i can only hope that Ron Paul gets elected, he has my vote. you brits should be mad we made you dismantle your empire just so we can take your place. we have over 1000 bases in over 150 contries. i guess you can say the sun never sets on the american empire. its time for the US citizen to take back our contry from the corperations Ron Paul 08' the only wasted vote is for the status quo

Sterling, Tucson, AZ USA

About time too. And it will be interesting to see how the Eurosceptic and Europhobic Conservative party reacts to such a situation. An isolationist America will do no such deal as the so called post-war "Special relationship". When America turns inward, Britainis on it's own again. It seems all the more stupid that the British public are so adament in keeping to their anti-Europe sentiment with the obstacles posed by an isolationist America-first United States pulling out of Europe and NATO, and the rising billion-plus citizen and powerful nations of China and India. And the Commonwealth has absolutely no clout in the world. An isolationst America will happen eventually, and as before the war Americans will show little or no interest in a relationship with Britain. So the whole Conservative America and NATO-over-Europe argument will soon be debunked as Britain been a country of 60 million will have absolutely no clout in the world with an isolationist America, so get used to Europe

David, Dublin, Ireland

Pax Americana is on its way out, and Pax China on its way in. There shouldn't be any worry for the US to police the world any more under the circumstances. Even the world is fed up of America, except for Israel of course. The Chinese are investing heavily in Asia and Africa, and will need to protect their investiments. Anybody coming into their way, including the still mighty US, will simply be crushed. Remember that Chinese have developed superior weapons in many areas now. And, they have the money too.

Goldman, London, UK

I personally think America should become isolationist. Unfortunately, the rest of the world will still, "miraculously," find a way to blame America for their own shortcomings.

Will, Crockett, Texas

Much of the world would welcome the return to America's minding its own business. If you wish to use the pejorative, and dated enough to be inaccurate, term 'isolationiat' fine. America's not minding its own business has given us a holocaust-sized slaughter in Vietnam, a terrible pointless destruction in Iraq and in Afghanistan, the overthrow of numerous democracies including those of Iran and Chile, and bumbling intervention everywhere. What it has not given us is relief from the terrible forces of human darkness. The US never even thought about intervening in the great genocides - genuine genocides, not rhetorical ones - since WWII, those of Indonesia, Cambodia, and Rwanda. In fact in two of these cases, Cambodia (a million or so killed)and Indonesia (about half a million slaughtered with the fall of Sukarno), the US played an important contribting role to the horrors. The US also bears a great responsibilty for Palestine's horrible condition.

JOHN CHUCKMAN, Toronto, Canada

Of all the counter-commentary I've read so far, what Charles from Detroit wrote makes the most sense:

"If we decide to go it alone, speaking softly won't do, unless we also carry a bigger stick than we've ever had to carry before. Even that won't be sufficient. We'll have to offer hard evidence we're prepared to make heavy use of it."

Unlike Charles, I have no problem with this. I am not a Libertarian and while I do agree with some of what Ron Paul advocates, I disagree with him on a number of important points. I cannot find sound evidence to suggest that "free" trade is a panacea. I see no evidence to support the idea that completely open borders are a good thing. What I see is that we often fund our enemies with free trade and we invited people with Statist ideas to take over our government by letting our borders leak like a sieve.

Do we really need to have troops stationed on the European continent? No! Do we need troops stationed all over Asia? No!

Don, Houston, Texas

A fine article. One quibble. I don't think "isolationist" is an accurate word to describe Congressman Paul's views. That's a word that comes with all kinds of ugly baggage that Paul rejects.

Paul strongly favors free trade and cultural exchange. That's hardly a "fortress America" / disengagement policy.

A better word might be "non-interventionist." Or "armed neutrality." A capable defense for America, but no intervention in the internal affairs of other nations.

Or, as another American statesman put it, "Friendly relations with all nations, entangling alliances with none."

James W. Harris, Rydal, USA -- Georgia

I completely agree that the US should keep it's nose out of other countries affairs more often than naught. It's time it focused on it's own people a while. No healthcare for over half of Americans and falling education needs to be on top of any candidates platform.
I think the Iraqi war has been a HUGE mistake from the get go and that Bush is an idiot!
Ron Paul's policy of sticking our head in the sand is not popular with me and a lot of Americans. Whilst we might be cut off by two oceans, this in no way isolates us from the rest of the world; we share this planet with everyone.
Pulling out of the UN is a mistake also, I think it's time that we actually take part in the UN as an equal member and not as a bully.
I think Obama is a capable candidate and if he wins, I'm sure he'll do a good job. As for me, I'm voting for Hillary. Let's hear a woman's voice and ideas for a change. She is an intelligent and compassionate candidate who has realistic ideas.
GO HILLARY!

Robin Castellanos, San Antonio, TX, USA

C moon,

I appreciate your comments. I have the deepest respect for British sensibilities in so many regards. You made me think a little about how we are perceived. We americans do bring up our contributions far too often, and I hadn't thought before how that might come off to others as braggadocious. Its a defensive maneuver as well, as we are always blamed for doing tasks improperly that nobody else can or will try to do.

I think we should withdraw from world affairs for a while too; it has not been to our benefit for half a century, and no matter what we do, we are considered to be small-minded and self-interested, if useful when it comes to a bloodletting or cash call. No, you are are right, we talk about it far too much, but we do feel deeply unappreciated in the role that has been cast for us. We can benefit from leaving the world stage, but I think that the lack of a capable understudy means the show will go on only to the Villains' liking.

chris, Phoenix, AZ, USA

Wow. I never expected the British to support an interventionist US foreign policy! The sad fact is that if you look at US military interventions (and no I don't count Afghanistan or WWII, where we were attacked), they've all done far more harm than good. Why, then, do the British want this to continue?

