I'm not an isolationist. I believe that economies thrive on trade, and the more people in the trading system the better.
What I'm opposed to is this notion that somehow we should be, or can afford the cost of being, the policeman for democracy, human rights, etc., etc., for the world.
Actual "foreign aid" is a trivial part of America's GDP. The real expenditure -- and the real cost of any empire -- is projection of power outward. Presidential summits, congressional junkets, multi-ocean navies, military bases everywhere, trade missions, peacekeeping forces -- those are the real costs we ought to be radically limiting.
I understand that we need to have a military presence world-wide for defense purposes, that we've had that need ever since ICBM tech was invented. And I understand that there are some resources to which continued access must be protected for the strategic and economic health of the nation. (Though oil really isn't one of them. Strategic minerals like chromium, vanadium, etc., however, are.)
But how much of a presence? How much protection?
Far, far less, than we currently buy with our tax dollars.
I don't worry about the Chinese holding our debt, though I do worry about their willingness to take more of it. They aren't going to try to repossess Virginia. (Though if they offer to forgive our debt in exchange for Washington, D.C. and New York City and Hollywood, I think we should take the offer. [grin1] )
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)