Of course he does, but as par, the writer arguably fails to recognize that if one wishes to be a super power, a foreign policy of non-intervention is a liberal myth, one mainly reserved for liberalist, internationalist, isolationist, and transnationalist political paradigms.
Why would we wish to be a “super power”??? What benefit does it provide beyond making small “manhood” idiots feel good about themselves? Certainly if we possess the means to decisively deal with threats to us as a nation or our people who travel abroad, then treat and trade with all other nations equally, there is NOTHING wrong with that... That is how we were supposed to be from the beginning.
Policy centered around Big Government, a necessary prerequisite for interventionism and central planning, is always and everywhere a hallmark of un-American statism. Doesn't matter whether the policy is foreign or domestic.
I don't fully agree with Ron Paul on this. Bush SR had it right. Intervention is about oil and our economy and as proof China is building a powerful military to protect it's economic empire WE used to have.
But economics rules out adventures like Iraq. Unfortunately GWB and friends like Levin/Hannity turned Iraq into a Holy war(a moral quest) , part of Sept 11. And the small core of believers still hang on to that. If Reagan bankrupted the USSR then GWB and Obama bankrupted the US destroying us as a world power as predicted in this late 1980s book:
The Great Reckoning: Protecting Yourself in the Coming Depression