Political leaders aren't altruistic. They don't care about violence in Darfur any more than the next guy. Politicians like power, and they like campaign contributions from military supply companies. Why do we trust these people with offensive military action? Hello Vietnam? Korea? Iraq? What Afghanistan is becoming? Somalia?

Free trade leads to peace, unneeded intervention spreads wars. Dr. Paul knows this.

Most Americans who understand the issues are totally opposed to the Iraq war, and wars like it. Whatever arrogance exists is born out of ignorance.

Our constitution only authorizes a declaration of war for the general welfare or common defense, intervention is illegal.

G, Florida, USA

"And do spend the money you save being 'non-interventionist' on education."

Funny that since the US spend on secondary education exceeds most of the OECD. Anyway let us not forget that European Health Systems are possible only because of US Defence Spending.

TomTom, Leeds, England

I completely agree with non-interventionist/neutral foreign policy of RonPaul, which is NOT isolationist at all. He promotes trade with every country.
I believe he is the only electable GOP candidate, who has any chance against Democrats in the general election, due to his 10 term flawless voting record in the Congress.

iaoki, San Clemente, CA

What a happy knack Americans have for winning enemies and alienating people! I don't exactly know why, although some of the comments here offer some clues, since, having lived and worked in the States, I found that my colleagues and many of the people I met were good hearted and well intentioned people.
But even people like me who are well disposed to the US find it grates to be constantly reminded how wonderful they are and how generous they have been to the rest of us (usually by someone who hasn't even bothered to learn basic stuff like geography or even a modicum of other people's culture and history and then wonders why they have given offence).
Perhaps it would be good if they withdrew from world affairs for a while. It might remind people why we used to like them so much.

C. Moon, Birmingham,

Yes, do go home and take your ball with you. That'll teach all us nasty, spineless Europeans for being mean to you.
And do spend the money you save being 'non-interventionist' on education. That way those of you who do know there is a country called Switzerland will be able to find it on the map. I wouldn't bother continuing to teach history, though, if I were you. It looks too much of a lost cause.

R. Bruce, Edinburgh,

Isolationist is the wrong word, but non-intervention and disengagement are the right ones. It is time for America to pull out of the UN, and bring our troops home from overseas. The advice of the first GW is more true today than ever before; and that would be to avoid "foreign entaglements". We have spilled enough blood of our soldiers for a world that petulantly demands that we "do something" every time the need arises, and then gleefully celebrates when we get it wrong and suffer a defeat. We need to take care of business at home and let the rest of the world grow up.

Joe Thornton, Warrenton , Virginia

Call it isolationism or non-interventism as you please, but it's very much the mood of America. We're sick and tired of all you pesky foreign countries and your pesky problems. So we're listening to Ron Paul, who seems to be straight out of the times of Calvin Coolidge.

Somebody mentioned Switzerland as a role model for America in the future. Certainly a tempting one, but there is a catch. Switzerland has always maintained a forminable military, composed of all able bodied men. That is the price they always had to pay in order to left alone in a violent and predatory neighborhood.

I think however a Ron Paul foreign policy might resemble more that of Putin's Russia: Another big country with much power and wealth but no friends.,

If we decide to go it alone, speaking softly won't do, unless we also carry a bigger stick than we've ever had to carry before. Even that won't be sufficient. We'll have to offer hard evidence we're prepared to make heavy use of it.

charles, detroit,

If this is the kind of reasoning that a Harvard PhD generates, then the money was poorly spent. Mr. Sullivan, wittingly or not, perpetuates the misconception that neutrality and non-interventionism are the same as isolationism. Perhaps he has never heard what Washington, Jefferson, and other early presidents said about entangling alliances. Minding one's own political business was America's policy until the so-called progressives came along at the turn of the 20th century and we ended up with the likes of Wilson. Isolationism was an epithet used by the FDR administration to attack those who opposed meddling in another European war, such as the Defend America First organization, which the FDR-ites also labelled a fifth column. Mr. Sullivan and his kind are using isolationism again to discredit those who advocate a humble foreign policy. For some enlightenment on our own day, I recommend reading Defend America First: The Antiwar Editorials of the Saturday Evening Post, 1939-1942.

Rex, Salt Lake City, Utah USA

For all those of you blaming the us for the war in Iraq... I think you do not realise that as British citizens, we didn't want to be involved. Bush was convinced that Saddam had WMD's (of which still none have been found). It is the US that runs Guantanamo Bay. It was post 9/11 that it all kicked off. Yet you want to blame the UK?! Bov-vered?!

Nish, London,

Ron Paul is no isolationist, he proposes non-intervention. BIG difference.
Isolationism suggests that the US would not do business or engage in diplomacy with other nations, that is not what Ron is after.
Free trade and friendship with all nations, entagling alliances with none.
Non-intervention simply means that the US will no longer enforce our paradigm on the rest of the world through the use of force, be it millitary or economic.

Empires always fall, only a true Republic can withstand the test of time!

Jay Carlson, Linden, NJ, USA

isolationism isn't a beast, it's minding your own business and not poking your snout into others' as though you still ruled the world, as the UK insists on doing.

