Can somebody who thinks clearly give me an educated definition for both isolationist and non-interventionist?

Question

Please someone with an IQ over 80!!!!!

I knwo what they both mean. Judging by your answers, how has anything Ron Paul said made him an isolationist?

Specifically using Mike Ccc' s answer as this one is most accurate.

Freedom for All - Now I get it, give the Iraqi's freedom they don't want while taking away the basic right of life for our troops.

Very noble.

Answer 1

I saw a lot of great answers above. Just wanted to donate my 2 cents worth.

Isolationism: A 'closed door' policy which isolates a country from foreign affairs in both political (military/diplomatic) and economic affairs. It is usually a 'protectionist' measure which minimizes the country's exposure to foreign influences, both military and economic.

Non-interventionism: A policy of 'live and let live', where a country does not meddle politically in other's affairs by means of military might, political alliances, or trade sanctions and embargoes. This policy encourages a country to trade openly without protectionist measures, and uses peaceful negotiations and diplomatic solutions for international affairs, and influences other countries by 'leading by example'.

Answer 2

It is not that hard;

An isolationist believes we should not have anything but an embassy or consolote over seas or in another nation. We should not be involved with world crisises other then perhaps sending emergency aid in the case of disasters. Isolationist also focus on trade issues believing we should produce what we need vs importing anything.

Non interventionist simply do not want military action in other countries despite the implications for people or our nation. This view is more of a military only view - meaning our military should defend our borders and not much else.

Answer 3

An isolationist:
Is somebody that favors sanctions and embargoes over free-trade. They would prefer managed trade agreements over free-trade agreements. They look for 'protectionist' policies over imports and exports, seeking to 'promote' the domestic business.

A non-interventionist:
Is somebody that favors the sanctity of a sovereign nation. They do not wish to meddle in the internal affairs of other nations. They favor free-trade agreements with every nation, without seeking to use trade as a 'weapon' to try and undermine another countries internal affairs.

EDIT:
To answer your second point, Ron Paul is not an isolationist, he is a non-interventionist.

The true isolationist are those that perpetuate the sanctions and embargoes on countries such as Cuba and N. Korea in order to 'cause' change. These policies have been in effect for over 50 years now, and we have not seen any positive change. The dictators are still powerful, while being empowered more with anti-American rhetoric, since the people are poorer due to our policies.

Answer 4

Here's my stab at it:

An isolationist is someone who deliberately excludes others from their daily affairs and generally avoids communication with others. This can apply to individuals (hermits) or states entities (a country that refuses the involvement of other nations and closes its borders to non-citizens would be considered isolationist).

A non-interventionist is an individual or state that fails to interject themselves into the affairs between other individuals or states. Think of Switzerland in WWII.

The difference is a non-interventionist simply fails to act, while the isolationist takes active steps to seclude himself from others.

Answer 5

Just because he was a interventionist, always very quiet, shy, never going out to parties and always tried to stay way from people, in so much that he became an isolationist,

He was an invert to such an extent, that he would have preferred living on a Isolated Island, all by himself and his books

Answer 6

I want to try and answer this in a way that will be easily understood:

Isolationist: Stay at home and don't go outside, no matter what. If a fire is spreading down the street, don't worry about it unless it's your house.

Non-interventionist: Walk around the neighborhood, visit your neighbors, invite them for dinner without telling them to change their crappy choice of paint color because you realize they might actually like it. But you're ready to defend your home against anyone trying to come by and paint it their way.

There is a huge difference. Isolationism focuses on a nation being responsible for themselves and themselves only without any help from the outside world. Non-intervention recognizes the sovereignty of another nation's society and the help that would be garnered by diplomatic relations with that nation... without trying to influence their cultural values or society. [While it's meant to prevent influence by military, there are other more peaceful means of influence, notably: trade.]

Answer 7

The first guy's definition is pretty good, and so are some of the others. I'll just add a bit to it. The word "isolationist" is used by Zionists and other warmongers in an attempt to shame anyone who opposes wars "for noble causes" on the grounds that nobody empowered our country to police the whole world.

"Isolationism" was originally called a policy of armed neutrality, by which our country would stay uninvolved in foreign conflicts, so long as nobody attacked us. We'd be strong, but we would feel no obligation to spread democracy, or impose capitalism, or oppose dictatorships, or commit ourselves to defending any group of foreigners.

Since "armed neutrality" sounds like a pretty good idea, the Zionists coined the term "isolationism" to put a bad smell on it. The new term implies that we'd be morally insensitive not to spread democracy, or impose capitalism, or oppose dictatorships, etc.

Answer 8

LOL! Isolationist is a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations and Non-interventionist is the state or policy of not intervening in the affairs of other countries.

Answer 9

Non-interventionist. libertarians would not raise an army for a foreign war, but they would do so for one that protects US shipping in territorial waters surrounding the the continental United States.

Answer 10

"Ron Paul's foreign policy would result in a lot of dead Americans and a lot of dead in other countries. He needs to get his head out of his *** and out of the 18th century."

And the neo-con's foreign policy would have showered us with roses and candy, as soon as we entered Baghdad. Oh, and Iraqi oil revenue would pay for reconstruction. Oh, and there would be WMD's all over the place, unlike the ones already in Pakistan, India, Israel, and possibly North Korea. PS. the NIE report on Iran must have been done by a liberal. Who really lives in la-la land?

You have some good answers, marked by the number of thumbs up. You have some sneaky answers trying to interject bias, and you have a few really dumb answers. Take your pick!