Bill Kristol's dishonest attack on Rand Paul

Bill Kristol's father, Irving Kristol, had a first rate mind and is considered one of America's most important and influential intellectuals. Irving Kristol is often called the Father of neo-Conservativism, after his journey through neo-Marxism, neo-Troskyism and neo-Liberalism. Bill Kristol is also a well known intellectual in America, and his upbringing no doubt provided a comprehensive education -- an educational experience in which one values an evolving worldview based on the revelation of new information. It's highly debatable that neo-Conservativism is the best conclusion to such an evolution, but at least Irving Kristol made well thought-out arguments to defend his world-views. Given all this, it's hard to imagine that Bill Kristol lacks the historical knowledge attached to the term isolationism and the nuanced distinctions thinkers have made between isolationism and non-interventionism.

To explain, on Fox News today, in a section with Megyn Kelly and someone from Breitbart News, Bill Kristol repeatedly criticized Rand Paul for his filibuster, attributing motives to Paul that aren't true, and referred to him as an isolationist. This use of the word islolationist by Kristol is an intentional smear to marginalize Rand Paul. Kristol is dishonest when he calls Paul an isolationist. Isolationism gained its negative connotation in the early 20th century as FDR fought for a globalist US presence. The isolationists were mostly opponents of international alliances, free trade, and various international agreements that were proposed from time to time. Isolationists would prefer tariffs and protections for US trade at home. The isolationists also fought against any foreign military entanglements, but they certainly wanted to protect the US from any national threats -- however, the sine qua non of isolationism is not a rejection of foreign military entanglements -- military entanglements are only part of what makes an isolationist.

Rand Paul is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist, and even when it comes to interventions, he's no peacenik smoking a bong flashing the two fingered peace sign. In no way does Rand Paul want America to pull away from the world, to refuse involvement internationally when cooperation is helpful, to reject free trade, to oppose alliances or helpful agreements with other nations. Paul values sharing culture, technology and ideas between nations. Paul doesn't, however, value futile interventions like what has happened with Iraq and Afghanistan and Egypt and Libya and so forth.  Paul has indicated he would intervene in Iran if Iran's nuclear capabilities threaten our national security, but Paul is asking for a cautious approach when it comes to deploying our troops overseas. Who can find fault with this after what we're discovering about Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt and Libya?

But aside from practical concerns, non-interventionism has been an American principle since the country's beginning, even though we quickly violated the principle shortly after becoming a union. Our sovereignty becomes at risk when we forcefully entangle ourselves in the affairs of other nations, and the unintended consequences of our interventions often do more harm than good. But the real reason is that other countries are free to deal with their own affairs, and even when we've tried to instill "democracy", it doesn't work when the people themselves aren't fighting and dying for liberty.

Yes, hindsight is 20-20, and Paul might have made similar decisions to the ones Bush made if Paul had been President when 9/11 happened. History might even show that our military responses following 9/11 saved many American lives at home, prevented further attacks, but only fools will not look back at our interventions and refuse to learn from them. For Kristol to slam Paul as a neo-Isolationist, when Kristol understands the difference between isolationism and Paul's type of non-interventionism, is petty and mean-spirited. Surely Kristol can defend his neo-Conservative ideas without resorting to such cowardly tactics as the ones he's using against Paul. 

For God's sake, it's not isolationism -- it's non-interventionism

I already see the term used in media. On several talk shows today pundits used the term when discussing Rand Paul's filibuster and his libertarian ideas. Rand is, as far as I can tell, a non-interventionist in the tradition of the Old Right, represented by thinkers like Frank Chodorov.

Media analysts are calling Paul and other libertarian-leaning types in congress isolationists. This is a derogatory term that associates libertarians with a movement in our past which had to do with tariffs and protection from foreign business competition more than anything. Non-interventionism is something entirely different and was a principle of our Founders, although the principle was violated shortly after the nation was founded when the US used mideast interference in our shipping routes as an excuse to intervene in that region to manipulate the countries to the advantage of a few in the US -- some had religious motives, while others felt that a democratic region in that part of the world would be good for the West -- we've been intervening ever since to one degree or another. But the principle still stands, and it's a viable principle. We should mind our business and protect our nation from attack -- we should freely trade goods and services and share culture with other countries -- but we should not intervene in the affairs of other countries.

Non-interventionism doesn't mean a weak defense, but it does mean we refrain from military adventurism. We can build missile defense systems which enable us to feel safe with less military presence overseas. We can close bases that make no sense in the 21st century. We can stop the futile war in Afghanistan and leave North Africa alone as long as they leave us alone. We would be actively involved in the world around us, just not militarily involved as we are now. We can share intelligence that makes all peaceful countries safer, but we don't have to have troops in these countries. We need to make new, creative arrangements with other countries to keep terrorism at bay, but our main focus, as I wrote earlier today, should be free trade, peace and prosperity -- generating opportunities for those now in poverty, so they can gain knowledge and build good lives.

This has nothing to do with isolationism, so I wish people who should know better would stop using the term.

One bit of advice for Mark Steyn

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/288090/ron-paul-faction-mark-steyn?pg=1

I'm sure Steyn couldn't care less about my bit of advice. I like Steyn's writing and I usually agree with what he writes (here comes the but), but, Steyn should learn the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism, and, if he does know the difference, then he should stop using isolationism when non-interventionism is what Paul supports. Isolationism entails tariffs and all sorts of protectionism, while non-interventionism is basically calling for an end to the hopeless interventions which Steyn himself is criticizing, such as in Afghanistan. We can still defend our country, be open and active involved in free trade, diplomacy, technological cooperation, innovation in how we address regional conflicts, and also assure international players that the US is not a doormat while avoiding nation-building and long slogs that change nothing but do waste lives and money.

Isolationism vs non-interventionism

Despite a huge difference in the two positions, media insists on characterizing the libertarian position of non-interventionism as 20th century isolationism. They are practically opposites when you take out the similarities regarding avoidance of foreign military interventions in other countries which don't threaten our national security. Non-interventionism is primarily concerned with military interventions in foreign countries. It's a policy designed to avoid wars not directly related to national defense and to also avoid expansion of State power. It's best described as military non-intervention, although it can also apply to international efforts to control certain countries' economies, like the IMF has tended toward when they loan money to struggling countries -- this type of intervention usually has negative consequences when there is ignorance of a country's special circumstances, needs, culture and history.

Non-interventionism is not a call for isolationism, tarrifs and other protectionist measures against global trade. A country with a non-interventionist policy can very well be open in all other respects, such as culture exchange, immigration/emigration, peaceful free trade, technology and intelligence cooperation. Some in media know better when they conflate non-interventionism with isolationism -- they use "isolationism" as a smear tactic -- but the sad probability is that many don't know. Although having a college degree is important in order to land a good journalist gig, possessing knowledge of the subjects a journalist covers is not. 

It's not isolationism

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.