John Ledbury, Kings Lynn, England

Ron Paul's popularity is based on a number of different factors. First of which is political correctness gone to an extreme. Had we properly fought the war in Iraq, occupied the major cities, and defeated the enemy, not kowtowed to the Arab street we would not be in this quagmire. Second point is the US is being overran by immigrants from Central and South America. Our politicians are more intent on gaining the votes of these new immigrants, and ignoring the fact that they are trying to destroy our Western European culture and character, by not assimilating into our melting pot. We support Arab dictators because we are well aware that should the Mubaraks and the King Abdullahs be deposed there would be a Taliban stretching from Tehran to Casablanca. I am not in favour of a return to post WWI isolationism, but confidence in our government is certainly at an all time low, and Ron Paul represents a change. If anything he has been consistent. His campaign message has not changed.

Ian, South Florida, USA

The more I read in this forum about Ron Paul, the more I like it.
Follow this "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations" policy, and you will discover that the rest of the world really love and appreciate USA-republic, but not USA-empire.

JJJ, Spain,

Ron Paul could win if he can energize the disaffected non-voters (i.e., 2/3 of those who could vote, don't). The war splits the "DEMOCRATIC" party (which is anything but). The recent spending has split the usually fiscally conservative "REPUBLICAN" (which is anything but republican valued). In my blog, I guesstimated it could be as much as a 43-17 split or as close as 31-35. If the disaffected stay home, it's close. But, what do I know, I'm just an injineer who's tired of being screwed by both sides of the same coin. First one gang robs me, then the next gang robs me. Who cares what they call themselves! Ron Paul may be able to stop the theft. May be?

reinkefj, kendall park, USA NJ

Ron Paul is anything but isolationist. Your article is well written but this is a gross mischaracterization of his congressional voting record as well as his presidential campaign platform. His stance on free trade is the antithesis of isolationism as well as the present protectionist policies reflected in the today's realizations of globalism. If you don't trust government not to interfere in every aspect of your life then Paul is the answer. If you think that government is flawed but that the right 'smart' people can get it correct given enough of your blood, money and time than consider everybody else including Obama.

Cory, Washington, DC

It would take a Brit to worry about the American "isolationist beast". After all, the British government in two world wars started something it couldn't finish, and needed America to pull its chestnuts out of the fire.

The first time we did it we set off a string of events that ultimately gave us Adolph Hitler. The second time we did it we propelled Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union to empire. Sounds like interventionism, especially to help the British, has been a bust.

Americans are disgusted with the excesses of the Bush regime, which is looking more and more like a police state. The world (justly) hates us because of what is going on in Iraq.

We've had enough of all that. Time to let England take care of (or not) her own affairs. Europe is on its own too - they can deal with Islam any way they wish. Not our problem. All our troops are coming home. There are going to be a lot of surprised people out there when we elect our "fringe" candidate, Ron Paul.

Paul B, Cody, Wyoming, USA

First they ignore you....

Ron Paul 2008!

David Sullivan, Harpswell, Maine

Dear Mr. Terry L. Walker, Ladson, S.C./USA. You are absolutly right.

Fabio C, London, UK

Isolationism does not equate to non-intervention. Isolationism has non-interventionism as a component, but you're missing the other half of the equation, which is protectionism.

A Ron Paul presidenct would have absolutely no aspect of "protectionism."

And the notion that "no attacks have occurred on the neo-con watch" is just absurd. No attacks would have occurred at all if we weren't meddling in the rest of the world.

Andrea , Hoffman Estates, IL, USA

"American conservatism is not, at its core, a utopian or imperial tradition,"

That's right Mr.Brit and we're plum tired of leaders who believe it is our business to put our nose in everyone else's affairs. You got the book shut in your face in your Imperial scheme only a few decades ago.

We once rejected the kind of politics that brought England to the brink of absorption into Europe. We even fought to save you from them when they manifest in the form of a late-coming Imperial Germany with Hitler at its helm.

You'll learn. Ron Paul is an American. What has no chance is business as usual, and the World, America leading it, will discover that.

We will elect Ron Paul as our President. May Britain take example after all these years and find peace and prosperity in emulating Ron Paul's America!

Jeff Odgis, Boca Raton, Florida, US

If I read between the lines correctly, your "Paul has no hope of winning" comment should be understood as "I desperately hope Paul has no chance of winning, and will do my part as a dupe of the neocons to ensure he doesn't." Since he appears to be the only candidate that is committed to upholding our Constitution and the ideals upon which this country was built, I assure you that he will get my vote!

David, Fort Wayne, IN

Ron Paul does not advocate a policy of isolationism but one of non-intervention and neutrality which served the US well until such time that we launched our war against Spain and claimed her colonies for ourselves creating an American Empire. We then intervened in the Great War of 1914 causing a lopsided victory for our allies with the Treaty of Versailles whose conditions led to the German hyperinflation of the 1920's which opened the way for the rise of Nazism. Had we avoided engaging ourselves in the affairs of others World War II could have been avoided and World War I could have ended much better for all sides in the long run. Then with World War II our war aid to the Soviet Union helped to create a monster that terrorized the world for the next 50 years and gave them most of Eastern Europe.

I am tired of the blowback we receive from our aggressive foreign policy. As for Latin America ask a Columbian how "helpful" the USA has been for their country.

Ron Paul in 2008!!!!!

Jason Young, Jonesboro, Arkansas USA

I have two issues with this piece.

