to is the hard line stance that most people take when it comes to violence.

There really is no clear cut line to be drawn on when violence is justified and when it is not. There is always a very large grey area between scales of relationships. I don't think this is something that is readily acceptable to either side.

I feel like while libertarians in general are very principled and well educated people, there is a certain amount of arrogance and unwillingness to admit that they do no have all the answers.

While libertarian philosophy is extremely attractive to me because of the logic and understanding and hard core truths behind it, it still falls well short of a total solution for me in my personal life and personal relationships.

That is because of the scale of relationships. For instance, while it may be acceptable to many libertarians that the only proper role of government is to protect individual liberty, I believe that it is also a proper roll of government to carry out basic civilization functions such as keep records of case law in a publicly accessible database.

That is just a small example. There are gaps in libertarian philosophy that "radical free market" solutions don't fill. Another example, would be along the lines of a child suing his/her parents in a private court. These types of things are incomprehensible in "public" or "state run" government. The "laws" should not be that malleable to the point of inconsistency. Of course libertarian philosophy is theoretically much better than what currently exists as pretty much any idea that is NOT what is currently being practiced is "theoretically" much better than what currently exists.

All that being said, the fact that Rand Paul has influence, much much more influence than his father ever had in 30 years should be a welcome RESULT of his fathers education efforts.

Instead, it is derided based on rhetorical words and differences of OPINION on THEORY. There is certainly a trust issue with ANYONE with ANY kind of significant influence and power within American government. Rand Paul is no exception to that basic rule REGARDLESS if he came out SOUNDING just like his father or not.

I assert that MOST people even within the Ron Paul Revolution would be HIGHLY skeptical of Ron Paul's words would that he have risen to the level of influence that Rand is at now.

I prefer to celebrate the success of Ron Paul that has manifested in his son being a key component in the national debate. Rand is pushing the concept of LAWFUL use of force, moral use of force, restraint and defensive posture in terms of national security. These concepts have not been a part of the national debate since I have been alive.

That is a REAL victory for Ron Paul in his education campaign. I am so NOT disappointed in what Rand has said AT ALL. I take it for what it is. His personal opinion. The fact that he has couched this opinion with the ideas of lawful use of force, moral use of force, restraint and defensive posture in terms of national security leads me to believe that his foreign policy is in line with my principles.

The ONLY way Rand Paul's opinion has a chance at becoming actual foreign policy is if he has support of ALL of us (the 10% his dad drummed up in 30 years) PLUS support of at least another 40-50% of the VOTING electorate.

Otherwise, none of this matters.

 

[Champ]

I believe what this boils down to for me is taking an objective look at current events. I agree with the overall concept of the non aggression principle. When it comes to the nitty gritty details of actually applying this principle is where I begin to have problems.

Thanks for the very well thought out and written response.

I have been living by the NAP since before I even knew what it was, I'm sure many people on these boards have as well. It makes so much sense to me and is one of the easiest and most basic rules in life to follow in my own experience. Ron Paul eventually came along and validated that stance for me even further, and any doubt I still had was permanently and forever removed.

So yes, this may be a personal matter or opinion to me, and I guess that's the point. That's what I hold most dear is the way we use violence in our world, and any person or politician that speaks about these ideas are going to be more closely scrutinized than other policies may be.

Rand is exactly as you and many others are saying, a powerful voice in the GOP, far more powerful than his dad was ever able to achieve. I am just sitting here hoping with everything in me he uses that power and influence in a smart way. He's not doing bad, better than nearly every other politician I can think of, but in the military industrial complex and use of violence to achieve political interests department, I'm seeing him teeter totter back and forth between the two Ronald's, his father and Reagan.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I think that there exists waaaay too many isms.

That is what happens when you do not want to go to the intellectual effort of understanding how people are labeling and defining themselves. When, in other words, you are unwilling or unable to understand people on their own terms.

You think there's "too many" different systems of thought and philosophy in this world. There are billions of people in this world. They're all different. If you want to understand people, maybe you should try trying.

 

[Rond]

I disagree.

 

[jllundqu]

The United States of America is a third party to Radical Islam killing and raping Kurdish Sects in northern Iraq.

1. In this analogy, the United States is a third party 10,000 miles away and there are dozens of 'third parties' that are actually witnessing the act (Saudi, Jordan, Turkey, EU, etc). Why does it have to be the US?

