So, obviously invading foreign countries who do not behave as we tell them to behave is not isolationism. What about sending diplomats to speak to someone instead of soldiers with guns. Is that isolationism? Do we live in a country of such extremes now that only military intervention qualifies as actively engaged in the world?
People call Dr. Paul an isolationist because he wants to remove our troops from bases around the world. They call him an isolationist because he doesn't want to buy third world allies with huge money grants to warlords and dictators. They call him an isolationist because he thinks Israel should be allowed to make her own decisions and not seek American approval for every action. He's called an isolationist because he believes we should pay more attention to our border with Mexico than Pakistan's border with Afghanistan.
I call that bullshit.
The neo-cons in the Democrat and Republican parties want us to be the policemen to the world. They want us to continue to funnel money to oppressive regimes. These regimes then use this money to buy guns and planes and tanks that they use to subjugate their citizens. Exhibit A - Egypt and the $250 Billion given to Mubarak over time. Exhibit B - funding Pakistani and Yemeni military regimes that oppress their people with our money.
Dr. Paul wants us to be engaged in the world, just no longer militarily and financially responsible for it. This is not isolationism. This is called being a responsible citizen and good neighbor. Yeah, I may let you borrow a cup of sugar, but I'm not paying your mortgage so you can stay home from work to abuse your children.