"Isolationist” is a term I’m sure we’re all too familiar with, usually being slung around to slur critics of the general consensus hyper-interventionist foreign policy, but not usually coming from one party to slur its own party leadership. “This is isolationism,” McCain said of the opposition to the U.S. Libya mission from congressional Republicans and GOP presidential candidates. “There’s always been an isolationist strain in the Republican Party, the Pat Buchanan wing of our party. But now it seems to have moved more center stage, so to speak" (to see article where he's quoted from click here). A week later Pawlenty, in a foreign policy speech (to see article where he's quoted from click here), said some Republicans “seem to be trying to outbid the Democrats in appealing to isolationist sentiments.”
Isn’t this smear already old enough? I thought the interventionists were past this tactic.
What really grabbed my attention after reading this was the realization that a substantial majority of the Republican voting base agrees with this criticism. The rapidly evolving species of Neoconservatives is beginning to genuinely worry me. Here we see a front running candidate for the Republican nomination and the 2008 Republican presidential candidate criticizing others for being a little tentative before assaulting another country during the largest debt crisis in our nation’s history.
If they consider the current trend to be appealing towards isolationist sentiments, then just exactly how drastic are their views against non-interventionism? We’ve witnessed the Republican Party support numerous black hole spending military operations, but I was under the impression that they were growing out of that. I’m hoping those against such spending will vocalize their position a little better and hopefully the Republican party can eventually leave the particular topic of their economic downfall.
Print 
PDF