Skip to main content

Isolationism vs. Non-Intervention

From LewRockwell.com


I Advocate the Same Foreign Policy the Founding Fathers Would

by Ron Paul
by Ron Paul

Published on October 8, 2007, in the Manchester Union-Leader.

Any response to this paper's Friday editorial on my foreign policy position must rest on two fundamental assertions: first, that the Founding Fathers were not isolationists; and second, that their political philosophy – the wisdom of the Constitution, the Declaration, and our Revolution itself – is not just a primitive cultural relic.

If I understand the editors' concerns, I have not been accused of deviating from the Founders' logic; if anything I have been accused of adhering to it too strictly. The question, therefore, before readers – and soon voters – is the same question I have asked for almost 20 years in Congress: by what superior wisdom have we now declared Jefferson, Washington, and Madison to be "unrealistic and dangerous"? Why do we insist on throwing away their most considered warnings?

A non-interventionist foreign policy is not an isolationist foreign policy. It is quite the opposite. Under a Paul administration, the United States would trade freely with any nation that seeks to engage with us. American citizens would be encouraged to visit other countries and interact with other peoples rather than be told by their own government that certain countries are off limits to them.

American citizens would be allowed to spend their hard-earned money wherever they wish across the globe, not told that certain countries are under embargo and thus off limits. An American trade policy would encourage private American businesses to seek partners overseas and engage them in trade. The hostility toward American citizens overseas in the wake of our current foreign policy has actually made it difficult if not dangerous for Americans to travel abroad. Is this not an isolationist consequence from a policy of aggressive foreign interventionism?

It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationsists. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example.

I do not believe that ideas have an expiration date, or that their value can be gauged by their novelty. The test for new and old is that of wisdom and experience, or as the editors wrote "historical reality," which argues passionately now against the course of anti-Constitutional interventionism.

A Paul administration would see Americans engaged overseas like never before, in business and cultural activities. But a Paul administration would never attempt to export democracy or other values at the barrel of a gun, as we have seen over and over again that this is a counterproductive approach that actually leads the United States to be resented and more isolated in the world.

Buy a copy of Ron Paul's
new book for $20.

See the Ron Paul File

October 9, 2007

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

NBC anti-life?

I would boycott NBC, if I ever watched it that is. I actually never watch anything on the old line networks, NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX. Everything I watch is on the cable only stations... do they still broadcast over the air? Ah well, this story is about the fact that it seems NBC refused to air an ad put together by some Catholic outfit that features an embryo and all of the hardships it faced in early life ending up with the revelation that they were talking about Obama. Here is the ad , check it out and see how unoffensive it is. Like I said, if I watched them I'd quit now. :-/

Viva California! USA out of California Now!

Gene Veith points to a Russian who predicts the breakup the American Empire. Gene is somehow unaware of the dozens of secessionist movements in various states. Granted they are almost all small but still, they exist and this could be a good time for us. Those who know me already understand that I'm a California Nationalist who I doesn't think California should have joined those united States in the first place. Being a part of that empire just costs us money, we get nothing in return. These days we get to be hated by foreigners for being Americans and mocked by Americans for being Californians. Getting us out of the US yesterday would be a day too late as far as I'm concerned.

Government = Violence

What it comes down to is this, any law you propose states this, I will kill you if you do not agree to do "X." I say this because ALL laws say this. All . Jay walking is a "crime." So, what does that mean? It means if you jay walk you risk death at the hands of government enforcers. How so? You are accosted while jay walking by the local police. You say, "Buzz off bucko!" The cop says "you are under arrest!" You say "Not even." They attempt to restrain you and you resist, you are now "resisting arrest" and in the process of subduing you force will be used to make you to comply. The harder you resist the more likely "they" are to simply kill you. All laws imply deadly force. All laws = the death penalty. Of course they won't say you are being killed for the "crime" of jay walking, but for resisting arrest or attempting to escape or whatever, but really it's the original "crim