Don't mean to start a big debate or anything, but...

[Christina Anikari]

Being friends in private is not the same as being able to govern together. In Denmark, a country with numerous parties in parliament, it is common knowledge that no politicians are friends with members of their own party, only with those who they regularly argue with in parliament. So i am readily willing to believe that Kucinich and Ron Paul are friends in private, but i do not believe that their political views are compatible enough that one could be VP for the other...not that Ron Paul has a chance of getting the nomination. He wouldn't have it with proportional voting either, only a small minority supports him.

[Mitera Nikkou]

Just because it isn't typical doesn't mean that it can't happen. Democracy wasn't all that typical until, what, two-thousand years later? You're just demonstrating how black and white things can be. The problem is that it's going to continue to be that way so long as people think like that. No, their stark differences from what people commonly expect isn't likely to get them anywhere now, but I think it's catching on, slowly yet surely, just as Democracy had. And it's my hope that the span of time will be much shorter.

Now, why I'm willing to put my confidence in these two as a pair ("ticket", I think they call them), lies in some videos. I wasn't able to find all of what I wanted, but I was able to find one for each that I thought was good enough.

Here's Kucinich. (May have to turn the volume up to hear it.)

Here's Ron Paul.

[Dracos]

First of all, shame on you for calling Ron Paul an isolationist.

i·so·la·tion·ism (ī'sə-lā'shə-nĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n. A national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries.

Ron Paul is a non interventionist. He wants to trade with other countries and be friends, that's the basis of his foreign policy. However, he doesn't want to antagonize the world by keeping soldiers on their land. He doesn't want try to stop terrorists, people that only exist because of extreme hatred, by killing them and stirring up more hatred. And he doesn't want to keep ships that can destroy targets from 500 miles away one mile off Iran's coast, practically goading them into attacking us and putting our military in danger. Once again, he is a non interventionist:

non·in·ter·ven·tion /ˌnɒnɪntərˈvɛnʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[non-in-ter-ven-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. abstention by a nation from interference in the affairs of other nations or in those of its own political subdivisions.

That means that we mind our own business. After all, the number one reason people don't like the US abroad is because we are too arrogant and consider ourselves the policemen of the world, and the only reason terrorists have killed Americans is because we have troops in their country and support their enemies. Why should we be tossing money around the world when we can't even balance our own budget, when we have a national debt that goes up by trillions annually, and when doing so breeds at least as much hatred as it does gratitude?


As to a Ron Paul/Kucinich ticket, it's possible but unlikely. Ron Paul stated in one video that he would want a vice president who shared his views, and I don't think Kucinich fits the bill. However, he is everyone's best guess for who Ron Paul would pick for a running mate, so who knows.

[Christina Anikari]

Sooo....in other words he is an isolationist. You do know that dictionaries are not a very good source for defining political terms, right? A typical political term will take a couple of pages to define in a satisfactory manner and that is without entering into any of the discussions about its use. Actually they are not very good at defining any complex term and only at given people an idea of what the general thrust of said term.

Also from what you say then what Ron Paul wants is basically what Harding did and he was a self-declared isolationist. Also do you really think people will consider the US any less arrogant for sitting around and not using its military and economic might? Instead of being angry that you are helping their enemies, people will just complain that you aren't doing something in general. For that matter i am not certain that the American economy or political system can withstand not involving itself in other countries without some severe shocks and that is not even entering into the question of global problems such as environmental issues or fugitives, whether from war or poverty.

[Mitera Nikkou]

Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). In other words, it asserts both of the following:

1. Non-interventionism - Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
2. Protectionism - There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.

Isolationism is not to be confused with the non-interventionist philosophy and foreign policy of the libertarian world view, which espouses unrestricted free trade and freedom of travel for individuals to all countries. This "libertarian isolationist" view is best defined as a policy of nonparticipation in foreign political relations, but free trade and affability to all.

I guess I don't have to add anything to that. <_<

[Christina Anikari]

If that is the case then no European country has ever been isolationistic. Nor has the US, even in the periods where politicians were proud of their isolationist policies. For that matter if that was the case Edo period Japan was not isolationistic either. Now of course the terms might be slightly different in English and Danish, it happens every so often, but it seems to me more like libertarians have created a new word to justify being isolationist while still praising mobility of capital. Kinda like how people say patriotic instead of nationalistic to make it sound nicer. I cannot say that there seems to be a substantial difference between the two as it is presented there, no isolationist country has ever rejected foreign trade completely.

