Rand Paul is Not an Isolationist

Last Friday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) released a statement on
the situation in Ukraine:

We live in an interconnected world and the United States has a
vital role in the stability of that world. The United States should
make it abundantly clear to Russia that we expect them to honor the
December 1994 Budapest Memorandum, in which the U.S., Russia, and
the United Kingdom reaffirmed their commitment ‘to respect the
independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.’
Russia should also be reminded that stability and territorial
integrity go hand in hand with prosperity. Economic incentives
align against Russian military involvement in Ukraine. Russia,
which has begun to experience the benefits of expanded trade with
World Trade Organization accession, should think long and hard
about honoring their treaty obligations and fostering the stability
that creates prosperity for its citizens. Most importantly, Russian
intervention in Ukraine would be dangerous for both nations, and
for the rest of the world,” Sen. Paul said.

This sort of position is not good enough for neoconservatives,
some of whom are repeating familiar and inaccurate rhetoric
relating to Paul’s foreign policy positions.

Over at Commentary, Jonathan Tobin today referred to
Paul’s
“neo-isolationism.” Tobin has previously associated Paul
with
“a growing chorus of isolationists.” In a column for
The Washington Post published today,

Jennifer Rubin refers to “the isolationist right,” and writes
that “no one has looked less able to lead America in dangerous
times than Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).” Rubin previously referred to
Paul’s
“isolationist vision” in a column about intervention in Syria.
In a post for the American Enterprise Institute published in
October last year, Phillip Lohaus referred to Paul’s
“isolationist tendencies.”

Of course, Paul is not an isolationist. Wanting trade and
diplomatic relations with countries while opposing being overly
involved in their affairs does not make you an isolationist. Taken
to its extreme, an isolationist foreign policy results in a country
that looks much closer to North Korea than a country like
Switzerland, which in economically engaged with the world but is
known for being wary of military intervention. 

That Paul is not an isolationist has been point out before by
the Cato Institute’s
Justin Logan:

Rand Paul, Rep. Justin Amash, and other skeptics of reckless
foreign wars and secret government spying on Americans aren’t
isolationists. They’re prudent conservatives who take the
Constitution seriously and rose to power amid the wreckage of the
George W. Bush administration, which destroyed the GOP advantage on
national security and provided a good example of how not to conduct
foreign policy.

There are some on the right who do understand the difference
between isolationism and non-interventionism.
National Review correspondent Kevin Williamson writes
that those who advocate for non-military solutions to foreign
affairs justifiably protest against the use of the term
“isolationist.”

Paul has outlined his position on foreign policy before in a
speech at The Heritage Foundation last year. Watch below: