What's sad is that all those things should be self-explanatory goals for every politician/government.
Every country
should always keep it's own interests first and foremost in their dealings, and in fact that's what the current US adminstration did try to justify their latest escapades in Middle East with - they just forgot to mention that what they claimed didn't really have much to do with reality. They did supposedly claim that Saddam's Iraq was a threat to US national security, despite intelligence reports stating quite clearly that Iraq wasn't a threat to it's neighbours nor to US of A. But that's past, and in this context it does not really matter what GWBush did or spoke, it's more about what this Paul-guy would do. So, to get on with it...
I dont think semi-isolationistic [is that a word?] politics would be the best way to improve US foreign affairs, although it would be a massive improvement over forcefully meddling with almost all and everything. There's nothing wrong with genuinely trying to help solve world's problems - in fact I almost think there's an ethical obligation for industrialized countries to do so - but it definitely shouldn't be done by, as Anakin Skywalker so eloquently put it, having some politicians
"sit down and discuss the problem, agree what's in the best interests of all the people, and then do it," because the solution they come up with it might not be
quite in the best interests of all the people at all in retrospect.
A better idea would be something like this (I know, in the ideal world etc. etc....): Offer help where it seems to be needed, and respect the answer, be it acceptance or denial. And consider helping, should it be requested and the resources are available... But force-feeding freedom only leads to what happened in Iraq - the "help" is seen as an occupation instead of "liberation", with all that it encompasses. And for the love of all that is holy,
respect the authority of the UN if you want anyone to think of it as anything else than a Mickey Mouse Club for Rich and Powerful that it currently is.
I know the UN is sadly dysfunctional but that's mostly because the great countries like US, Russia, China and so forth mostly just do what ever they feel like doing; if the UN condones, it's a handy rubber stamp - if not, too bad (Whatcha gonna do - bleed on me?).
Also, I don't think the problem is American affairs being controlled by any other nation but corporations that fund the politicians to lobby things for them. Corporations that have no nationality, and their interest is not the welfare of people in either world or the US, or national security or any other vague goal. Their interest is their own economical success and growth...
Also, try setting a
low cap to politicians' campaigning costs and see what happens. If they can't use the money offered to them by sponsors in the election campaigning, what's the use to getting sponsors in the first place because they can't help them getting elected any more? They might actually need to come up with some ideas to get elected instead of just hogging the media attention with pouring money on every direction...
