Opposing Imperialism Is Not
"Isolationism"
By Sheldon Richman
When pundits and rival politicians
call Ron Paul an “isolationist,” they mislead the American people — and they
know it.
They know it? How could they not:
Ron Paul is for unilateral, unconditional free trade. He believes any American
should be perfectly free to buy from or sell to any person in the world. In
that sense — the laissez-faire sense — he favors globalization, which, applied
consistently, would require a worldwide free market. He’s such a strong
advocate of free trade that he objects to the world’s governments, led by the
U.S. government, setting up international bureaucracies, such as the World
Trade Organization, to manage trade. He thinks trade should be a totally
private matter. That’s a solid classical-liberal, or libertarian, position.
So why is Paul repeatedly called an
isolationist?
Apparently in today’s political
world, being an isolationist means opposing the U.S. government’s policing the
rest of the world through invasion, occupation, and war — that is, militarism.
The word “isolationist” has always suggested a fear of foreigners, and no doubt
those who apply the word to Paul want to cash in on that sense. So we are left
with the daffy conclusion that Ron Paul is a xenophobic, head-in-the-sand
isolationist precisely because he prefers peaceful trade with foreigners rather
than invasion, occupation, and demolition of their countries.
If that’s what it means to be an
isolationist, count me as one too.