First is the use of the term "isolationism". The national mood here is swinging but towards "non-interventionism" This is not the same thing as isolationism. In fact the philosophy of the libertarian Dr. Paul is anything but isolationism. Trading, talking and dealing peacefully with other nations is not in any Wway isolationist. It is the Bush doctrine that is isolationist. By ignoring the desires of other nations, invading sovereign countries Bush has made America a pariah in the eyes of the word, That is making us isolated.

The other, Sullivan's statement that Dr Paul has no chance of winning. I have no idea what makes him qualified to predict the outcome of the election other than a confidence that the neo-con GOP will lie, cheat and swindle in any way necessary to prevent Paul from getting the nomination. Indeed the GOP would support Clinton over Dr Paul. However this overestimates the competence of the GOP leadership.

The GOP has done nothin

Alex Paulsen, Jacksonville, florida

Non-interventioism is not the same as isolationism. Isolationism is not the same as non-interventionism.

Commingling the two in order to create a false dichotomy between building an Iron Wall and bombing all those who dare to give us an evil eye is pure unadulterated demagoguery. Of which, I'm sorry to say, Mr. Sullivan is guilty.

Besides the twin idiocies of paranoid Soviet-style isolationism (so amply demonstrated by the DHS) and the Nazi-style aggressive interventionism (DoD, CIA, et al) there's a policy of neutrality, or non-interventionism - the same policy which kept smallish Switzerland safe in the midst of two world wars. Dismissing it while pretending that it won't be able to keep mighty and geographically isolated U.S. safe borders on lunacy.

Averros, Bay Area, CA

Ron Paul will win!!!!!!!!!

JB, kerr, tx

Americans aren't becoming isolationist. They are just waking up to the fact that their republic has become an Empire while they weren't looking. They are figuring out (like the French and the British before them) that an Empire bankrupts the economy and breaks the soul of the nation. It is time to go back to the policy of our founding fathers: trade with all but stay out of foreign entanglements. To paraphrase James Carville, "It's the foreign policy, stupid." Bush sewed the wind, and now we're reaping the whirlwind. I don't think it has escaped the notice of most Americans that Bush's Folly is being fought with Other People's children, not the children of the conservative elite.

Mary Bosch, Columbia, Missouri

Ron Paul is not a "fringe" candidate, as evidenced by his popularity on the Internet and television, and he does have a chance. If all his supporters would simply vote for him in the Republican primaries, the GOP would have no choice but to make him the nominee. I think there are a lot of Americans who prefer Paul to the repugnant choices that the major parties are offering.

Nate, Los Angeles, CA

Article says: "[the US] Congress does not seem in a mood to cut off funds. " -- this isn't exactly true. A majority of Congress wants to cut off funding, but Republicans are using some form of parliamentary procedure (filibustering -- keep "talking about anything" to keep a majority vote from happening) to keep a majority vote from happening. The result, I believe it is a 3/5th's vote (or 60 votes) needed to end a filibuster. Those wanting to end the war don't have a large enough majority to end the "delay tactics" and proceed to a vote.

Lyssa W, santa cruz, CA / USA

Yet again we see the false polarity of isolationism vs foreign adventurism. What is stirring in the US - and embodied in Ron Paul -is the idea that US engagement in the world should be peaceful, through trade and other business of mutual interest, winning respect and the influence that goes with it; rather than by imposing itself everywhere by force of arms, and by the fear that goes with use of force.

steve_roberts, Leicester,

What is stirring is a weary restlessness born of doing all the heavy lifting for the West since the end of World War II.

Americans are tired of "foreign entanglements." We try to help in the world--and receive criticism. Our erstwhile allies, for base reasons, would not help in Iraq. Western Europeans continually criticize this country, its president and its politicies.
Whoever the next president is, is going to pull out of Iraq. Whatever happens there, happens., A lot of those vacationing Iraqi parlimentarians will not stay live after we pull out. And Americans are not going to put themselves in harm's way to help Western Europeans. I think we will look after our own interests, but our definition of those interests will be greatly circumscribed in the future. Britain and Western Europe don't have the military power to confront a resugent Russia and a rising China (China's navy is already 3 times the size of Britain's). Europe will be on its own sooner than it thinks.

Terry L. Walker, Ladson, S.C. / USA

With due respect, Mr. Sullivan strangely confuses several different concepts - almost deliberately it seems. First and foremost, there is a vast difference between isolationism and non-interventionism. What Ron Paul proposes is the later. In the excellent documents they handed down to us, the founding fathers promoted a foreign policy of trade, cooperation and friendship with other nations, while strongly discouraging meddling in their internal affairs. The more the US moves toward empire and interventionist policies, the more we are seen as the world's biggest brute, and the less trust and regard the world's population has for us. I believe that most of the world see the South American countries that are moving toward independence from elite globalist domination in a far better light than the US at this point in history. I fear the US has become the most favored tool of that very elite. If so the implications are highly disturbing.

Frank, Newport,

What do you mean Ron Paul can't win???

When I hear all the major media trumpeting the same line I know somethings up.....Dr. Paul has been gaining ground all over the country now that people are able to read about his stances on various issues.

Chris, Carmel, IN

Ron Paul's stance is not isolationism, nor "neo-isolationism." It is the Constitutional recommendation to stay out of entangling alliances and to talk and trade with other nations. This is farther from isolationism than current U.S. foreign policy, and is the best way to interact with the world while maintaining national sovereignty and optimum individual freedom.

