According to Dictionary.com, the term 'isolationism' is best defined as, "
When the term isolationist is used today it is almost always used in a pejorative fashion. I can't recall any instance where one candidate for political office referred to another candidate for political office as an isolationist and meant it as a compliment. The term seems to be used exclusively by one career politician as a tool to brand another career politician as backwards and out of touch with essential foreign policy issues.
Even the definition of the term as found on Dictionary.com betrays a serious presuppositional problem with the way the word is used today. Read the definition once again and note that it presupposes that all international and foreign interactions must be on a state-to-state level, thus ignoring foreign and international relationships that are on an individual person-to-person basis. Countries are described as being isolationist when they, as if an impersonal entity called a "country" has a will, make the decision to refuse to enter into international agreements with other countries. The last time I checked the nature of the universe a country was an impersonal entity with no ability to exercise any sort of will or enter into any kind of international agreement with another impersonal entity. Of course I am poking fun at the statists among us who find it impossible to conceive of anything meaningful taking place in society if it is not being performed by career politicians as they represent their various countries. Activities engaged in by profit seeking businessmen are strictly forbidden when it comes to thinking about isolationism.
Career politicians are quick to taint the reputation of others who might be seeking to take their place in the government bureaucracy by calling them isolationists. What they always mean is that their opponents do not believe in the moral necessity of maintaining and expanding the Amerikan empire. Even the definition given above betrays that belief. Notice how the definition concludes by describing how the isolationist seeks to avoid "foreign responsibilities." Just what foreign responsibilities does the government of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika have? The Constitution states that the government of the SDA is responsible to protect the three civil rights of the citizens of this land, and none other. The SDA has no responsibility to protect the lives, freedom or property of citizens in foreign lands. Indeed, the Constitution of the United States, as it was originally written and according to its original intention, is a strictly isolationist document. There is no place for any belief in the moral or political necessity of the SDA government to be involved in the internal affairs of sovereign foreign nations. The idea that the SDA government, and the SDA military in particular, is responsible to do things for foreign governments and citizens is in stark contrast to the original and isolationist framework of government given to us by the founding fathers.
You can rest assured that the great majority of immoral wretches who seek political office in this land consider themselves to be proudly anti-isolationist. By that they mean they are staunchly in favor of maintaining and expanding the Amerikan empire around the world. All talk about how we have to "do something" about ISIS, Syria, Ukraine, Russia, North Korea, China, Cuba and a host of other sovereign nations around the world indicates just how militarily involved our career politicians want to be. The only well known political candidate on a national scale to not be in favor of Amerikan empire expansion has been Ron Paul. He was immediately labeled an isolationist not only by his political opponents but by the boot-licking press that couldn't wait to besmirch his reputation by exposing him as someone who does not want to see a great Amerika because he opposes the Amerikan empire. It was fascinating to listen to the questions he was asked. The reporters couldn't wait to hear him respond to their questions when he would consistently assert that SDA military forces need to withdraw from the world. They would then pounce upon him by asking questions about how he could possibly maintain such a ridiculous isolationist position that is so out of accord with the Amerikan people, whoever they are. That would always be the end of the discussion.
Donald the Trumpet has been accused of being an isolationist as well. As the powers that be in the Republican party have been frantically seeking some way to slow him down and prevent him from obtaining the Republican nomination for next King of the SDA, they have concentrated some of their efforts on comments he has made that are actually favorable to declared SDA enemies like Putin and Assad. The fact that Donald does not want to initiate World War III, as the rest of the candidates, sans Bernie Sanders, want to do, is sufficient reason for them to seek to tarnish his reputation by painting him as a hated isolationist.
The problem with that picture is that it is simply untrue. It is true that Donald seems to be reticent to use the military power of the SDA to maintain the empire, which we should all be thankful for, but he gleefully describes how he wants to use SDA economic power and coercive federal legislation to engage in economic warfare with countries all around the world. He will, if elected, immediately engage Russia, China and Mexico in trade wars which would be guaranteed to harm all parties involved. So describing Donald as isolationist is patently false. He wants to engage foreign nations in all sorts of trade wars, with the goal being to establish the SDA as the supreme economic power in the world. In doing so he misses the rather vital economic truths that the SDA is already the supreme economic power in the world and any attempts to engage in international trade warfare will only endanger that position.
Isolationism, as it is defined above, is a very good thing. The SDA has no business striking deals with foreign countries. The SDA should not be involved in military alliances nor should it be involved in trade deals. The government of the SDA should exist to protect the three civil rights of its citizens and nothing else. Isolationism is a fantastic doctrine and the world would be a much better place to live in if all countries adopted it as an operating principle. People need to stop speaking poorly of isolationism and isolationists and realize that the principle and the people who support it are most able to keep the SDA at peace with the rest of the nations of the world. However, since war is the health of the state, isolationism will always be out of favor.
More important than anything I have written thus far is the fact that the free market knows no boundaries. When government keeps it big, ugly face out of the free market people naturally trade with one another. Peaceful exchange between peoples of different races, cultures and nationalities takes place all the time. Free trade among the citizens of the world is the greatest worldly means by which true peace can be achieved. It has quite properly been asserted that it is very bad business to kill your customers. Maintenance of the Amerikan empire and free trade with the nations of the world cannot coexist. Guess which one always loses?
Profit seeking businessmen are the exact antithesis of isolationists as they are defined today. They will move heaven and earth to find new customers to serve, regardless of linguistic, cultural or political barriers. If envy-filled and God-hating Amerikan citizens really want to be anti-isolationist, they would immediately adopt the economic liberty found in the free market and, conversely, oppose all efforts at empire expansion by the SDA military/industrial complex. That, of course, will never happen. SDA citizens love their god too much to strip him of his power.