First off, just because he doesn't use the term isolationism does not mean that he's not an isolationist. The tern non-interventionist is just a modern term for the same doctrine. Unfortunately, Paul relies on 18th century doctrine to defend his isolationsit stance - except the world was vastly different for the US back then when the founding fathers were urging America to focus on building it's democracy rather than getting involved in Europes affairs (And by that, they really meant France). Now that it's the world's model democracy, the rest of the world looks to us and to ignore that responsibility is, without a doubt, isolationism, no matter what term Paul uses.
The world is vastly different today than it was even 8 years ago. The US was not seen as a bully pre-Iraq, at least not to the extent it is viewed today. With great power comes great responsibility, and while the US is viewed as failing on its responsibility and has tarnished its reputation, that pales in comparison to what our reputation would be if we failed to keep our promises to fledgling democracies around the world - democracies we helped build. Democracies would fall around the world, entire races and tribes would be eliminated by genocide, and unstable nations with nuclear weapons (like Pakistan) would be havens for Islamic Jihadists. If it weren't for US troops protecting those nuclear weapons in 2001, there's little doubt that al-qeada would already have them. The world is vastly different today then it was in 1776, and letting your guard down for one instant can kill millions in a second. And I'm not even gooing to get into China and Russia.
His attack on the Bretton Woods instutions is unfounded as well. Yes, reform is needed, but the Bretton Woods institutions have had a much more positive effect on the US economy than it has a negative, especially after WWII in allowing the US to invest in foreign markets and export surplus goods.