Marc, Florida, USA

Anybody who supports a meddlesome foreign policy of stationing troops in over 100 countries, supplying tons of foreign aid, fighting the war in Iraq and a future war in Iran cannot call themselves traditional conservatives, or libertarians, or liberals, or even Americans. In fact, people (the neocons in both parties and the Religious Right) who support sending U.S. troops to fight for reasons that have nothing to do with defense and retaliation (namely, the war in Iraq and a likely war with Iran) are anti-American.

Tommy, Brooklyn, New York

Ron Paul is not "isolationist", nor "fringe". He has many times explained the need for the US to stay out of the political affairs of other countries and trade with them. If the US is trading with other countries we are hardly "isolationist". Statists just love to smear folks who believe that the US has no business nation building and regime changing of being "isolationist". His "fringe" ideas about actually following the rule of the supreme law of the land are certainly ignored and downplayed by the media and ruling elites. That doesn't make them "fringe", at least not with a lot of us non-"Beltway" types. Give some ideas enough media attention, proclaim them generally accepted by "most people", and declare any other ideas to be "fringe": it's called engineered consensus, the rule of men, mind control, and we've had a bellyful of it .It is ignorant to say Dr. Paul has no hope of winning, of course he has a hope. And reason for that hope becomes more apparent every day.

Toby, Pittsburgh,

Come on, Isolationist - I think every country on the planet except for Britian and the US are isolationist. We don't need an American empire, its against what we stand for.

Ron Paul is going to shock you when he becomes President. He is the only honest person to run for the office in a long long time.

Joe Lawson, Springfield, MO USA

I'm a Ron Paul Supporter and I have never heard or read of him uttering the word isolationism, Dr Paul has stated that we should use a non-interventionist approach. wich means non iterference in the internal affairs of other nations. So how do you get isolationism from that?

Ron Webb, Loudon, USA, TN

It is NOT isolationism. The current foreign policy has done more to isolate the US from the rest of the world. Ron Paul speaks against isolationism by replacing bombs with trade and talk. All talk of isolationism is wholely inaccurate in this context and mearly serves to smear any ideas that do not include extending the US Empire. Nothing was going to prevent "that day" (I'm so sick of it) except going back in time 50 years and redoing are meddling in the middle east. They don't hate us for our freedom. They hate us for our meddling. If we're so interested and spreading democracy in the middle east then why are all of our allies (pawns) dictators or monarchs?

Rich Hill, Prospect Park, USA, PA

Ron Paul can win and is the only hope for America and the Western world. He is no isolationast, he wants to be friends and trade with the rest of the world, not interfear in their internal affairs.

Peter Cuff, Toronto, Canada

If Bush and Hillary are the leadin proponents of interventionism, then give me isolationism any day.

Jason, Billings, MT

Kevin Miller,

Way to spell it 'Al Kheida.' Figures a socialist would show the marks of a government education.

Al Gore, George Bush, Afghanistan, Iraq: they all represent war and death. Ron Paul represents freedom and peace, and while I would have preferred to see him run for, and win, a Senate seat, I think he would make for the best federal President since Jefferson, or maybe Coolidge.

Mike Vine, Toronto, Ontario

I usually vote for third party presidential candidates and my wife always votes for Democrats. We will both be voting for Ron Paul. If I were a continental Eupopean, I would be concerned about the prospect of a Ron Paul presidency. He wants to remove all US troops from Europe and quit NATO and the GTO. Europe would have to spend more of its own money if it wanted to defend itself or meddle in places like Yugoslavia.

Financial institutions are throwing their big money at Obama. He hasn't voted to cut off funding for the war. Ron Paul is the real thing. Obama talks "change' with the blessings of the status quo.

Ron Paul is recieving more campaign money from US servicemen and women than any other candidate. He has won every debate he has been in according to instant polls. He is a great American teacher. Google "Ron Paul".

Bruce, Viroqua, Wisconsin

The terrorist attacks that neoconservatives fetishize occurred on their watch, and Bush paid little attention to warnings that they were about to occur. At the same time, the "leftist internationalism and isolationism" that the commenter Andrew decries was anything but. Clinton bombed Iraq and Africa, and put troops on the ground in the Balkans. Internationalism of a brutish sort, perhaps, but certainly not isolationism. I think the situation is exactly the opposite of what he asserts: the rank-and-file neoconservatives believe that history began on 9/11/01, and can't fathom any reason why those attacks would have occurred besides the oft-parroted, "they hate us for our freedoms." Neoconservatism is a completely bankrupt ideology, and its main problem, as the commenter above demonstrates, is that it is more anti-left than it is pro-right. There are few if any strong arguments in its favor, just plenty of vehement, ill-reasoned rhetoric against its opponents.

Ian , central valley, California

Ron Paul isn't a congressman who's coming up with some new angle to campaign on. He's been representing tax payers for 10 terms and "isolationist" is a pigeon hole term, obviously. The author uses it as a blanket dismissal of conservative political philosophy. Yet if globalism's greatness is so self-evident, why is the middle class dissapearing? We are the goob jobs leaving this country? Why is the dollar weakening so drastically? The point is, we've had liberal expansionism for several decades now (as pushed by both neo-conservative republicans and democrats) and what's to brag about exactly? Is it worth a 9 trillion debt? Is a worth abandoning our Constitution and national sovereignty in ways that would make Jefferson & Madison roll in their graves? People need to wake up and accept the fact that liberalism is about big, exer-expanding government control of the citizenry, domestically and internationally and huge government always leads to tyranny. Ron Paul in 2008. Thanks.

