Why The “Isolationist” Slur Survives

[Chris]

Daniel Larison at the American Conservative explains why Why The “Isolationist” Slur Survives (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/why-the-isolationist-slur-survives/):


Jim Antle calls for banishing “isolationism” from foreign policy debate:



By now it is clear that the “i-word” does more to distort the foreign-policy debate than to accurately describe anyone’s substantive views.


Antle is right that this should happen, but “isolationist” is far too useful to hawks as a slur and as a means for defining the terms of debate for them to give it up. The slur is still in circulation today because it is misleading and inaccurate. Hawks continue to use it because it distorts the debate in the way that hawks need it to be distorted. Advocates of foreign policy restraint have to keep demonstrating the inaccuracy and absurdity of the slur, but that isn’t going to make the slur any less useful to the people that use it on a regular basis. Like any meme, the “isolationist” label survives and thrives not because it is true, but because it fills some need for the people that reproduce it. In this case, hawks need to see themselves as the only real internationalists that are continuing the long struggle against Americans’ instinctive “isolationism,” and they can’t very well do that unless they falsely accuse their opponents of being something that they clearly aren’t. “Isolationist” keeps being used for much the same reason that hawks keep resorting to the same 1930s references as crutches for their awful policy arguments. Hawkish arguments in favor of any particular intervention are typically weak, so they have to fling accusations of “appeasement” and “isolationism” to distract attention from the fact that their arguments usually make no sense. Charging someone with “isolationism” is intended to shut down an argument that the hawks would frequently lose if their claims were judged solely on the merits.

[Mini Me]

Daniel Larison at the American Conservative explains why Why The “Isolationist” Slur Survives (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/why-the-isolationist-slur-survives/):

Just before WW II, many were calling for isolationist policies, and encouraged Hitler advance his quest for world domination and kept FDR from helping out England from destructive U-boats sinking ships. Charles Lindbergh, the American aviation hero, and many on the right not only were isolationist, but had ties with the Nazi movement.

In recent times, the label isolationist, was used against Ron Paul and his primary bid for POTUS, even though he was a nor-interventionist, by those in his own party and the MSMedia.

[Chris]

Right. The problem is isolationist is really used more for trade policy, protectionism from countries who are said to compete with us. Oddly, that's a standard Republican position these days, to end trade and go to war. Mixed up.

[iustitia]

Isolationist: Protectionism and peace
Non-Interventionist: Free trade and peace
Neo-Con: Protectionism and war
Neo-Lib: Free trade and war

[Peter1469]

Isolationist: Protectionism and peace
Non-Interventionist: Free trade and peace
Neo-Con: Protectionism and war
Neo-Lib: Free trade and war

Add humanitarian reasons for the neo-libs.

[Ransom]

Maybe it survives because rather than a slur, it's the political position entrenched into by so many here in the US.....and in this talk forum, btw.

[Max Rockatansky]

Isolationist: Protectionism and peace
Non-Interventionist: Free trade and peace
Neo-Con: Protectionism and war
Neo-Lib: Free trade and war

When can we expect an article on why the "Neo-Con" or "Neo-Lib" slurs survive?

[Chris]

When can we expect an article on why the "Neo-Con" or "Neo-Lib" slurs survive?

Neocons chose their name. As Irving Kristol, its grandfather, put it, "A neoconservative is a liberal mugged by reality." He added "A neoliberal is a liberal who got mugged by reality but has not pressed charges."

[Captain Obvious]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/26/27/9d/26279d2e9e703bd0e65dd540f6640f75.jpg

[Max Rockatansky]

Neocons chose their name. As Irving Kristol, its grandfather, put it, "A neoconservative is a liberal mugged by reality." He added "A neoliberal is a liberal who got mugged by reality but has not pressed charges."

Did Neoliberals also choose their name? Did either of them come up with the definitions/slurs that Iustitia listed?

[iustitia]

Mr. Crazy enters to ruin another topic.

[Max Rockatansky]

Mr. Crazy enters to ruin another topic.
Thanks for the slur. It enhances my point.

[Captain Obvious]

Thanks for the slur. It enhances my point.

Thought he was talking about me.

I'll take that bullet if you want.

[Chris]

Maybe it survives because rather than a slur, it's the political position entrenched into by so many here in the US.....and in this talk forum, btw.


Try reading the OP and responding instead of just fishing around in your own isolated head from up on that fence you refuse to come down off.

[Max Rockatansky]

Thought he was talking about me.

I'll take that bullet if you want.
He seems willing to empty his pistol into a room full of people who disagree with him, so I think there are plenty to go around.

[Chris]

Did Neoliberals also choose their name? Did either of them come up with the definitions/slurs that Iustitia listed?

How is any of the following even a slur?


Isolationist: Protectionism and peace
Non-Interventionist: Free trade and peace
Neo-Con: Protectionism and war
Neo-Lib: Free trade and war

They are political positions.

It's calling someone an isolationist when they're a non-interventionist that's the slur here. No one here was called a neocon but to call a neocon a neocon is not a slur.

[Max Rockatansky]

How is any of the following even a slur?

They are political positions.

It's calling someone an isolationist when they're a non-interventionist that's the slur here. No one here was called a neocon but to call a neocon a neocon is not a slurYou've slung many false names at me, so your whining about being labeled an isolationist gains no sympathy from me.

The fact is some here claim to be "non-interventionists" yet, when queried on what that means in practice, it always comes up as isolationism or, most commonly, they dance around the issue with claims of "I've posted that before and won't repeat myself now".

