McCain Versus the Isolationists

Ryan Lizza has an excellent article sketching out the lines of debate over the future of the Republican Party, and where John McCain fits into the whole thing -- apparently, he sees himself as leading a struggle against resurgent forces of isolationism. Ross Douthat's not too happy:

But, um, Senator McCain, you did notice that Ron Paul topped out at about 5-10 percent of the vote, didn't you? And that every other candidate in the race (allowing for certain variations) took roughly the same foreign-policy line as you? Doesn't that at the very least suggest that there might be more pressing battles awaiting a politician looking to reinvent the Republican Party than a crusade against the isolationist menace? Please?

Ross seems a bit confused. As anyone familiar with George W. Bush's 2006 State of the Union Address knows, "isolationist" means "anyone who doesn't favor repeating the enormous blunders of the past six years." In that sense, the forces of isolationism really are growing, and one could even have imagined a President Romney or a President Huckabee turning out to be a closet "isolationist" once in office. But John McCain wanted a pointless and counterproductive policy of rogue state rollback before it was cool.

Comments

The quoted article basically suggests that McCain has repudiated "small government" conservatism and no longer opposes "corporatism." Instead, he now opposes "isolationism."

This is interesting, seeing as how - as part of the fallout of the current financial crisis - more and more "American" corporations are being bought up by foreigners - including foreign governments.

It also is interesting seeing as how "big government" - including big defense - necessarily means that we borrow from foreigners. Which means, in order to be "tough," we must pony up to them.

This is an interesting situation; and it is indeed remarkable not only that it has come into being but that it has lasted as long as it has.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | February 19, 2008 12:21 PM

"rogue state rollback" = armed invasion, occupation and decades of nation-building.

never forget it

Posted by cleek | February 19, 2008 12:23 PM

Ron Paul didn't top out at 5-10% though. Here are some of his best state results so far:

Montana 25%
Washington 22%
North Dakota 21%
Maine 19%
Alaska 17%
Minnesota 16%
Nevada 14%
Kansas 11%
Iowa 10%
West Virginia 10%

He finished second in Montana and Nevada and Maine, raised more money than any other Republican in the fourth quarter, and had top-tier vote totals among younger voters, which indicates that his "revolution" has staying power.

Posted by Doug D | February 19, 2008 12:44 PM

You Paultards are just so adorable, I want pinch your cheeks and ruffle your hair! Here's a dollar - go get yourself a lollipop!

Posted by Woody Bombay | February 19, 2008 1:18 PM

Not only does the r3VOLution have staying power, but there are a number of "Ron Paul Republicans" running for office.

The troubling thing is that this incredibly shrinking republican party is losing members to Obama. The media has done a hit job of not covering Dr. Paul's conservative values and instead focusing on McCain's imperialist doctrines.

Posted by Marcelo | February 19, 2008 1:22 PM

Once again, those who believe the Constitution is just a "piece of paper" ridicule those who support Ron Paul with name calling and dismissiveness, thank you Woody. It amuses me that most "Paultards" (which in case you did not know, is not a term of endearment) post comments that contain facts, figures, links, and for right or wrong, arguments; while the non-"Paultards" (those who speak as if from some enlightened or mature position) respond with hateful, scornful, or ridiculing remarks...never once making any sort of argument. So Woody, who do you support and why should I or other "Paultards" support them? I am open to listen if you are making a case. I suppose you will respond with the argument that voting for RP is a wasted vote...perhaps this is what the fanaticism with professional sports has done to our society, winners are winners and everyone else is a loser. Well, while I support your right to say and believe as you wish, I also support my right to do the same, so I will be supporting the candidate that wishes to protect the social agreement that ensures that right for the both of us. I will vote Ron Paul and for those of the “Revolution” who run after he is gone. In the mean time, I will save the dollar, as due to inflation it will no longer buy a lollipop, but thanks again *fixes his hair*.

Posted by Kit | February 19, 2008 1:43 PM

there are a number of "Ron Paul Republicans" running for office.

Name two.

Posted by djw | February 19, 2008 2:43 PM

Once again, those who believe the Constitution is just a "piece of paper" ridicule those who support a candidate who believes the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments are invalid, who doesn't think the power of Congress to "regulate the value thereof" of money extends to passing the Federal Reserve Act, and who favors a federal abortion ban, because "states' rights" are only for re-enabling Jim Crow or gutting the Establishment Clause. Fixed that for you, Kit. See, some of us are ridiculing you because either your fanaticism about the Constitution is dishonestly selective, or you're pig-ignorant about what your candidate actually stands for.

Name two.

Depends. If "Ron Paul Republican" means "the federal government should absolutely control women's reproduction, should overturn homosexual couples' right to enter into various types of legal contract, and should violently restrict the right of people to freely contract out their labor in flat contradiction of von Mises" then practically all Republican candidates are "Ron Paul Republicans." You just have to avoid sloppily conflating them with actual libertarian candidates. (Though Dr. Paul does have some libertarian positions, on foreign entanglements, the drug war, and executive power. He's just basically alone in his party in espousing them.)

