Last week, I had a piece in Townhall in which I criticized those who call libertarians “isolationists.” I explained the various ways libertarians are just as internationalist, if not more so, than those of other political persuasions. The recent Rand Paul‐Marco Rubio back and forth on President Obama’s new Cuba policy helps illustrate the point. Here is the Washington Post summarizing the exchange:
Hawkish Republicans have long called Paul’s foreign policy “isolationist,” a label he rejects. In this week’s Cuba debate, Paul applied the label to Rubio.
Paul’s comments were unusually personal, beginning with a series of tweets aimed at Rubio followed by a two‐paragraph message on his Facebook page. “Senator Rubio is acting like an isolationist” and “does not speak for the majority of Cuban‐Americans,” he wrote.
Paul followed up with an op‐ed on Time’s Web site Friday afternoon in which he wrote that he grew up learning to despise communism but over time concluded that “a policy of isolationism against Cuba is misplaced and hasn’t worked.” He noted that public opinion has shifted in favor of rapprochement — especially among young people, including young Cuban Americans — and that U.S. businesses would benefit by being able to sell their goods in Cuba.
Rubio responded to Paul’s comments Friday evening, telling conservative radio host Mark Levin, “I think it’s unfortunate that Rand has decided to adopt Barack Obama’s foreign policy on this matter.”
I don’t think there can be much doubt that Paul’s approach of engagement with Cuba is internationalist, not isolationist. The Rubio approach is harder to define. It can be seen as isolationist, in a sense; alternatively, it could be some sort of aggressive, interventionist — and ineffective — internationalism. Either way, the Cuba issue is a good illustration of how libertarians are not isolationists, and hopefully this will put an end to that mistaken characterization.