2. In this analogy, the United States armed the rapist and "asked" them to rape Syria, but the rapist said, "No thanks, I'm going to rape the country you just got done raping."

3. This is BLOWBACK, defined. Chickens coming home, and all that. Playing whack-a-jihadi-mole across the globe is not something I would argue as a "wise foreign policy"

We are NOT, nor should we EVER BE, the world's police. If there is violence in Iraq, let the IRAQIS and her neighbors handle it.

 

[ProIndividual]

I think that there exists waaaay too many isms. I suppose it's what we get when everyone wants a say so.

This didn't defeat my factual point on the definition of either non-interventionism or isolationism. It didn't validate your point that non-interventionists here are somehow necessarily isolationists. They aren't all isolationists...only the protectionism advocates are.

The avoidance of -isms is just another -ism. There is no such thing as someone without a philosophy...when people criticize any -ism, they themselves are logically using an -ism to do it, even if they deny it. A person in a vegetative state I suppose could be absent -isms, but that's about it. To get out of bed in the morning you exhibit the assumption of an objective reality, as you expect, usually without looking, that floor will be there to meet your feet.

 

[DeMintConservative]

I think any attempt to apply a broad ideology to foreign policy, especially with regards to war and peace, is doomed to fail. Be it isolationism, non-interventionism, interventionism. They're just different sides of the same coin. In this realm, circumstances ought to trump principle. I've very Burkean in this regards. It's unsettling one lacks a clear set of axioms to fall on, but there's no such thing as optimal policy situations to the ills of the world. One of the few reasons why we need a government is to keep the country safe from foreign aggressors and the idea that we can isolate our way to perpetual peace is just as silly as the idea we can achieve peace through perpetual war. The commanding principle is keeping American and her interests safe; the rest are just a succession of prudential judgements, on which one should err on the side of caution because war is a very dangerous thing.

In this current case of IS/Iraq/Syria, I see no good reason for a military intervention. I don't think pacifying that region -to the extent it's within our means to do it, like a return to the 08-10 status quo- will make America significantly safer (or, for that matter, any safer; in fact I suspect that diverting all those jihadists from going there can make us and our allies more unsafe). And as we know for a fact, it'd be terribly expensive. The idea that it's possible to destroy Sunni jihadism through military means or institute liberal democracies in that part of the globe - two things that would make America and Americans safer, especially the first one- is absolutely utopian. So what's the endgame? I'm sure an American intervention would save peaceful civilians and children's lives, but sadly that's just not a reasonable standard for intervention. Too expensive and dangerous for a humanitarian intervention; it isn't a cruise ship sinking.

Best course of action is to stick with counterterrorism and intelligence. And I'm all for using drones and similar operations to eliminate those who've conspired to kill Americans and save those who can be saved, as long as the risk is reasonable.

 

[twomp]

I think any attempt to apply a broad ideology to foreign policy, especially with regards to war and peace, is doomed to fail. Be it isolationism, non-interventionism, interventionism. They're just different sides of the same coin. In this realm, circumstances ought to trump principle. I've very Burkean in this regards. It's unsettling one lacks a clear set of axioms to fall on, but there's no such thing as optimal policy situations to the ills of the world. One of the few reasons why we need a government is to keep the country safe from foreign aggressors and the idea that we can isolate our way to perpetual peace is just as silly as the idea we can achieve peace through perpetual war. The commanding principle is keeping American and her interests safe; the rest are just a succession of prudential judgements, on which one should err on the side of caution because war is a very dangerous thing.

In this current case of IS/Iraq/Syria, I see no good reason for a military intervention. I don't think pacifying that region -to the extent it's within our means to do it, like a return to the 08-10 status quo- will make America significantly safer (or, for that matter, any safer; in fact I suspect that diverting all those jihadists from going there can make us and our allies more unsafe). And as we know for a fact, it'd be terribly expensive. The idea that it's possible to destroy Sunni jihadism through military means or institute liberal democracies in that part of the globe - two things that would make America and Americans safer, especially the first one- is absolutely utopian. So what's the endgame? I'm sure an American intervention would save peaceful civilians and children's lives, but sadly that's just not a reasonable standard for intervention. Too expensive and dangerous for a humanitarian intervention; it isn't a cruise ship sinking.

Best course of action is to stick with counterterrorism and intelligence. And I'm all for using drones and similar operations to eliminate those who've conspired to kill Americans and save those who can be saved, as long as the risk is reasonable.

+rep