I caught Mark Steyn on the radio filling in for Rush Limbaugh. I like Steyn, just as I like a lot of limited government conservatives, but Steyn made a side comment regarding Ron Paul and called Paul an isolationist. It's common for modern conservatives to disagee with the libertarian idea of non-interventionism regarding foreign affairs, but it's not a natural disagreement, because at one time non-interventionism was a conservative principle (see Russell Kirk). Neo-conservatives like Irving Kristol eventually led conservatives as a whole away from non-interventionism, and now it's become a main conservative position to promote foreign intervention. The Old Right unequivocably supported non-intervention and fought to keep us out of WWII.
Conservatives were once sceptical about Grand American Adventures overseas and warned against unilateral power shifting to the President -- conservatives didn't want a strong dictator sending the US military on imperialist or world-changing missions. Perhaps some on the Right did fall under the category of isolationists, but non-interventionism is not the same as isolationism. You can oppose foreign military intervention and propote free trade, cultural exchange, immigration, technological cooperation and all kinds of non-military openness and cooperation with foreign nations. Our Founders, in principle, were solidly against foreign entanglements, because most had seen what damage to Britain and by Britain such entanglements had caused. It took the US a long time to respond militarily to Arab attacks on foreign trade by sea routes.
America would be much better off if we still maintained that same caution and scepticism -- see Libya and Uganda as recent examples of why scepticism and caution will be helpful.