Isolationism Verses Non-Interventionism

Mark Steyn filled in for Rush Limbaugh yesterday. He was able to to diss just about every Republican candidate while interacting with callers who favor any particular one. One caller calling from I-70 in Kansas asked about Ron Paul. Steyn actually responded by saying Ron has been able to get Americans thinking about the Federal Reserve as the main problem. But then Steyn went on basically call Ron Paul a "nut".

Now what was interesting about Steyn's referencing Ron as a nut was that he didn't offer one argument as to why. With every other candidate, he offered a laundry list of silly things and ideas that the candidate had done. But with Ron Paul, he offered none, nada, zilcho.

Now that kind of puzzled me just a bit. Well, after doing some research on the internet, I was able to find an interview in which Steyn says almost exactly what he said on Rush's show. Here is a portion of his interview with Hugh Hewitt:

Yes, I'm not (laughing), I'm not ready to say that, you know, Ron Paul has basically signed on to jihadist foreign policy. I don't think foreign policy engages him. And I think this is the black hole in the Paul campaign. When Ron Paul, you know, there's a lot of stuff. When Ron Paul starts going on about the gold standard and the Federal Reserve, and we dismissed him as some kind of kook for that three or four years ago, in fact, a lot of people have kind of come around to thinking he may be onto something there in recent times. But I don't think he's engaged by foreign policy at all, and I think this is, the idea that America can be a 19^th Century isolationist republic is absurd. America has two relatively benign neighbors, and yet 70% of the population of Mexico has moved north across the southern border, and 100% of every single bad Canadian idea has moved south across the northern border. Things that would be uniquely Canadian absurdities forty years ago, like multiculturalism and government health care, are now embedded in American politics. So the idea that Ron Paul's view of the Constitution can hold the planet at bay, I think, is the biggest defect in his whole pitch.

So there you have it. To be an isolationist is to be a "nut". But is Ron Paul an isolationist? Before we get to that, I want to look at the statement that 70% of Mexico is coming across the border. Now obviously Steyn is being facetious, but his point is obvious. Yet isn't it our foreign policy that has helped Mexico boil to the point it is at? Isn't the War on Drugs a major problem that has caused Mexicans to be killed left and right? How about instead of building a wall around the United States (and locking us in), how about getting rid of welfare, which is probably the number one reason they come in the first place?

But if you haven't noticed already, this whole argument is a red herring. What in tarnations do bad ideas coming from Canada and Mexicans crossing the border have anything to do with isolationism and Ron Paul's position?

But the biggest flaw in Steyn's non-argument is his last statement in the quote,

So the idea that Ron Paul's view of the Constitution can hold the planet at bay, I think, is the biggest defect in his whole pitch.

Ron Paul isn't trying to save the planet. In fact, Ron Paul has been quite clear. It is U.S. policy that is causing more problems than it solves. It is also equally clear that the Constitution does not empower the Federal government to go dropping bombs on anyone they wish in order to be the world's police man. So as far as the above quote is concerned, Mark Steyn offers no reason what-so-ever as to why Ron Paul is a "nut" or "kook".

None of this means that Ron Paul wants to be an isolationist. Ron Paul wants to be a non-Interventionist. The two should not be equivocated. Fortunately, Ron Paul answers a question that deals with this on Youtube.