This 2008 election offers us a foreign policy choice.

On the one hand, we can choose a President who wants to play the role of world cop/nanny/preacher/savior/busybody/banker. For those Americans who want that and who want to continue having our children pay for that and who think we do that well, there are many candidates to choose from. Indeed every single Democrat and all but one Republican have bucketloads of advisors arguing that "President" means paying more attention to what's happening in Darfur, Colombia, Iraq, Kosovo, Korea, etc than to what's happening in America. More than half of our government budget is spent pursuing that foreign mission. And indeed all those candidates' egos are completely invested in becoming leader of the free world and savior of the rest of it.

On the other hand, we can choose Ron Paul. Who argues that it is simply another excuse for big-government interventionism. That it makes us less safe. That it undermines our economic future. That many of our best Presidents advised us against the trap. That it isn't the President's job or even the government's proper role. That it mostly creates enmity and ill-will. That it is a colossal boondoggle. And that there is an alternative that secures peace, prosperity, and liberty.

So when the parade of clowns and media puppets attacks a non-interventionist foreign policy, ask yourself. Are they attacking it because it is not a good choice? Or because they don't want you to have the freedom to make that choice yourself? And if the latter, what are you gonna do about it?