Eh, I think it is pretty obvious that President Bush is simply using 'isolationist' as a meaningless term of abuse, as you stated.  I think it is pretty obvious that President Bush is trying to co-opt the language of Democratic presidents from Wilson on down to Clinton - we were the ones who fought the Kaiser and the Nazis after all, we were the ones who fought Milosevic even though the Tom DeLays of the world fought tooth and nail against us.  Just look at the party affiliations (or even ideological affiliations) of the presidents that George Bush gave a shout out to: I think it was a 4 or 5 to 1 advantage for liberal presidents over conservative presidents.  George Bush is trying to reposition the Republican Party as the one that marries the best rhetoric of liberal internationalism with the worst tendencies of imperialistic reactionary regimes.  That is why I hate the man so much - he uses our most beautiful words and ideas to justify the most disgusting deeds.

The only people who could fit the bill are Pat Buchanan republicans--opposed to immigration,  uncomfortable with free trade, hate nation-building, hate the UN and so forth,

Just substitute "diplomatic multilateralist" for Bush's "isolationist" to which the opposite would "millitaristic unilateralist" which describes this administration and its policies (at least in Iraq) quite well. 

As far as I can tell, isolationism (which Bush spoke of again this afternoon) is more closely related to Bush's unilateralism: "you're either with us, or with the terrorists!"  Rampant and growing anti-Americanism throughout the world suggests that alot of people must be with the terrorists.  America's role as a "Beacon on the hill" is being desecrated and denegrated by those acting in its name.  Where's our multinational force in Iraq?  Why are members of NATO reconsidering their troop presence in Afghanistan? An action that most nations and their people supported.   

I would hate to think that we have already forgotten how the path to isolation is broad and inviting vis a vis "the path to destruction is broad and many are finding it, but narrow is the gate to salvation and few are those finding it."

The pResident is appealing to the Christian right who he just gave Mr. Alito, and dovetails rather nicely to the Popes encyclical which urges political activity on the part of Christians. Liberal Catholics are less inclined towards the Opus Dei viewpoints of the last two Pontiffs.

On a more political plane, the neocons are very aware of the convergence occurring between Palecons and the libertarians with liberal antiwar sentiments. This is a fragile coalition obviously, since the three groups have little else in common, and few liberals or Greens wish to be caught agreeing with Birchers etc., on any issue, and vice a versa.  

One thing we can count on then is for the neocons to continue to exploit their advantage among the beer joint conservatives with the Rush Limbaughs and BOrielly's  to promote the military, industrial, corporate consolodation of power using the social conservatives religious code talk to fracture paleocons from the libertarians and liberals with social issues. Whether the Traditional media is a catalyst or useful idiot is of no import. If they are in fact an active partner then the problem is exacerbated, which I think we are in fact facing.

Ultimately the left and the right are going to have to chop of a few fingers from their own hands so that they may remove the two hands of the neocons from the throat of America. We have obtained to the point of hanging together or seperately, and that's the way it is.

As NSJ points out above, isolationism, long a cherished paleo-conservative value associated with "avoiding foreign entanglements" is now turned into a perjorative by the neo-cons. Add this to the long list of ways that the neo-cons are not really conservatives at all, but are instead reactionary statists and corporatists who merely CALL themselves that in order to dupe the social conservatives, nationalist conservatives and others. This ploy has worked rather well for them and most Americans have little idea that neo-conservatism bears little resemblance to the conservatism of the early 20th Century.

There were several reasons that the isolationists were much weakened after WWII. The threats of Nazi and Soviet tyranny, the increased technology which had "made the world smaller" and reduced the safety once provided by our geographic position, the necessity of global trade and global resource exploitation had all made an impact. Another reason isolationism waned was also because the perception of it in the mind of the public had changed. Isolationists were actively encouraged and funded by Germany before the US entered WWII. The German-American Bund (and other similar groups) aligned with the isolationists to try to keep the US out of the war. It was obviously in Germany's interests to do so but Axis association with these groups weakened isolationism even more, imho, and it has been weak ever since.

Isolationism is also not in the interests of those who wish the US to take up the mantle of the British Empire and become a globe-straddling American Empire in an overt way and thus isolationism must be maintained in a weakened form or eliminated to insure it never rises again to threaten their dreams of a New American Century.

Because this president is incapable of coherent human thought, people are always assuming a pattern where none exists.  All he was doing in the State of the Union was mouthing the words of a speech writer.  It is the job of the speech writer to create a fantasy world that will persuade the voters.  The fantasy  they are pushing is that "democracy is on the march" and that democratic nations always choose what is right.  Therefore it is in the interest of the US to intervene in favor of democracy whenever and wherever it wants.  Anyone who disagrees with this delusion is an isolationist.  Like most ideas in the conservative pantheon this notion starts with an element of plausability. It is then sent into battle against straw men and becomes an absolute truth.  Democracy alone will not make a better world.  That requires civilization, a much more complicated subject that requires respect for free inquiry, learning, law and culture.  You can't impose civilization with military force.  Every war has repercussions that lead to more wars. 

What's up with the obsessing over the word Isolationist? That was probably the most throw away part of his entire speech, at least in regards to FP, becasue there is no great support for, or debate on, the idea of isolationism. It may have more meaning in an economic sense, i.e. "Free trade," which he spoke more about.

But again, the whole Blogoshpere seems to have latched onto the word isolationist, while ignoring everything else, to the point of absurdity. Enough hair slpitting and sophistry and a throw away part of the speech.

How about his declaration to buy his way into the black southern churches? Has anyone mentioned that? How about his declaration to increase spending in energy research, which surely means corporate welfare. Wake up people. 

Pat Buchanan blasts Bush in Human Events over phony charges of protectionism and isolationism and claims Bush is running out of alibis.

Why would a president use his State of the Union to lash out at a school of foreign policy thought that has had zero influence in his administration? The answer is a simple one, but it is not an easy one for Bush to face: His foreign policy is visibly failing, and his critics have been proven right.

But rather than defend the fruits of his policy, Bush has chosen to caricature critics who warned him against interventionism. Like all politicians in trouble, Bush knows that the best defense is a good offense.
..................................................

If America is angry over what interventionism and free trade have wrought, George Bush cannot credibly blame isolationists or protectionists. These fellows have an alibi. They were nowhere near the scene of the crime