Dare I Publish Post Number Four About Ron Paul?
Supporters of Ron Paul, I must give you points for enthusiasm. Thanks for all the comments, and for keeping them, for the most part, civil. Some of the criticism I’ve received for previous posts charges I don’t know enough about Ron Paul to dare opine.
First, I do not claim to be an expert on Ron Paul or his philosophy. As such, like most Americans, I am judging him based on his recent public statements and appearances, albeit with enough background in media and U.S. history to appreciate just how far out his quotes about former U.S. presidents, as related by Tim Russert on “Meet the Press,” sound. Beyond that, I’m not terribly interested in Ron Paul except that his views provide a useful prism for discussing the idea of non-intervention, especially in a post-911 world. More on that subject to come.
For now I’ll mention some readers have critiqued my use of the word isolationist in describing Ron Paul. Taking a quick look at Merriam-Webster’s definition, I’ll concede that perhaps non-interventionist would have been more technically accurate, given that Paul is not opposed to international trade or dialogue. But I also think this critique is hairsplitting. In most discussions of U.S. foreign policy, the main meaning of the word “isolationist” is against alliances with other countries, and against military intervention under any circumstances except perhaps in reaction to a full-scale invasion of our mainland. That is the sense in which I termed Paul an isolationist.
Happy New Year to all, and please keep the comments coming. Also, any Hebrew speakers/readers: please watch for my opinion piece, to be published within the next several days in Israel’s daily Ma’ariv, about Christian Sudanese refugees presently in Israel.