Ron Paul is a joke. Well, perhaps not - at least among those who like him, he is a truth talker and a wise old man. Among the other 290 million people he is a loonie.
I have never understood the fascination with this guy although I suppose it is the 'idealism' many young conservatives have and don't see anyone else who utters the same sort of nonsensical isolationist crap.
It is the issue of isolationism I would like to try to begin to work out and will revise in the coming days.
A student asked me why I didn't like Paul. I mentioned isolationism. He was quick with his response - he's not isolationist, he believes in trade.
I do not like to see people become so attached and so disheartened. They become very susceptible to the wrong beliefs or party while in a weakened state. They could go and move to Canada and really ruin their life.
In a very simplistic explanation:
Neo-Conservatives: regard the world as a scary place. Bad people live in the world and the US needs to be engaged in the world to prevent the bad people from being too bad. Trade is ok with neo-conservatives, although they are very doubtful of trading bad countries into becoming good. They doubt much benefit from trading with China or North Korea. They will sign treaties if and only if it benefits the US.
Conservatives, Traditional: regard the world as a place of bad people and they distrust the world and the people in it. We need to close up bases around the world, maybe keep 1-2, otherwise all others shut down, bring the troops home from wherever they are, build a wall around the US, cancel international trade agreements that do not benefit the US in some way. Very doubtful of treaties. Not inclined to have open borders. Would become more closed to the world, BUT would trade when necessary. As for US military - only when we are directly and imminently threatened.
Of the two - which one is more ISOLATIONIST? Traditional Conservatives!!! Bingo.
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments