As Ron Paul continues to do well, one key issue he will have to hammer and explain persuasively is his views on foreign policy.
To call Ron Paul an isolationist is about as useless as calling Obama a socialist. Paul's position is rather simple. If the U.S. engages in fair trade, there would be no need for military intervention to protect American interests abroad. It would also put an end to American geo-political hypocrisy (e.g. supporting one dictator when it serves them while espousing the ideals of liberty at the same time).
One small caveat with this. America is not just another country.
It is the supreme nation to which all nations look to for a myriad of reasons. This puts America in a "fix."
The problem with America is even if they kept to themselves the world is constantly asking for their help. This will always keep them involved in world affairs on some level. This means interventionism where it may not necessarily directly impact self-interest. If an allied nation - in which you have strong trade with is invaded by an aggressive entity that runs against your principles - asks for help do you stand by and watch it get over run?
Laugh, but when you watch a film like Lord of the Rings, it lends some insights into contemporary world politics. For instance, even the peaceful Ents were called into action when they attacked Isengard. Even Rohan came to Gondor's defense.
America will always be, in one form or another, involved in international affairs.
Ron Paul definitely would bring a different approach to this fact and into a another direction altogether.
***
Why do individuals and states intervene? Many reasons including selfish and perhaps in rarest of occasions, altruism. The ending of The Magnificent Seven seems appropriate...
"...the farmers won...we always lose."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.