Since the Progressive Era, American foreign policy has seen one military intervention after another, leading to disastrous consequences. Historian Charles A.

Non-interventionism is more commonly advocated by left-of-center Democrats than right-leaning Republicans. But Democrats who agree, at least conceptually, with Trump’s anti-regime change message ...

For several months, Huntsman dabbled in policy—offering a naïve return to non-interventionism overseas [bold mine-DL] and a strong economic plan here at home.

Some non-interventionists have been against unnecessary and illegal wars all along, and others have come around to recognizing the futility and folly of these interventions in recent decades.

Non-interventionists are confident in American strength and, unlike isolationists, are optimistic about America's engagement with the world. What they do not seek, however, is dominion over it.

For 122 years, America remained primarily a non-interventionist country, teetering between isolation and intervention, but striking a balance, as Americans are wont to do. U.S. foreign policy ...

“Non-interventionism,” on the other hand, means being opposed to “entangling alliances” abroad and the interference in and/or starting of military action.

February 19, 2015 Why Does Non-Interventionism Horrify Our Rulers? Sheldon Richman ...

It took FDR for conservative non-interventionism to become a unique ideology. The right goes to war The anti-FDR backlash is the key historical development for understanding Rand Paul." ...

Those who advocate strict non-interventionism usually intend it to mean that America should remain militarily uninvolved abroad except when there is a clear and imminent threat to U.S. territory.

Paul makes a number of non-interveintonist arguments, but he frames them in support of Israel. You could call it Zionist non-interventionism. Sen. Paul’s statement reads : ...