Isolationist Bait and Switch
Larison trumpets this Ron Paul quote as an attempt to distance himself and paleoconservatism from their isolationist reputation:
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
Now, this is all rather sensible, except that Ron Paul is staunchly opposed to the institutions that make “diplomacy” and “engagement” possible. The UN? Ron Paul wants out. NATO? Paul wants out of all of that too. OAS, G8? Out and out. What about new institutions to peacefully govern access to the world’s commons that could otherwise cause conflict like the Law of the Sea? Well, I haven’t read Paul’s position paper, but I imagine he’s opposed.
This rhetorical maneuver is similar to Paul’s free trade bait and switch. Sure, he supports “free trade” and commerce between individuals and nations, but when it comes to hammering out and supporting the agreements and institutional frameworks that enable freer trade, like NAFTA or the WTO, Paul is opposed.
Paul’s foreign and trade policy is not the result of thoughtful analysis of the question “how can we promote peaceful engagement, diplomacy and relations with the world” or “what is the best way to lower and eventually eliminate barriers to trade on a global scale”, it is instead the application of sovereignty uber alles that is then warped to fit whatever rhetorically appealing stance Paul needs to adopt to appear non-crazy.
It really is an indictment of the past 6.5 years of neocon insanity that Ron Paul appears to be a sensible, moderate voice on foreign policy. He is not.
Diplomacy existed long before the UN, NATO, the OAS, G8, or any of the many “supra-governmental” organizations. TO say that diplomacy can no longer exist without these organizations would require some evidence or a argument of what changed.
As for free trade, the NAFTA and CAFTA agreements are clearly not free trade agreements. Their length alone precludes this possibility. Free trade is a very simple thing: you repeal your tariffs. This benefits both sides. If the other country understands economics, they repeal their tariffs as well. If they do not, live with it. Responding to a foreign country’s tariffs by imposing tariffs yourself is like punishing somebody who has cut themselves and is bleeding on your shoes by cutting yourself so you can bleed on their shoes. Tariffs hurt everyone. Their absence benefits everyone.
It may appear that these issues require much contemplation, but this contemplation has been done. Check out Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, and others. Read. The neocons just try to make these things look complicated because they don’t want to do them, or they don’t want to do them thoroughly. They recognize that although no country gains from trade barriers, individuals within countries can gain from trade barriers, at the expense of their neighbors.
Rich Paul
October 9, 2007 at 3:38 am
Matt Listen bro, you just don’t get it. No amount of reason, logic or simple truth will shake your views about this man because you do not want to change. You are not able to be helped and I suggest that no one waste anymore of their time on this blog. Go ahead and support whatever candidate you want Matt, you are right about everything, the masses rallying around Paul are idiots, right? He will never win the primaries! We are being tricked by his clever double-talk. We are merely sheep and he the shepard, right? Keep thinkin’ that and you will miss the amazing opportunity to witness and possibly engage in the idealogical, political revolution of our era. I assure you that Ron Paul’s limited gov’t ‘Freedom Message’ will dominate politics starting NOW!
C Moore
October 9, 2007 at 11:30 am
What masses? He’s barely registering in the polls.
Ron Paul favors laws to restrict or ban abortion. Therefore he is not a “pro-freedom” or “limited government” advocate, period.
Infidel753
October 9, 2007 at 12:08 pm
[...] Zeitlin doesn’t like Ron Paul’s remarks throwing the pejorative term isolationist back in the [...]
Eunomia · Isolation & Relations
October 9, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Rich is correct that diplomacy existed long before the UN and NATO. France isn’t in NATO and it gets along fine.
The UN hurts diplomacy in many ways, such as their human rights committee, which has ONLY censured Israel (nine times) and no other country, and of course Russia and China are with us on the Security Council and between the two of them stop anything that we want to do of merit.
The UN has long wanted to ban guns worldwide, which leads to the main reason that Ron Paul is against it: he believes in the national sovereignty of America and that we should not have to be told what to do by an international body which can be easily controlled by a few countries up to no good. I used to think the UN was great, but I’ve found Ron Paul’s arguments convincing on this matter.
The UN is a bureaucratic nightmare.
Libertarian Girl
December 10, 2007 at 3:05 am