Calling Dr. Paul an isolationist comes from simply not understanding the significant differences between isolationism and non-interventionism, mainly, with the issue of trade.
Isolationism is the doctrine of completely isolating our country from the affairs of other nations, and focusing exclusively on the growth of our own country. Non-interventionism on the hand promotes trading with other nations, as a means to build good diplomatic relations, and for the betterment of all parties involved. Furthermore, it doesn’t rule out using military force as an option, but proponents feel that it should only be used as a last option, to come to the defense of an ally under attack, or more importantly, to defend our own country if under attack, or directly threatened by attack. Lastly, taking such military action as a last resort should only be done with the advice and support of the Congress. This policy is in sharp contrast to interventionism propagated by neoconservatives, which promotes upholding UN resolutions, overthrowing governments and replacing them ones of our own choosing, and other actions not related to our own direct security. In short, it promotes our country “policing the word”, which puts a hardship on the American people with the draining of resources and more importantly the loss of life, not to mention goes directly against the ideas of freedom of liberty. It’s hypocritical.