Now you are claiming that it's okay to label those you don't like but are butt-hurt when others do the same to you. The word for a person like that is "hypocrite".

[iustitia]

I'm sure Chris is also a plagiarist and is secretly in cahoots with the mods so they can do evil stuff like not take paranoia seriously.

[iustitia]

Thanks for the slur. It enhances my point.

You had a point?

[Chris]

You've slung many false names at me, so your whining about being labeled an isolationist gains no sympathy from me.

The fact is some here claim to be "non-interventionists" yet, when queried on what that means in practice, it always comes up as isolationism or, most commonly, they dance around the issue with claims of "I've posted that before and won't repeat myself now".

Now you are claiming that it's okay to label those you don't like but are butt-hurt when others do the same to you. The word for a person like that is "hypocrite".



I've not slung names at you, poor max, and the thread isnt a whine but a crticism of those who sling the slur isolationist for utter lack of argument, which is the point of the OP.

Isalationism is a trade policy.

[PolWatch]

cahoots with the mods? darn! I always miss out on the interesting stuff! <stomping off to pout in corner>

[Max Rockatansky]

I've not slung names at you, poor max, and the thread isnt a whine but a crticism of those who sling the slur isolationist for utter lack of argument, which is the point of the OP.

Isalationism is a trade policy.Disagreed on all points.

Isolationism, aka non-interventionism as it is used these days, covers military, political and economic policies since it involves alliances with other nations and our involvement in military threats beyond our own borders.

[Chris]

Disagreed on all points.

Isolationism, aka non-interventionism as it is used these days, covers military, political and economic policies since it involves alliances with other nations and our involvement in military threats beyond our own borders.


If you disagree, present a disagreement, max, not mere conflation of two distinct terms.

[Max Rockatansky]

If you disagree, present a disagreement, max, not mere conflation of two distinct terms.
You just keep milking the line, Chris. That's what you're good at.

You're certainly not getting much help from iustitia, not that you are complaining about him.

[Chris]

cahoots with the mods? darn! I always miss out on the interesting stuff! <stomping off to pout in corner>

Cahoots...

http://i.snag.gy/aPSRY.jpg

[Chris]

You just keep milking the line, Chris. That's what you're good at.

You're certainly not getting much help from iustitia, not that you are complaining about him.


??? This is not a dairy, max, it's an attempt at rational discussion. Join in some time.

[The Xl]

The differences between non interventionism and isolationism are apparent and obvious. Those who conflate the two are either uneducated or desperately grasping at straws, conflating the two intentionally knowing one is easier to attack than the other. If anything, non interventionism is the opposite of isolationism, how the fuck is free trade and relations isolationist?

It's just warmonger talking points.

[The Xl]

You've slung many false names at me, so your whining about being labeled an isolationist gains no sympathy from me.

The fact is some here claim to be "non-interventionists" yet, when queried on what that means in practice, it always comes up as isolationism or, most commonly, they dance around the issue with claims of "I've posted that before and won't repeat myself now".

Now you are claiming that it's okay to label those you don't like but are butt-hurt when others do the same to you. The word for a person like that is "hypocrite".

You're just making shit up now. It's been explained to you countless times by countless people. If those explanations come up as "isolationism" in your head, you clearly don't know what the word means.

[The Xl]

Disagreed on all points.

Isolationism, aka non-interventionism as it is used these days, covers military, political and economic policies since it involves alliances with other nations and our involvement in military threats beyond our own borders.

Free trade and relations is the antithesis of isolationism.

Sorry, not wanting to invade and bomb the fuck out of everyone and everything doesn't make you an isolationist.

[iustitia]

An isolationist believes in a fortress America, and a non-interventionist believes in a non-aggressive America. Both oppose war and entangling alliances, but one fears not economic competition and instead promotes it.

This is like conflating classical liberalism and fascism because both support property ownership. What about individualism or limited government?

Words have meaning, which our resident paranoid schizophrenic fails to care about. Literally the only instance in which isolationism and non-interventionism mean the same thing is when he writes it.

[iustitia]

Pat Buchanan is an isolationist. He's generally anti-war and very much a protectionist.

Ron Paul is a non-interventionist. He's generally anti-war and very much for free trade.

Both I can respect as men and while I disagree with Pat on economics he is an eloquent defender of his position in instances I've seen him discuss it. That being said, they're not the same as each other and it's a disservice to conflate the two.

[Chris]

It's intellectually dishonest to conflate the two.

[Mister D]

You know a man by his enemies. I always liked Pat Buchanan.

[iustitia]

Agreed. I actually am a fan of his columns and his book on WWII.

[Mister D]

Who does he write for now? I know he sometimes writes for VDare.

[Chris]

Who does he write for now? I know he sometimes writes for VDare.

American Conservative: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/author/patrick-j-buchanan/

[iustitia]

This his own site has them but I mainly read ones shared on lewrockwell.com

[Mister D]

I'll have to check them out. I haven't read anything from PB in a long time.

[donttread]

Isolationist: Protectionism and peace
Non-Interventionist: Free trade and peace
Neo-Con: Protectionism and war
Neo-Lib: Free trade and war

I'm a non-interventionist except I believe in tariffs where foreign goods hold an unfair advantage like paying their labor 25 cents an hour. It's OK to interact with the rest of the world but each country should produce their own staples. We should not ship wheat from Kansas to NYC much less to Africa . It's an unbelievable waste of resources