-----------------
I have much respect for George Will, but to label Ron Paul as an "isolationist" is flat out disingenuous. Isolationists believe their country should abstain from political or economic relations with other countries (paraphrase from Webster dictionary).
Ron Paul has publicly stated he supports trade between countries (not any big news there...most candidates believe trade is good), and cites peace as one of the main benefits of international trade (based on the assumption you're less likely to go to war with your business partner). North Korea is an isolationist state. Ron Paul is not an isolationist.
Ron Paul is a non-interventionist, and there is a big difference. Noninterventionists (again paraphrasing from Webster) think their country should not intervene in the affairs of another nation, specifically military affairs that are not related to their own direct self-interests. Thomas Jefferson once said, "Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." Sounds like he had a bit of the non-interventionist streak in him as well.
I would expect other, less-reputable, and more flamboyant conservative writers to disingenuously label Ron Paul an isolationist, but not George Will. He should be ashamed for not holding himself to higher standards in today's column.
-----------------
Apart from Will's poor choice of one adjective, he writes a pretty darn good article on why neither Mitt nor Newt are good for the GOP nomination. It's too bad he dismisses Paul based on his own misunderstanding of isolationism and non-interventionism.
No comments:
Post a Comment