Merriam-Webster defines “isolationism” as “a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations.”
By definition, most Republicans and Democrats right now could fairly be described as “isolationist.”
This was a point Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., made Tuesday in describing how many on both the Left and Right seem dead-set against any kind of diplomatic outreach with Russia, mostly based on their feelings about President Trump.
On a call with reporters after returning from Russia to support President Trump’s efforts, Paul said, “I think it’s important we have dialogue between the countries that contain and control 90 percent of the nuclear weapons in the world.”
“I know several Democrats are serious about arms control,” Paul continued. “I think the political anger by Democrats against Trump is completely destroying any opportunity to talk about issues like arms control.” Paul said this was “just another indication that we need to figure out a way to normalize our relations with Russia rather than trying to have diplomatic isolationism.”
[Also read: Rand Paul celebrates revocation of John Brennan’s clearance]
Paul also noted the current “political anger” was by no means limited to Democrats, “I think that’s what many of the neoconservatives in the Republican Party and now some progressives on the Left have become, diplomatic isolationists,” the senator observed.
Paul is more than just right — in a roundabout way he’s demonstrating the ridiculousness of his hawkish critics who have long tried to dismiss his restrained foreign policy views by using this political pejorative.
In the United States, “isolationist” has historically been used to describe Americans who wanted to stay out of World War II, a position which had broad popular support until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Today, virtually all Americans look back at U.S. participation in that war as the right decision and one of their country’s proudest military achievements, particularly in helping to defeat Nazi Germany.
For years, Paul’s critics, particularly Republicans of the neoconservative variety, have liberally lobbed the “isolationist” pejorative at him every chance they’ve had. Former Vice President Dick Cheney has called Paul an “isolationist.” So have Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Marco Rubio, R-Fla. So has hawkish pundit Bill Kristol.
Why? Because Paul, and most Americans, think the Iraq War was a mistake and want to avoid another similar one.
What does this have to do with World War II? Absolutely nothing. It never has.
My explanation of Paul’s basic foreign policy outlook is admittedly a simple answer to a complex question, but however much you slice and dice the debate between Paul and his hawkish critics, it would basically come back to the basic truism that the senator has learned lessons from America’s recent disastrous foreign policy that his critics have not.
Cheney, McCain, Rubio, and Kristol, unlike Paul, would launch another Iraq-style war in a heartbeat. What they would not do is reach out to Russia in the way that Trump and Paul now do.
They think diplomacy is bad for a number of reasons, including that it might ease tensions and might prevent a more aggressive approach, which they want. Hawks almost always reflexively have an aversion to diplomacy and speaking with our enemies — even when President Ronald Reagan did it.
Perhaps the only thing more amusing than Republican hawks now becoming legit isolationists regarding America and Russia is how quickly Trump-obsessed Democrats have taken the same position. The Washington Examiner’s Jim Antle wrote Tuesday, “Most Republicans in Congress remain Russia hawks … Similarly, Democrats who ridiculed 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney for considering Russia a leading threat to American national security are now comparing the hacking of Hillary Clinton campaign emails to Kristallnacht, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.”
Remember the massive 2003 anti-war protests where young activists once drew devil horns on Dick Cheney’s face? Today, so many American liberals take a far more Cheney-esque view of foreign policy and Russia (you have to give Republican hawks credit for consistently being pro-war no matter who is president).
If neoconservative-leaning Republicans have become isolationists on Russia, Democrats have now become something closer to neoconservatives on the same front and for the same Trump-deranged reasons.
It’s enough to make your head spin.
But one thing is clear: It is President Trump and Sen. Rand Paul who now seek peace with Russia, and it is their critics who want to isolate the U.S.
It’s hard to imagine a more standard definition of this overused and abused term.
Jack Hunter (@jackhunter74) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is the former political editor of Rare.us and co-authored the 2011 book The Tea Party Goes to Washington with Sen. Rand Paul.
