It’s time we set the record straight, readers. Non-interventionism is not isolationism.
For proponents of a free society, there is no foreign policy more effective than a non-interventionist one, which advocates using military force only as a defense against actual or imminent foreign aggression, and then only when Congress has issued a declaration of war. In other words, taking a Constitutional approach to foreign policy.
On the other hand, a frighteningly effective way to shackle and impoverish a free society is to turn it isolationist. In other words, for that society to “turn inward” by ending diplomacy, free trade, and freedom of travel; or for it to “force out” the international community by imposing embargoes and sanctions, or by threatening militaristic coercion.
Non-internventionists choose engagement, diplomacy, and the setting of positive examples as their guiding principles in determining foreign policy. Isolationists fear the cosmopolitan nature of a free society, and choose to interfere with the free exchange of currencies and ideas by prescribing rules and regulations backed by the threat of force.
The difference between a non-interventionist nation and an isolationist one is the difference between Switzerland and North Korea.
So please, if you must publish smear pieces on Ron Paul, at least take a moment to learn this simple distinction so educated readers (which, presumably, form the basis of The Atlantic‘s readership) don’t trash you in the comments section of your own articles.
Search for Solid Ground 
A very concise jab at the Atlantic. I enjoyed this post greatly, and especially enjoyed the last analogy that you used. Its interesting to think about the implications of mindset and theory in practice amongst actual actors. For that, I thank you for the perspective and contrast.
Its important that as politics and international affairs continue to become more and more complicated that the public understand the terms and ideas in play. This article provide such contrast wonderfully.