Posted by mds | February 19, 2008 3:08 PM

No dollar bill for you, Kit - you grossly misrepresented my position on the Constitution with your "just a piece of paper" remark. Very dishonest - shame on you!

Before I moved to my current location - and oh yes, it's quite the liberal bastion! - I was born, raised and lived in a congressional district right next door to Ron Paul's Texas stomping grounds. So, long before the good doctor became fashionable in certain circles - a fad - I knew what a crackpot he is.

As for your 'revolution,' all I can tell you brother is you'll have to wait.

Posted by Woody Bombay | February 19, 2008 3:43 PM

I didn't think Lizza's article was all that "excellent." Lizza sort of forgot about McCain's habit of caving every time the issue of torture comes up (not enough to satisfy "real conservatives," of course, because he refuses to say that it's a good thing).

He also lets McCain assert without contradiction that the "surge" has been a whopping success--so successful that now it's being extended, which is in fact an admission that it hasn't succeeded. The idea was that we would give the Iraqis breathing space to create an effective government. Well, the U.S. Army is still the Iraqi police force and will continue in that function indefinitely.

Lizza's article in fact demonstrates once more that reporters love McCain because he will hang with them. They don't mind being spun as long as it's the candidate himself that does the spinning.

Posted by Alan Vanneman | February 19, 2008 4:34 PM

It doesnt matter what you think of Ron Paul, if you are honest with yourself then you could not possibly approve of the tactics and methods illustrated in these two videos:

Censorship of Ron Paul, Parts 1 and 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXCkgz1Y-Bk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4QO7zXTljE

The republican party is basically finished. It will be forced to realign itself to more traditional values. Party members will need to educate themselves so that they may one day be able to engage in rational discourse, instead of dumbed down nonsense like "oh you paultards are so cute"....

Seeing our country be destroyed and then denying it's even happening is neither cute nor funny. Picking a candidate based on who your media controllers believe has the best chance of winning is completely moronic. You really need to stop patting yourself on the back thinking you've made a conscious choice and that you are participating in the system. You are not.

As far as the economy is concerned, I dont care anymore. Morons get what they deserve. If you think fox news can be a substitute for community and common sense, then you deserve to lose everything you have. I care not. But you better not blame ron paul or his supporters for dragging this economy into the dumps.

You McCain shills could be manipulated into believing anything, I have no doubts about that. But you better have the humility to blame yourselves when you finally realize the system you support has stabbed you in the back. And NOT blame people like Ron Paul. I'm sure you will anyway, but hey its worth a try...

Posted by Iconoclast421 | February 19, 2008 5:10 PM

Ron Paul is a splendid individual with an astonishingly consistent and coherent ideology. I love him, and voted for him in 1988.

John McCain is right, and clever, to oppose the new isolationism. Ron Paul is not its leading spokesman. It is far more popular dressed up in politically correct, peace-at-any-price, would-be neo-anticolonial, blame America first drag. Blood for NO OIL!!

Posted by Robert Powell | February 19, 2008 5:19 PM

Bush's use of isolationist in that speech was weird. I think he likely did mean what you think.

However McCain might actually be meaning isolationist, in the US sense of the word. True isolationism is basically impossible in a free-society. However the interwar period of non-involvement is often referred to as the "isolationist period."

http://www.voicesacrosstime.org/come-all-ye/ti/2004/lessons/07NysseIsolationism.html

And there is a fairly small, but quite vocal, element of Republicans that remain US-isolationist. I'm of course meaning Pat Buchanan supporters. I think at one point the Buchananists even argued we should've stayed out of the European part of WWII. There's also the Paleo-Libertarians like Lew Rockwell who favor a level of non-involvement that means leaving International organizations that even Switzerland joined. Or opposing the US Civil War retroactively and changing the Fourteenth Amendment to keep out immigrants. Still these kind of Buchanan/Rockwell people are not very significant and not worth a candidates attention.

Posted by Thomas R | February 19, 2008 5:35 PM

mds - Point taken, thank you for well written response. I am perhaps a bit biased toward selective parts of the Constitution, this will require retroflection on my part to remedy, and your post might just give me a place to start, so thanks again. I would like to continue a discussion on some of the other reasons I support RP over the over candidates, however, it was never my intent to hijack this place for responding to the article above; another time, another place perhaps.

Woody, you are right as well, my apologies for the over-generalization, it was wrong of me to suggest that there are only two schools of thought, us and them...(and in lumping you with them). I am sure we all have backgrounds that reinforce our particular beliefs; making by default the case that we all believe our particular version of "truth" is best. I suppose it comes down to tolerance...and learning how to allow each of us to hold these truths without sparking conflict (by the way...I did think your lollipop bit was pretty witty).

Posted by Kit | February 19, 2008 9:35 PM

McCain is just so Oooooooooooold! He smells like coffin dust.

Posted by ALopez | February 20, 2008 2:29 AM