IMNSHO, balance is overrated, but it is desirable in small doses.
Isolationists can and do hide behind non-interventionsim. I see little difference in their (isolationist's') distinctions. Non-interventionism as a policy amounts to isolationism.
Isolationists do hide behind noninterventionism. Just like authoritarian neoconservatives hide behind conservatism. But that doesn't make either of them correct.
I disagree on the issue of balance. Balance is necessary to keep the fringe in check. More like to keep it from becoming mainstream. IMO, while I dislike the institutionalization, structure and permanence of the two parties we have today people assembling themselves into two basic camps was inevitable based on the fundamental split in philosophy that's been debated since the Constitution was drafted.
You can call it Federalists v. Anti-Federalists, Republican Democrats v. Whigs, Democrats v. Republicans (a bizarre pair of labels if I ever saw one, considering what they actually stand for)...the entire split between the American Right and the American Left is based on the original argument over the balance of power between the Federal government and the States, complicated by the Originalist v. Non-Originalist reading of the document that sets it all up.
Everything else is really just noise, or an excuse to have the same old arguments with a different topic.
I think the debate is important, it's the way we go about it that's flawed.
EDIT: Thinking about it, I would actually say four basic camps. We pay a lot of attention to the left-right spectrum in the two-party system, but almost none to the libertarian-authoritarian split.
Last edited: