Much more interesting is this Q&A critique of Paul’s economic and social policies and principles from Noam Chomsky. IMHO, that’s the level at which progressives should part ways with Paul and other libertarians. But meanwhile, they are eloquent allies on matters of foreign policy, constitutional freedoms, and the rule of law.

Well there is plenty top critique about Paul’s obtuse support of the “Austrian School” of Economics with its fetishistic obsession with precious metals as a standard of currency value. But Paul and other libertarians have plenty of problems on the “Constitutional” front, as well. He’s only a Constitutionalist to the degree that it serves his arcane semi-libertarian viewpoint.

Look at Paul’s views on immigration, for example. Or on his view that conceptuses should have the same rights as a woman. I think Paul’s heritage can be traced back to isolationist values of a faction of the Republican Party during the 1930’s…the group associated with the right-wing populist Tub-Thumping Radio Talk host, Father Coughlan. Pat Buchanan also seems to come from that school.

Whether that shares any intellectual grounding with Noam Chomsky I’ll let others decide.

Much more interesting is this Q&A critique of Paul’s economic and social policies and principles from Noam Chomsky. IMHO, that’s the level at which progressives should part ways with Paul and other libertarians. But meanwhile, they are eloquent allies on matters of foreign policy, constitutional freedoms, and the rule of law.

Sweet dreams Suze and other sleepy fdl late-late niters.