Anarchist420
Diamond Member
Non interventionism worked fine during the World War until FDR intervened, didn't it?As long as we can somehow ensure that every other nation stays out of our affairs, that sounds like a workable plan. But since we live in a globally interdependent age, and the theory of isolationism came from a time when the only way to interact with other nations was by sailboat, I'd say that sounds like a pretty bad idea.
It's also not isolationism. Dr. Paul only fits one of the 3 isolationist characteristics. Most people are isolationists if Dr. Paul is except they don't fit the one good isolationist characteristic like Dr. Paul does.
The question is, is someone be considered an isolationist if they're only for two of the 3 isolationist planks or should it require all 3? Why is only one sufficient for Dr. Paul to be called an isolationist, but the others get away with one without being called isolationist?
Anyway, my point is that Romney is for at least one of them (he's a protectionist and whether he's closed borders for travel/immigration isn't really clear yet), so he's not any less isolationist than Dr. Paul is.