Wide Rift Within the Democratic Party on Foreign Policy

[WMS]

But the article does make a good point, in that there are essentially two very different types of isolationsists; [1] those who view "Americanization" of the world as doing more bad than good, and the far more common type, which, as I mentioned, [2] basically don't give a damn about what goes on outside of our borders.

Likewise, interventionists can be [3] both those who view the United States as a force for good in the world, or[4]  those who want to make the rest of the world more like us so as to better serve our interests.

Or as the highly-flawed yet interesting Christian Science Monitor article of 2004 put it...[1] = Liberal; [2] = Isolationist; [3] = Neoconservative; [4] = Realist.

Ah, Rome. The vilest motherfucker in earth history. Rome well deserved all the hate it got and something extra, you know that? Believe you me, you don't want to take Rome as your role model, because if you do, that'd really be the end to whatever civil liberties you got left.

Well, to be technical, the Roman Republic was pretty damn good, especially by the standards of the era - you had places rebelling in order to become Roman citizens. Once the transition to the Roman Empire took place, things headed south in a hurry. My source, BTW, was my always-entertaining libertarian Ancient History professor back in my undergraduate days, whose specialty was Greece and Rome.

[WMS]

But the article does make a good point, in that there are essentially two very different types of isolationsists; [1] those who view "Americanization" of the world as doing more bad than good, and the far more common type, which, as I mentioned, [2] basically don't give a damn about what goes on outside of our borders.

Likewise, interventionists can be [3] both those who view the United States as a force for good in the world, or[4]  those who want to make the rest of the world more like us so as to better serve our interests.

Or as the highly-flawed yet interesting Christian Science Monitor article of 2004 put it...[1] = Liberal; [2] = Isolationist; [3] = Neoconservative; [4] = Realist.

I actually would flip flop 3 and 4. The difference between them that I was trying to articulate was that liberal interventionists view us as having a moral obligation to improve the rest of the world by making them more like us, where as neocons generally want to do so as a means of improving America's national security. The difference is on who the intervention is primarily intended to help, though obviously many if not most such interventions will be helpful to both America and the country we are aiding as well. However, when a proposed intervention would primarily help one country far more than the other, that is where you would see these two types of internationalists generally seperate.

Interesting perspective...although you're actually adding a fifth category and not flip-flopping the existing ones, since Realists don't care about improving the world at all.

[WMS]

I would personally put realists into a totally different category. I may be misinterpreting the term, but I think of realists as analyzing the pros and cons and weighing the costs and benefits of each individual action on its own and thus not necessarily adhering ot any particular philosophy of interventionism or isolationism.

Actually, adherents of any of the schools of thought could do the part in bold. Realists are noted for realpolitiquè (I hope that's the right type of mark ) - the rejection of any motiviating factors other than the power of their state. Whether or not another country massacres its citizens is meaningless to them - they only care about whether or not the other country is a threat to their country. Think Henry Kissinger.