[Dracos]

First of all, people might complain we do nothing, but it won't be a strong criticism. Take Darfur for example. Here's something where we should do something but don't, and there are complaints but no great outcry, no suicide bombers from Darfur because we didn't help them. And half of the problems in the middle east are directly caused by people we supported or helped get into power. Hell, The Taliban and Bin Laden himself were only in a position to hurt us because we had supported them so much back before they decided they hated us. If you're honestly trying to say we have done even a half-decent job of keeping the middle east under control, you'd have to be blind. And if we're just stirring up trouble in the region, and hatred towards us, and spending tons of money that could be used to solve so many of our own problems, why not leave? And we don't have to toss our military around to reach global solutions like inviromental issues, that's what diplomacy is for. Once again, that's isolationism, not noninterventionist. You'll have to come up with something better than a straw man argument...

Isolationism hasn't been around for a while now. With the rise of economists, everyone now realizes that it is practically economic suicide to be an isolationist. But yes, no European country has been isolationist recently, nor has the US. Japan did not participate in diplomacy or trading until the Europeans forced them to. They were isolationist. They had a, "we're fine by ourselves" attitude, which doesn't cut it anymore. And I really hope you didn't mean what you said about Libertarians having changed the definition of the word. The libertarian party does not have control over wikipedia, although a little history would clearly show you that isolationism has always meant "isolating" yourself. Imagine that, a word meaning what its base word implies...

I'm ready for that apology now.

[Christina Anikari]

Actually if you had studied Japan you would have known that Japan in the Edo was in fact heavily involved in East Asian trade and was in fact also quite open to cultural influences from both China and Europe. In fact Japan was so heavily involved in East Asian trade that the Chinese monetary situation was only kept stable due to the constant importation of Japanese silver. Granted European culture was known as "Dutch Learning" because it was the Dutch who traded with Japan, but that does not mean that they were ignorant about these things. In fact this was so common that by the time Perry entered Tokyo Bay most villages that weren't dirt poor had at least one person who could read Dutch and several works by renowned European scholars, even in the most distant reaches of the country. Likewise Japan was engaged in significant trade with Korea, the Philipines and the Ryukyus as well as a significant degree of subjugation of the Ainos of Hokkaido. And on the political side of things Japan had significant political interaction with the Ryukyus and Korea as well as several attempts at getting Qing dynasty China to relent on its demands of subservience in exchange for trade. As for the European powers they were as disinterested in Japan as Japan was in them, it was not as if they ever tried actual diplomacy with Japan until after Meiji, if anything it was Japan that was the more interested party of the two.

You really should study before you repeat a an ill-conceived myth as proof of your own stance. Was Japan isolationistic? Not by your definition, but by any other definition i have heard it was despite what i said above. Most trade was conducted in foreign countries or designated ports for example and diplomacy was a secretive affair were it had to appear nothing was going on. My point with this is that even isolationist countries have never attempted to cut off all contact with the world. No, North Korea is not trying to cut off contact with the rest of the world either and has never tried it and that is an isolationist country if any is. What North Korea has tried is to ensure that the government regulates the contact with the rest of the world.

As for whether isolationism and non-interventionism is the same thing then let me direct you to the wikipedia article about Warren G. Harding, US president from 1920-1923, which directly stated that he was an isolationist. I would also like to point out the impossibility of even attempting to cut off all contact with foreign countries. Not only is there the basic problems of people complaining if they cannot get foreign luxury goods anymore or the size of the country making it unfeasible to posit a complete lack of economic activity across the border. There is also the basic problem of no government wanting to intentionally blind itself to what is going on in the rest of the world and the political challenges it will face in the future. Doing what you call isolationism is simply not a policy that can be carried out due to the political and economic consequences of the country attempting it, nor has it ever been tried as radically as you seem to suggest.

Part of what you call non-interventionism according to the wikipedia article you use as your proof is to avoid entangling foreign alliances of all kinds. How exactly do you propose to handle environmental issues, refugees or the increasing global inequality diplomatically without involving the country into any sort of international agreements that place restrictions and demands on the behaviour of the US? Solving these problems exactly means entering into entangling alliances, otherwise it is just pretty words and no substance. If anything that has been the one lesson learned by the EU, that you cannot deal with complex issues without adding rules to a long list of tangentially related issues, especially political and judicial, as well as a willingness to defend the other parties of said agreement...and without the means to enforce it. There is nothing straw man in asking about how you propose to deal with these issues without alliances. If anything they will make a desire to not get involved in the affairs of other countries harder not easier.

