Blake Dvorak has a good post up on the Paulites over at RCP, responding to my column on the “revolution.”

If, however, I could just take the time to elaborate on one point. Dvorak writes:

Sager says that Paul non-interventionist foreign-policy, which is just one aspect of libertarian thought, drives most of Paul’s supporters. Having talked with many Paul supporters myself, I think Sager somewhat underestimates the appeal of Paul’s domestic policies, but his larger point stands: Were Paul not an anti-war Republican, he’d be just another issues candidate like Tom Tancredo.

I might be underestimating the appeal of Paul’s domestic policies, but it depends on what you mean by domestic policies. Trade and immigration I’ve always considered essentially under the header “domestic policy,” despite their clear international implications. And, indeed, it’s specifically the appeal of Paul’s domestic policies on these issues that I find so troubling. He is a Tancredoite on immigration, and he’s a Dobbsian on trade. Now, he claims he’s against “managed trade” and for free trade, but the end result is he’s against every realistic free-trade agreement in existence; and he spends time ranting about North American Union conspiracy theories.

So, it is specifically Paul’s appeal on a number of hot-button domestic issues I find most troubling. There are plenty of domestic-policy areas where I agree with him, but I see no evidence that these are the areas driving his supporters.