I agree with most of your assessment. The exceptions are the isolationism, of course, and your assumption that Paul wants a return to a pastoral America. Paul’s Congressional website is a good source for information on his system of belief. He writes a regular column there on the subject.
The charge of isolationism is simply a hyperbolic reaction to his positions opposing adventurism and nation-building. Paul has stated on numerous occasions that we should act to protect our allies. The fact that he offered a declaration of war and letters of marque and reprisal against the Taliban and Afghanistan following 9/11 is sufficient evidence by itself that he is no isolationist. Paul’s foreign policy positions are classically conservative and Republican. The rise of the neocons within the GOP has simply eradicated them. Paul seeks to reinstate them. No more, no less.
By insisting on limiting Congressional and executive power to those explicit in the Constitution, Paul in no way seeks to return us to a bucolic and pastoral society. Once again, that is a hyperbolic characterization of his positions. There is nothing that says the return of Federalism and devolving power to the states must be accompanied by an agricultural renaissance. Obviously, with corporations operating nationally and globally, the regulation of interstate commerce by the federal government would be far greater than in Hamilton’s or Lincoln’s day. However, simply limiting that regulation to original intent does not necessitate the dissolution of corporate America.
Good analysis and this is the $64 million question:
“Power, like nature, abhors a vacuum. If America comes home and minds its own business, who steps into our shoes to run the planet? Someone is certainly going to try. The European Union? Russia? China? Iran? The United Nations (relocated to Geneva)? It’s a question that has to be answered.”