And it is patently not true that there has been no attempts at isolationism, in Europe or North America in recent times. Isolationism was the early French response to the Great Depression, most likely aggrevating it further. And it was by no means an uncommon reaction, though the French went further than any other European country. In the same vein isolationism, also more radical isolationism than Ron Paul proposes, has been a commonly suggested solution to economic and political problems in the US, just look at all the people who proposes that the way to create jobs in American industry is to prohibit outsourcing and increasing tariffs. Even radical political and economic isolationism is certainly alive today, and especially in the US now that the EU has integrated Europe beyond the point where it doesn't look absurd.

Also i would like to contest that people will not complain should the US not involve itself in the rest of the world. The French and British seemed pretty pissed that the US was sitting on its hands for years during both world wars and nobody liked the slowness with which the US involved itself in finding a solution to the German post-war depression in the early 20ies. And then imagine how people would feel if they already have the perception that the US has created the mess they are standing in now or the reaction of countries like Iceland that depends on the US for defense. For that matter how do you think the Taiwanese and the South Koreans will attack if the US military just pack up and leave? Not doing anything when you sit on the amount of power the US does is exactly the same as doing something in regards to people being pissed and it will likely happen in a way that leaves the US weaker and many regions of the world even more unstable.

And the way the US truly throws its weight around is not the military, it is the economy. It is trade policies and financial support that keeps dictators in power, not American forces. If anything the American forces weakens said dictators by breeding public dissent. If this power is kept then the holes that the US army has plugged, even though those holes have in many cases been created by the US army, will spring open, increasing instability without the US actually stopping its interference in the affairs of other countries. Without it the US will either supporting dictators through trade, at least as long as free trade is upheld, and it will lose much of its diplomatic leverage making it harder if not impossible to do anything through diplomacy. In the end the net result will be political isolationism, even if the money flows freely. The US simply has such an economic weight that any piece of trade policy, even the decission not to have any, on the part of the federal government will result in the US getting involved in the affairs of other countries and dictating their behavior. Either by still deciding who is worthy of trade and who isn't or by accepting any behavior by any group as long as it has money.

And as a final side note then i am not suggesting that the Libertarian party is some secret cabal controlling wikipedia. The mere suggestion of that is ludicrous. What i am suggesting is that through repeated use of the word in public discourse then Libertarians, and possibly other groups as well, has had luck in planting the word non-interference as a substitute for isolationism. The same way that nationalists in the post-second world war period has had luck in selling patriotism as something different than nationalism, despite the two words previously being synonymous and the content of them is still largely the same just with a different normative judgement.

[Guest]

First, like everything else, there are different degrees of isolationism. Lets take your example of Japan again. I'll admit that I did not realize they were that open, but they were still fairly isolationist. They did little trading with the European world until they were forced to open their ports. This was also true, although to a lesser degree, of China who, while trading with Europeans, kept them to a few select ports to try and curb their influence. Of course, it seems rather silly to look the the most powerful nations to find an example of true isolationism, an action which dooms a society to obscurity and financial mediocrity.

Now, I didn't read your whole post -- I'm in between classes and only have a short break -- but as to the idea of entangling alliances I believe that Ron Paul is referring to the type of alliance where you agree the go to war with someone or to defend them. I could be mistaken, but judging by his responses in interviews and debates this is likely the case.



Earlier you said that by this definition, there would be no isolationist nations in Europe, then after I agreed with you, you said that:

And it is patently not true that there has been no attempts at isolationism, in Europe or North America in recent times. Isolationism was the early French response to the Great Depression, most likely aggrevating it further. And it was by no means an uncommon reaction, though the French went further than any other European country.

It seems rather silly to attack me for agreeing with you.

For the rest of the post, I'll get to it tonight when I get home, but I have a class and a two hour commute to get though before then.

[Ghost Writer]

First, like everything else, there are different degrees of isolationism. Lets take your example of Japan again. I'll admit that I did not realize they were that open, but they were still fairly isolationist. They did little trading with the European world until they were forced to open their ports. This was also true, although to a lesser degree, of China who, while trading with Europeans, kept them to a few select ports to try and curb their influence. Of course, it seems rather silly to look the the most powerful nations to find an example of true isolationism, an action which dooms a society to obscurity and financial mediocrity.

Now, I didn't read your whole post -- I'm in between classes and only have a short break -- but as to the idea of entangling alliances I believe that Ron Paul is referring to the type of alliance where you agree the go to war with someone or to defend them. I could be mistaken, but judging by his responses in interviews and debates this is likely the case.



