The 'Isolationist' smear has done the most damage.

[DealzOnWheelz]

DOn't try to make up a definition for isolationism.......NORTH KOREA VS SWITZERLAND IT AIN"T DIFFICULT

 

[LawnWake]

If you are debating with someone over what the definition of isolationism is, you are going to lose that argument.

I don't want RP supporters losing debates with their friends/family over foreign policy.

People are already winning debates and it isn't helping.

It doesn't matter what's 'right' or 'wrong'. Ron Paul will never lose the 'isolationist' label, even from some people who like him. It's about perception, not necessarily being right.

Just explain to people that Ron Paul wants to trade with all nations, wants to use diplomats rather than bombs and not spend a penny on big government or defense or foreign welfare overseas. Don't bother with the label. If people want to call it 'isolationism', let them go ahead. It really doesn't matter at all. If they figure out that it's not isolationism but rather non-interventionism, they will themselves.

 

[Xelaetaks]

Probably helps to mention strong national defense too. Strong defense is probably one of the keys to good foreign policy.

 

[Liberty Shark]

Oh brother. If, in modern day America, the word "isolationism" has become a smear, well then we all might as well pack everything up and move to Madagascar and wait for the UFOs to arrive and abduct us. I mean really? How stupid are people?
Sure, free trade is good and I am a firm believer in free trade, AS LONG AS government regulations are removed to the point where you actually have a chance of being competitive, without being thrown in jail for not complying with crippling gov't rules and regulations. How about a little reality check here. If you think the current status regarding trade is sustainable please go see a shrink.

 

[Dsylexic]

isolationist smear

isolationism is the least we need to worry about.things like the newsletters can sway some people,but once the isolationist vs non interventionist story is clarified,there is no turning back.it just means paulites have more work to do.one neocon at a time.we dont have to start there with the blue republicans/independents who get paul's foreign policy

 

[Dsylexic]

isolationist smear

isolationism is the least we need to worry about.things like the newsletters can sway some people,but once the isolationist vs non interventionist story is clarified,there is no turning back.it just means paulites have more work to do.one neocon at a time.we dont have to start there with the blue republicans/independents who get paul's foreign policy

 

[playboymommy]

Just direct them to Bush's Humble Foreign policy when he was campaigning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc

This. Nobody called Bush an isolationist.

 

[tbone717]

Sometimes you have to explain it like you would explain it to a child. First you need to clarify that there are not two foreign policies, the way we do it now (because most people do not understand the word interventionism), and isolationism. Enlighten then that there are three.

I have used the following example to explain it. You are a farmer and you grow corn, the farms around you grow other crops (wheat, beans, tomatoes, etc).

The non-interventionist (that's what Ron Paul is) is friendly to the other farmers that wish to be friendly back. He trades with the other farmers freely. And if for some reason another farmer tried to attack his farm, he defends it to the death.

The isolationist (that's what N. Korea is) doesn't talk to his neighbors. He builds a 10 foot high barbed wire fence around his property, and eats nothing but corn.

The interventionist (that's what the US is now) tells the other farmers how to grow their crops. He has tents pitched on the other farmer's land. And if he doesn't like the way the other farmers grow their crops, he shoots them.

 

[tempest]

How long are Ron Paul supporters going to keep complaining about "but his foreign policy'?

If that's the only objection that a "potential convert" has then obviously two things need to be done:

1. Ask the person since when does one has to agree with a candidate 100% on all issues with no exception? If the person has gone to the point of agreeing with the overwhelming majority of Ron Paul's opinion then he or she should be reminded that by default it means that he disagrees with the overwhelming majority of Gingrich's, Romney's,... etc opinion!!!. Therefore he would be stupid to vote for the ones he mostly disagrees with
2. Another more deeper point is that the entire "foreign policy issue" is a misnomer: cuz if you really think about it there is no such a thing as foreign polisy that is unrelated to domestic policy. America's erosion of constitutional rights has systematically been caused by so called "foreign policy issues that BY DEFAULT have far reaching domestic consequences. One simple example: Nixon removed the last vestige of Gold's relation to the dollar in 1970 as a direct result of US dollar's currency-exchange-crisis with the currencies of Europe and Japan.

Therefore potential converts need to be reminded every second that "foreign policy" is in actuality inseparable to domestic, financial, monetary and yes CONSTITUTIONAL policy of the government.

 

[h.k.]

DOn't try to make up a definition for isolationism.......NORTH KOREA VS SWITZERLAND IT AIN"T DIFFICULT

This is a great example.

Switzerland is what Ron Paul is asking for.

 

[malkusm]

You need to talk about the police state instead.

No. Spend time speaking to people about the issues THEY care about, not the issues YOU care about.

 

[h.k.]

No. Spend time speaking to people about the issues THEY care about, not the issues YOU care about.

Hmm they're both related issues.