Interventionist: Pronunciation: /ɪntəˈvɛnʃ(ə)nɪst/
Adjective
Favouring intervention, especially by a government in its domestic economy or by one state in the affairs of another.
Noun
A person in favour of interventionism.
Noun
[mass noun]
Interference by a state in another’s affairs
Isolationism: Pronunciation: /ʌɪsəˈleɪʃ(ə)nɪz(ə)m/
Noun
[mass noun]
A policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries
A couple of points: the definitions above are taken from the Oxford Online Dictionary, and they are in response to a tweet Jonathan Kay sent out (I think in response to mine) where he says that “Dear Ron Paul followers: The only people buying your rebranding of isolationism as "non-interventionism" are other Ron Paul followers.” I am still at a loss to understand how people that smart who actually get paid to write stuff that is in theory informed, can fail to grasp concepts so simple, and then accuse others of “rebranding.” I feel like everyday I read lunacy like this that I understand better why the esteemed author and Professor Thomas Sowell has referred to the intelligentsia as "musheads."
Let me try it again: we believe in promoting peace through trade. That is not isolationism. We don't believe in bombing the hell out of every perceived or "made-up-so-we-have-an-excuse-to-invade" threat (see Iraq, nukes). Or just check out this:
This post was a letter I sent to the National Post in response to the article I ref below from Jonathan Kay. I sent it really late, it didn’t get published, and to be honest I should have reworked some of it because I was exhausted and sick when I wrote it. But the points are still relevant, and as today is the Iowa Caucus, and those of us who embrace freedom and liberty are eagerly anticipating the results.
Dear Sirs,
Perhaps Jonathan Kay (http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/12/29/jonathan-kay-what-ron-paul-is-good-for/) could enlighten us. While he rightly identifies that Rep. Paul is the only GOP candidate (actually, you could include President Obama as well) who “understands that superpowers can’t maintain 11 carrier battle groups, win Afghanistan, protect Israel, take on Iran, out-educate China, and run a humane society, all while disemboweling government” he doesn’t seem to agree with any of the ways Dr. Paul would set about correcting the problems listed.
Mr. Kay, along with the other suddenly-panicked media who now realize that Rep. Paul is a credible threat to win the GOP nomination, errantly describes Paul as an “isolationist,” without stopping to consider that Dr. Paul has vehemently opposed “isolating” his country—often voting against his own party in doing so—from the rest of the world through the popular means of trade sanctions or embargoes (Paul’s voting history on this is too long to account for). I find it ironic that proponents of the constant US cycle of propaganda-sanctions-invasion-Empire Building are never viewed as “isolationists” despite the fact that few acts can be as isolating as sanctioning a country to starvation and trying to over through its government (see Castro, Fidel). How has our society crumbled to the point where those of us who believe in military action as an absolute last resort are seen as “isolationists?” Isn’t it ironic that the “isolationist” Paul enjoys a support base of current and former servicemen and women that is greater than those of his combined rivals? Perhaps those who have served and dealt with the results of American interventionism are on to something the rest of us could learn from.
We also have—according to Mr. Kay and the rabid anti-Paul group—proof of Paul’s isolationist theories on two other international fronts: Israel, and foreign aid. Regarding the former, it is odd that in the Eric Dondero piece Kay refers to (this from a man who is capitalizing on Paul’s surge in a manner a porn star sleeping with Tiger Woods would be proud of) where Dondero claims intimated to him that he was against the formation of the Jewish state, Dondero goes to great lengths to affirm that Paul is not anti-Semitic (nor for that matter, racist or homophobic). Has anyone who accuses Paul of anti-Semitism because of his non-interventionist policies (which extend to the world, not just Israel) considered that perhaps Israeli leaders like Benjamin Netanyahu are actually tiring of America telling them how to run their country? It seems much of the rest of the world has already done so; why we would ascribe a different sentiment to a nation that the US interferes with on a regular basis?
Regarding the termination of foreign aid: Imagine the impudence! With Ron Paul as President, a country that is $15 TRILLION in debt with an annual deficit of $1.5 trillion would end the insane notion that it could bankroll the rest of the world while climbing into an abyss so financially steep that next three of its generations will not be able to pay off. These ideas must be the thrust of Mr. Kay’s affirmation of Dr. Paul’s “weirdness.”
Perhaps though Mr. Kay’s criticisms are valid. Indeed, he too sees the problems that block the paths to “America’s greatness” as Mitt Romney puts it, but is equally clear that Rep. Paul, the “classic American crank,” isn’t offering realistic solutions to them. As none of the other GOP candidates—nor for that matter, President Obama—seem to have an idea of how to correct them, and all preach a policy that amounts to more of the same irresponsible government which got America into her current mess, Mr. Kay must have a more realistic solution on how America can right her ship.
We cranks are eager to hear it.
No comments:
Post a Comment