Earlier you said that by this definition, there would be no isolationist nations in Europe, then after I agreed with you, you said that:

And it is patently not true that there has been no attempts at isolationism, in Europe or North America in recent times. Isolationism was the early French response to the Great Depression, most likely aggrevating it further. And it was by no means an uncommon reaction, though the French went further than any other European country.

It seems rather silly to attack me for agreeing with you.

For the rest of the post, I'll get to it tonight when I get home, but I have a class and a two hour commute to get though before then.

[Mitera Nikkou]

I hope this clears some things up.

Basically, the sort of non-interventionalism that Ron Paul speaks of would have avoided the mess in the Middle East, which America is largely responsible for antagonizing. That is due in part to giving weapons to one nation in that region, then later to another, and then another and another, over the years. If you look back over many of the conflicts over the past few decades, you'll see that many of them had the weapon stock to do it because of that; that includes Saddam, when he went to war with Iran. In fact, in many cases our soldiers are fighting enemies with weapons that originally came from America.

And that's not even going into all of the coups that America has been involved in. All this is not too far off from playing God, really, and it has backfired badly. America has no business to stick its nose in others' affairs like that.

[Christina Anikari]

I'm sorry to say this but what he spells out is there is pretty much the textbook definition of political isolationism. He is basically stating that the US should take no active stance towards other countries...except for diplomacy, though how that can be done when you refuse to use any form of power is not something i will hazard a guess on, seems impossible to me. Also look at this quote from the link you gave me, emphasis mine: Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none." Washington similarly urged that we must, "Act for ourselves and not for others," by forming an "American character wholly free of foreign attachments." I am not sure how you can claim that quote is not isolationist but something else.

Also America can't avoid interfering financially in the matters of other nations, Vanuatu can't either for that matter. The moment you trade with a country you interfere financially with it and when your economy is as large and as powerful as the American economy your trade policy will make or break the economies of other countries. The US cannot refrain from using its power, it can only use it more or less wisely. Supporting the Saudi royal family or Saddam Hussein or declining to destroy the Republican Guard during the post-Gulf War rebellion were all probably bad decissions. Not because they use force, that cannot be avoided, but because they use it in the wrong way.

[Mitera Nikkou]

I think the problem is in your interpretation. Let's take a look at the quotes piece by piece and see the picture that I get.

Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations

Right there is interaction on all fronts. I don't understand where you got your economic argument from.

entangling alliances with none

This is merely emphasizing that the relationships that we have with other nations doesn't conflict. Which is to say that if we pledged military support with two nations, then those two nations went to war against each other, we'd get a mess. A severe conflict of interests. Because their interests became our interests.

Act for ourselves and not for others, by forming an American character wholly free of foreign attachments

This is saying that the actions that we do take is a reflection of our personal nature as a nation, rather than being obligated to follow the thoughts and reasons of another nation. So it doesn't prevent military, economic or political actions with other nations; it merely enforces that what we do as a nation should be reactionary, not compulsory, with our own interest.

What would probably throw most people off from understanding it is the fact that the goal is an ideal that's nigh impossible to reach. At least I don't expect any nation to ever be friends with all nations, though I think it's possible to maintain friendly relations with most. But the fact remains that there can't be isolationism if, indeed, the goal is to have amicable relations with other nations. You can't accomplish that while practicing isolation in regard to the economy and politics. The military aspect is the only real conundrum, but that alone can't make something isolationistic. So there's simply no isolationism behind the idea.

[Syllinia]

Wait... why isn't Stephen Colbert on the poll? I'm voting for him, gotta love write -ins. And I really hope he pulls out a victory in the Marvel universe...

[Dracos]

Actually if you had studied Japan you would have known that Japan in the Edo was in fact heavily involved in East Asian trade and was in fact also quite open to cultural influences from both China and Europe. In fact Japan was so heavily involved in East Asian trade that the Chinese monetary situation was only kept stable due to the constant importation of Japanese silver. Granted European culture was known as "Dutch Learning" because it was the Dutch who traded with Japan, but that does not mean that they were ignorant about these things. In fact this was so common that by the time Perry entered Tokyo Bay most villages that weren't dirt poor had at least one person who could read Dutch and several works by renowned European scholars, even in the most distant reaches of the country. Likewise Japan was engaged in significant trade with Korea, the Philipines and the Ryukyus as well as a significant degree of subjugation of the Ainos of Hokkaido. And on the political side of things Japan had significant political interaction with the Ryukyus and Korea as well as several attempts at getting Qing dynasty China to relent on its demands of subservience in exchange for trade. As for the European powers they were as disinterested in Japan as Japan was in them, it was not as if they ever tried actual diplomacy with Japan until after Meiji, if anything it was Japan that was the more interested party of the two.

