Charles Kupchan’s essay on American strategy in Democracy was disappointing in several ways, but probably the worst part of it was the evidence that Kupchan had no idea what non-interventionists actually believe:

The Republican Party’s neo-isolationist wing, rather than seeking to turn illiberal regimes into democracies, would simply shun them. The Tea Party would want to avoid the domestic exertions and diplomatic constraints entailed in engaging rising powers not created in America’s image. Such isolation would, however, not only mean missing opportunities for pragmatic cooperation, but also ceding too much ground to non-democratic regimes.

In light of Ron Paul’s comments yesterday in which he urged diplomatic engagement with Iran, this is very misleading. References to isolationism and “neo-isolationists” are always misleading, but where Kupchan really goes wrong is in his belief that “neo-isolationists” don’t want international engagement. Non-interventionists may not be enamored of international institutions, but they generally regard diplomacy as the better way to handle “rogue” states and authoritarian major powers. Kupchan seems not to know any of this, and he seems unaware that non-interventionists favor exchange and engagement over the real isolation of imposing sanctions, and we are probably better-suited to engaging “rising powers not created in America’s image” because we don’t insist on meddling in their internal affairs. Non-interventionists understand that imposing sanctions is often the first step in escalating tensions that eventually leads to unnecessary conflict. How much more interesting it would have been for Kupchan to consider all of this, but he didn’t. This is what comes from dismissing a position as “isolationism” before considering the arguments.

Kupchan also confuses things when he refers to the “neo-isolationist wing” (i.e., non-interventionists) in the same breath as the Tea Party. There is overlap between the two, but they aren’t identical, and many Tea Partiers are conventional Republicans in their foreign policy views. While some Tea Partiers might favor shunning illiberal regimes, they have that in common with other allegedly internationalist Republicans and not with non-interventionists.