Andre, Hartford, CT

Ron Paul's vision is not of American isolation, but of a free country that protects its own by turning away from foreign wars and foreign meddling. Dr. Paul's policy embraces free trade with other nations, and free enterprise at home. Free trade promotes reciprocity and peace; free enterprise promotes prosperity and individual flourishing. Both stand on the moral value of individual liberty.

Dr. Paul's philosophy differs profoundly from the prevailing political ethos, that seeks to impose American empire abroad and tax-and-spend socialism at home.

Mark Humphrey, Great Falls, USA/Montana

Equating non-intervention with isolationism is a deceitful smear tactic, and if you don't know the very real difference you have no business writing an article like this before doing some research. America has never been isolationist, and no current presidential candidate is pro-isolationism. Like another commenter said, if you want to know what isolationism means research Japan.

Craig Ruuska, Minneapolis,

How can isolationism be a failure when it was never practiced? The United sates has been involved all over the world for at least the last century - sticking pins in all kinds of situations.

Also, why is it that the media constantly refers to Ron Paul as an isolationist? He is a non-interventionist. And, yes, there is a distinction. Isolationists want to back away from the world whereas non-interventionists would trade and hold dialog with other nations. This would be better than intervening in the internal affairs of other nations which causes blowback.

It's very easy to recognize the criteria of an empire: average citizens debating whether to destroy other countries, an ever-growing military machine, the emergence of a leader-state, and an economic corrosion within the empire's boundaries (It's pretty bad when our treasurer needs to beg China to buy our debt).

"Free and honest trade without entangling alliances" should be our goal.

Eric, Aiken, SC

The US should also compensate Iraq and individual citizens for the harm and displacement it has brought upon them.

Emma H., Ottawa, Canada

The difference between isolationism and non-interventionism is the difference between North Korea and Switzerland. It is not an accident that Switzerland was able to survive at the very center of two world wars in better shape than it's neighbors. If we had followed Jefferson's advice of "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none," the United States would be far better off today.

Michael, Medford, Oregon, USA

Between the Iraq fiasco and the Immigration situation, isolation is no longer a dirty word.

Drew, New York, NY

The march to US Empire and the corresponding ONE WORLD has been led by "leaders" of BOTH PARTIES for a hundred years..under various lables and "justifications".... the "outdated" inherant rights to life liberty and private property allegedly guaranteed BUT NOT GIVEN NOR "ALLOWED" by Government or the US Constitiution, are to be further sacrificed on the altar of expediency, bipartisanship, peace and security. No Candidate challenges the premise of that....except Dr. Paul The bloodstained and Bill of Rights eviscerating UN MANDATE ENFORCING AND NONDECLARED 'POLICE" ACTION" can only be defended by those either willfully ignorant or willfully liable to the carnage.....to yet another country..and the FINANCIAL AND CREDITABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES... The impending currency collapse will be the final economic leveling needed to effectively MERGE IN TO THE ONE WORLD that Dr. Paul and those of us who care about freedom and US independence have fought against is almost here

Chris Bieber, Lake Elsinore, CA, United States

In true Constitutional government, the US government would not interfere in the affairs of other nations in any way, unless asked by that nation for some kind of (non-military) help. It would not interfere with open trade between individuals and/or businesses in this country with their counterparts in other nations, but it would not engage in country to country or even "global" "trade agreements". It would also not even attempt to prevent individuals or groups of individuals from financing action, or directly involving themselves (however) in foreign situations if those individuals/groups feel the need to "do something". There's more, but I'll stop with that.

Ron Paul would help us get back to Constitutional government. and I agree with Robert from Silver Spring. It is true that every mainstream media political "reporter" and many bloggers repeat that "fringe", "can't win" message again and again, whenever they mention Dr. Paul. Talk about propagandistic indoctrination.

Windy, rural area, WA

A Ron Paul America would stop our CIA & Military from committing assassinations, coups, covert operations and out right Military Occupations in the rest of the world, thus, I for one believe that would STOP our isolation. Bush's Neocon Policies Isolate us, the world hates us, get a clue. Dr. Ron Paul is NOT isolationist at all.... he is FOR engaging the world through Free Trade, rather than NAFTA WTO Corporate-welfarist Managed Trade. Once he gets rid of the the Income Tax, American producers would return to America, making the term "Made in America" mean something again. Americans would enjoy a booming economy, with high paying jobs, and we would be a producing nation, again. If Ron Paul becomes president and the Income Tax goes away, welcome back to America all the Companies from China & Mexico. BTW, the income tax is only like 40% of the national income anyway. Its time to bring the military home, defend America, not not the Middle East, Not Europe, Not Korea or Japan.

Treg, Tempe, AZ

NO NO NO - We do not need an isolationist US. Iraq was not a failure of interventionist policy, it was a failure of the amateurs in charge. After the fear that gripped American citizens, Politicians and especially and most crucially the Media after 9/11, Bush et al were given far too much freedom, leeway, and support (under the banner of 'Patriotism' and the sound of nausiating U-S-A chants) for the obvious mistakes they were making before the War and after. Intervention works, it must work for all of us, there is too much to be done in this world and currently the US is the only country that can take the lead. Waging a war to rid a dictator was the right thing to do, the world is better off without Saddam Hussein, however the work done after the war has bought shame on those we look to as 'world leaders'. Millions suffer on this planet everyday, like it or not we have a Responsibility to Protect. It costs money, it costs lives but it is necessary for a better tomorrow for all.

V, London,

I have some trouble swallowing the statement that "Paul has no hope of winning". I see the phrase used a lot by people even when writing favorably about Ron Paul or one or more of his positions.