Okay, I've done a little research and am just wondering... are you outright lying or just have no idea what you're saying? The Emperor of Japan was so isolationist that he enacted the Closed Country Edict of 1635. This stated that anyone who traveled outside Japan was permanently banished. At the same time, Japan wouldn't even allow traders on their soil, and would only allow the Dutch on Dejima, a small artificial island. And you say that Europeans had no interest in Japan, but this is once again untrue. Edo executed Christians and Portuguese diplomats.

Besides small trade of some outer daimyo with Korea and the Ryukyu Islands, to the southwest of Japan's main islands, by 1641, foreign contacts were limited by the policy of sakoku to Nagasaki. By 1650, Christianity was almost completely eradicated, and external political, economic and religious influence on Japan became quite limited. Only China, the Dutch East India Company, and for a short period, the English, enjoyed the right to visit Japan during this period, for commercial purposes only, and they were restricted to the Dejima port in Nagasaki. Other Europeans who landed on Japanese shores were put to death without trial.

Once again... was that a lie, or just extreme confusion on your part?

You really should study before you repeat a an ill-conceived myth as proof of your own stance. Was Japan isolationistic? Not by your definition, but by any other definition i have heard it was despite what i said above. Most trade was conducted in foreign countries or designated ports for example and diplomacy was a secretive affair were it had to appear nothing was going on. My point with this is that even isolationist countries have never attempted to cut off all contact with the world. No, North Korea is not trying to cut off contact with the rest of the world either and has never tried it and that is an isolationist country if any is. What North Korea has tried is to ensure that the government regulates the contact with the rest of the world.

The truth speaks for itself - Edo outlawed travel, restricted trade to a ridiculous degree, put foreigners to death without trial, and even executed diplomats.

As for whether isolationism and non-interventionism is the same thing then let me direct you to the wikipedia article about Warren G. Harding, US president from 1920-1923, which directly stated that he was an isolationist. I would also like to point out the impossibility of even attempting to cut off all contact with foreign countries. Not only is there the basic problems of people complaining if they cannot get foreign luxury goods anymore or the size of the country making it unfeasible to posit a complete lack of economic activity across the border. There is also the basic problem of no government wanting to intentionally blind itself to what is going on in the rest of the world and the political challenges it will face in the future. Doing what you call isolationism is simply not a policy that can be carried out due to the political and economic consequences of the country attempting it, nor has it ever been tried as radically as you seem to suggest.

Once again, Japan did during the Edo period. You claimed you've studied it. The emperor did so because he was distrustful of foreigners and thought Christianity was a threat to stability. It is a policy that can be done and has been done. It simply takes severe laws, such as the Closed Country Edict of 1635.

Part of what you call non-interventionism according to the wikipedia article you use as your proof is to avoid entangling foreign alliances of all kinds. How exactly do you propose to handle environmental issues, refugees or the increasing global inequality diplomatically without involving the country into any sort of international agreements that place restrictions and demands on the behaviour of the US? Solving these problems exactly means entering into entangling alliances, otherwise it is just pretty words and no substance. If anything that has been the one lesson learned by the EU, that you cannot deal with complex issues without adding rules to a long list of tangentially related issues, especially political and judicial, as well as a willingness to defend the other parties of said agreement...and without the means to enforce it. There is nothing straw man in asking about how you propose to deal with these issues without alliances. If anything they will make a desire to not get involved in the affairs of other countries harder not easier.

Nikkou answered this well. He is addressing alliances for the purpose of defense or war. We would still be willing to act on matters of global importance.

And it is patently not true that there has been no attempts at isolationism, in Europe or North America in recent times. Isolationism was the early French response to the Great Depression, most likely aggrevating it further. And it was by no means an uncommon reaction, though the French went further than any other European country. In the same vein isolationism, also more radical isolationism than Ron Paul proposes, has been a commonly suggested solution to economic and political problems in the US, just look at all the people who proposes that the way to create jobs in American industry is to prohibit outsourcing and increasing tariffs. Even radical political and economic isolationism is certainly alive today, and especially in the US now that the EU has integrated Europe beyond the point where it doesn't look absurd.

So, first you say that isolationism never existed, then you say that no one has ever really wanted to be an isolationist, and now you're pointing out examples of isolationists? Can I please get some of whatever you're smoking?

Seriously though, prohibiting outsourcing and increasing tariffs are just bad economic policy and barriers to free trade, the basis of Ron Paul's philosophy. So, once again, you're pointing out how Ron Paul is different from an Isolationist. Thank you!