I think it is fairly clear that Paul offers a distinct choice on the Republican side. The refrain, "a choice, not an echo", comes to mind. On the Democratic side, I see very little daylight between the candidates (other than Gravel).

Nuanced distinctions can be important in politics but not when they are between candidates that are so tragically misguided and wrong.

Ray Harmon, Garden City, Idaho

Good article overall but I take issue with the statement that Paul has no chance. I am a liberal who would be supporting Obama but I have switched parties to support Ron Paul. Do not pretend that just because you are intelligent that you can predict the future. This is not only about foreign policy. We are descending into a police state at home which most Americans are aware of or have already been affected by. If we do not have signifigant change in this election then we are ready for a real revolution. Peace.

joshua leffel, Manhattan, New York

Ron Paul is not an isolatioalist. Compare his 20 years of voting records. He votes for free trade, voted for the war in Afganistan and votes against high tarriffs that restrict trade. He is simply a constitutionalist. He believes we should follow the constitution as set down by the founding fathers and allow other countries to make their own choices, not export liberty at the point of a gun.
Our position as a nation is not policeman of the world nor can we afford the cost of so being. We go in debt to China billions of dollars a week so we can force our way of life on a country whose people have thousands of years of issuse to resolve amongst themselves. Lots of luck!

geno, amherst, ohio

I don't think the choice is as simple as to intervene or not intervene. Going into Afghanistan to help them remove an horrendously backward Taliban regime that supported Al Kheida was the right move. But invading Iraq was totally stupid. If the US and the UK had stopped at Afghanistan and ensured that their intervention lead to sustained redevelopment then we might have seen the Taliban effectively destroyed and Afghanistan put onto a secure footing. However, Bush diverted attention to Iraq and allowed the Taliban to re-emerge and gain strength. Had Afghanistan proved a successful intervention the fight against terror would have been much more effective. Instead we have the disaster that is Iraq and an increasingly dangerous Afghanistan. Bush will leave the world arena in a far more dangerous state than when he first arrived and in a far worse state than it should be in. I doubt that Al Gore would have been as foolish. Those hanging chavs have much to answer for!

Kevin Miller, Tonbridge,

So America is damned no matter what they do? They either have to be involved in the world by bombing other countries for their oil and if they don't do that you slam them as 'isolationists'? What a load of bullocks. The US should persue a non-interventionist policy which means peaceful trade with other nations but avoidance of foreign entanglements. This is precisely what Ron Paul wants to do. If you want to know what isolationism is look no further then what Japan was in the 19th century.

David Clark, Calgary, Canada

Non-intervention is not the same as isolationism. By virtue of current policies, the United States has isolated itself from the rest of the world and made vain attempts to isolate regimes it doesn't like, in Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Korea.
Ron Paul's policy of "Peace, friendship and trade with all nations" is precisely the opposite of isolationism.

W Gary Johnson, New York, USA

Oh, balderdash to you warmongers. If we had been "isolationists" to begin with, i.e., practiced neutrality, we wouldn't have been attacked on 9/11. It was our sanctions that caused a half million Iraqi deaths and our taking sides in the Mideast that led to the current mess. Interventionism, not isolationism, caused the blowback.

Why do you think we had peace with the Arabs for 150 years, until the latter part of the 20th century? Interventions, my good people.

Ross Nelson, Casselton, North dakota

Again, we hear the constant refrain of a false choice between "isolationism" versus our "involvement in the global sphere" (i.e. interventionism). Where is the mandate in this country's founding that says we can or should go around the world telling other countries and peoples what they can or can't do? Ponder the words of Jefferson and Madison instead of the Weekly Standard or Fox "News" for a change. Many of the writers here would no doubt agree with the interventionist policies of disastrous presidents like Democrats Woodrow Wilson (make the world safe for democracy) and Franklin Roosevelt (Social Security ponzi scheme and violation of American neutrality to deliberately drag us into another world war.) Bush and his neocon friends are of the same ilk and certainly don't deserve to be called Christians for all the war crimes they've committed. Not to mention their rank violations of the US Constitution. Paul is the only true conservative in the whole lot. More power to him!

Tim, Bel Air, MD

Why not just say--Ron Paul, Dr. Ron Paul, 9 term congressman paul. Why "finge" and "has no chance of winning". Why are these monikers not put on Romney or Kusinich? Why bother having an election or campaign--just go ahead and pick the winner now Mr. Sullivan and we can go about our business.

robert, Silver Spring,

"No 9/11 level attack has been waged against America under the watch of the hated "neo-cons".. " **

The US has also not been invaded by space aliens, hit by an asteroid or swarmed by giant locusts, perhaps we can thank the neo-cons for this as well?

If you've been following the "progress" of US civil aviation security since 9/11, we've avoided a major disaster inspite of the ineptitude of the TSA and it's parent bureaucracy the DHS.

**(Any attack would not mean a failure of neo-con policies but rather show the need for more funding, more bureaucratic controls and less civil liberties.)

Bob, Santa Monica, CA

It is hard to distinguish between people like Sullivan, and your average college freshman at a protest rally. He makes no meaningful analysis of the failures of Isolationism. After all there is a reason why Isolationism has been considered such a failed Ideology. Sullivan's failure to discuss Isolationism's shortcomings is symbolic of the typical sophistry engaged by the anti-war left which I consider Sullivan to be part of. I keep hearing Sullivan claim that he is a "true conservative". Show me the money!

Lets just remember that neoconservatism still has one edge over both isolationism on the right and left. No 9/11 level attack has been waged against America under the watch of the hated "neo-cons"..

Neo-Conservatism got its chance because Leftist Internationalism and Isolationism failed to prevent the deaths of 2700 civilians in lower Manhattan and Virginia. I wish Andrew Sullivan and his ilk would at least acknowledge that history did not begin on 9/12/01.

Andrew, New York, NY, USA

Isolationism was the greatest foreign policy blunder in US history. The other two, Iraq and Vietnam, pale by comparison but Iraq is probably going to have serious long term consequences. That said, the suggestion that there is the remotest chance of the USA retreating into thirties type isolationism is so fantastic as to suggest that Sullivan is either slightly unbalanced or being deliberately provocative. The mere idea for a country whose whole financial and industrial wellbeing is dependant on an integrated global economic and political system is patently ridiculous. Obviously the foreign policy disasters of the last six years are going to make the next president more aware of the limitations of US power, but then it's hard to imagine any half way competent US president displaying the same level of incompetence as that displayed by the Bush administration. Under the likely Clinton presidency, things will return to the normal sensible and pragmatic course we are used to seeing.

John, New York , USA

Andrew, you're certainly right that something is stirring out there, but with Obama at least it is not isolationism. From his speech in Chicago on Foreign Affairs, "I insist, however, that such an abandonment of our leadership is a mistake we must not make. America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, but the world cannot meet them without America."

Conservatives have traditionally embrassed to opposite approaches to foreign policy. First isloationism which was touted by Robert Taft and Charles Lindberg, Second, rollback advocated by hawks like General McArthur or Curtis Lee May. Obama represents liberalism at its 1948 inernational best. I would argue we are not witnessing a turn against engagement in general, but rollback or neoconsevatism in particular

Kip Malinosky, Arlington, Virginia

I'm not sure Sullivan is right. My guess is that the overwhelming sentiment in the US against the Iraq War is due more to revulsion against President Bush's arrogance, mendacity, and incompetence than to isolationism.

Stan Jacobs, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Obama isn't an isolationist. He isn't anti-war either. He is anti-Iraq War.

And Ron Paul is at 0% in all polls. He is the Kucinich of the GOP.

Isolationism is dead and has been dead in America for quite some time.

Ari Gold, LA,

Yeah Ron Paul has always been on record as saying the U.S. military shouldn't go to a country in order to intervene in the case of a genocide--instead it should make a "moral statement" disapproving of the affairs (like Clinton on the eve of the 100 days in Rwanda, I suppose).

Amazingly, Andrew wouldn't allude to Ron Paul's well-documented positions during an article on neo-isolationism, where these positions are most relevant! This is why I stopped reading his blog. He likes Ron Paul for shaking up the Republican Party, but won't provide his readers with any serious analysis of his foreign policy views. On this point, the question of war and genocide, Andrew Sullivan has become an obscurantist, one who has the gall to quote George Orwell!

Adam, Montreal, Canada

Very insightful, andrew. You are spot on about isolationism regenerating. It filters through my mind constantly-so much so that I have started writing a book about it. The average American's view of the world has always been optimistic, but we have started to see that we cannot save the world from itself.

I see much, but not all good, in isolationism. We as a country deprive ourselves to deliver democracy to others, and it is time to stop. Healthcare, infrastructure, and education are all neglected here. We have also neglected our neighbors to the south far too much. Spreading democracy for Middle East stability is a Gordian Knot, and no amount of blood and treasure will convince enough of the Arab Street of our good intentions. If Pax Americana is odious to the world, then we should withdraw its undoubtedly imperfect mantle to the Americas, where perhaps we might be welcome. It was a thankless duty anyway, and is one job that should be outsourced to some other pigeon.

chris, Phoenix, AZ, USA

I wonder if Obama regrets being put on the spot by that silly "do you believe in a Global War on Terror?" question from the first debate. I'd bet, if he could go back, he'd take the Edwards position: the War of Terror is a bumper sticker phrase that distracts from the business of dealing with each individual threat faced - as opposed to a comic book abstraction.

The goal should be dividing America's enemies, not providing them with a unifying rhetorical strength through our conflating them all as in league with one another. As we've seen in Iraq, even the disparate forces within a single territory can have a profound effect on the ability to set policy. It's a mistake to "Iraqify" global terror as singular and one-minded.

Sterling B., Gainesville, Florida

I appreciate the discussion including Ron Paul's stance on the war. Just to clarify, Dr. Paul's position is not a "bet" as in a political move to gain vote. He has been against (and voted against) the invasion of Iraq since day one. His stand against an interventionist foreign policy has been consistent throughout his entire tenure in Congress (now on his 10th term). Agree with him or not, his principled stands are refreshing in a field crowded with flip flopping opportunitsts on both sides of the aisle.
Don't count him out yet...

Rob Roten, Spring Hill, TN

Isolationism isn't just retreating from Iraq. The US can fight it out with the terrorists as long as we have metal to melt into bullets and still have as little respect for the UN, the ICC, NATO and any other International organization as they have for the US. Mr Sullivan is right when he recognizes the US is less interested in being involved with the UN Oil/Food Scandal Europeans and soulless Amnesty International psuedo-compassion hidden-agenda'crats than we were before the Iraq War. B. Hussein Obama thinks Americans will think him wise to humble us before our enemies, he's mistaken. Crazy Ron Paul thinks we should tell the rest of the world they're on their own and he's hitting much closer to the nerve.

Dennis, Portland, OR