Insofar as being power-mad, recklessly self-serving, and ego-maniacal is demented... Yes.

Equality (of opportunity) is not the Progressive goal, Equity (of outcome) is the purported goal.
Equality and Equity are mutually exclusive.
And equity is not really the End goal anyway... rationalizing the pursuit of equity is just a Means to the actual goal: Power.
Equity is not possible, it's not even feasible... the proposal is ludicrous; nor is it desirable anyway. People are obviously different in a gazillion ways. If people actually ended up with near-identical "life results"... that would just tell you that many of them got screwed.
The attempt to pursue equity is just another call for Redistribution; what the Founders called "Leveling", as they warned against it as nothing more than tyranny in sheep's clothing.
Redistribution requires the Power to abscond with other people's stuff in the first place, ostensibly to be passed around to "the needy"; and that Power is all they are really after.
Once you give that up, you never get it back, and the needy are on their own.

The comparison between the American and French Revolutions is apt.
Americans fought for the Rights of Men (individuals.) We got it right, and prospered as a result.
The French fought for the Rights of Man (collective.) They got it wrong, suffered the predictable, murderous chaos, and ultimately welcomed a Dictator just to put an end to it.
Collectivists in America, e.g., "Progressives", never learned that lesson. They've been trying, and succeeding "progressively", to transform our dramatically successful framework into a slow-motion reenactment of the dramatically unsuccessful human tragedy that tore apart early-19th century France.

The arbitrary terms "Right" and "Left", based loosely on the seating arrangements of a chaotic French National Assembly during their failed "revolution", are commonly used rather vaguely and subjectively; and so are pretty useless for any meaningful discussion. So... to nail down the terms:
In my opinion: Individualism defines "the Right", and Collectivism defines "the Left".
They exist as the two opposite directions along the same continuum, one that describes where Sovereignty resides.
I think that definition is necessary, sufficient, objective, accurate, and consistent; and therefore: useful.
Accordingly: America was founded just slightly to the Left of Anarchy, with just enough Individual Sovereignty conceded to the Collective to enable it to constrain the actions of the Individual under one very specific circumstance; that is: to protect another Individual's natural Rights. That's it.
That's the entire domestic role of Government, in its entirety.
The Left, has since been dragging us "progressively" along that continuum toward Collectivism and away from Liberty.
And the Right, with a consistent history of capitulation and compromise, has been dragged along steadily to the Left as well, content with remaining to the "relative" Right, and abandoning the actual Right in the process.
That progression is a natural human phenomena, a potential generated by the universal constants of greed and lust for power, and cloaked in the pretense of "compassion".
The barrier to that natural progression, was meant to be the Constitution.
But, that only works to the extent that we adhere to it... and that we understand it in the first place. (This is where I would ordinarily rant about socialized "Education"... one of Marx's critical planks of Communism.)
As a result neither of their flagship Parties, i.e., Democrats and Republicans, remains the party of America. In fact, this place is not "America" at all.
Indeed, it never was.
America was established as a goal on the horizon. And, steady progress toward that goal was the original American "Progressivism", revered and embarked upon by actual liberals... what we would now call Libertarians, I guess.
But instead, we have been moving "progressively" away from that goal for at least the past hundred years. And I see no signs of correcting that anytime soon; because, again: Education.

And "Democracy" is largely to blame. We were not established as a Democracy, as most people know, but few seem to know why; or at least they fail to acknowledge it.
Democracy is mob-rule. In a democracy, Minorities have no rights. And, in fact, neither does anybody else. If your natural rights can be voted-away by the mob, then you have none. More accurately: what you don't have is any protection of your natural rights, which was the sole legitimate purpose for which we even created a Government in the first place.
That is the reason that we HAVE a Constitution... that's what the Constitution is for...:
to establish the duty to protect your rights from the mob, and to describe the nearly-immutable fence around the Government that prevents it from, itself, violating your natural rights in the process.
What we have now, as we become increasingly Democratic, is a Government that not only fails to protect you from the pillaging mob... but actually joins in the pillaging.
The word for that is simply: Tyranny.
I think what Ramzpaul is describing, more specifically, is Universal Suffrage.
It is the means of our progressive democratization, enabled by a pathological and ignorant willingness to ignore, or even to "re-imagine" the Constitution itself.
It is a terrible and corrosive collectivist notion through which we are increasingly enabling the inevitable, predictable and quite-possibly irreversible damage to prosperity and to Liberty itself... for everyone.

But, Aristocracy is arbitrary, having no reasonable foundation; other than people who have power, using it to preserve and increase it at their own discretion.
I don't think Progressives realize the considerable extent to which they've enabled an Aristocracy to establish itself already, in the land where "all men are created equal."
The only reasonable, non-arbitrary, criteria I can think of for the privilege of voting, is whether the individual is contributing to the community; and the most useful metric for that is whether they pay (net) taxes.

I think the most important implication of "Freedom", is that what it means to you is nobody else's business. And, what it means to them... is none of yours.
We don't "give" anybody freedoms. We can encourage anything we like, but any attempt to enforce that encouragement with the Force of Law, which describes any public policy... is wrong. Objectively wrong... by definition; as in: we don't have the Right.
You don't have natural rights because it's a good idea. Or because it's the "best" way to run a society. Or because you somehow deserve them... you don't.
If we all got what we deserve... most of us would be screwed.
You have natural rights merely as an implication of your existence as a sovereign Individual.
Other people cannot justly violate any of your rights at their discretion, to do so is an injustice, because they have no right to do that... they have no Sovereignty over you.
Only you have sovereignty over you.
By extension: no "collective" of other people, or the agent of any collective like the Government, has Sovereignty over you; no matter how much they may think it's a really, really good idea and that you really, really should behave the way they want you to.
...none of their business.
In fact, I think that should be our national motto: "Mind your business."
That's Freedom. It is your natural state. The source of which: "nature's God" as Jefferson put it, transcends Government and the "Collective" entirely. And what you do with it is entirely up to you.
Your only obligation to them, the other side of that coin, is not to impede anybody else's ability to do the same.

Demented is a poor choice of words.

It literally means mentally detective.

Try spiteful mutants. Mental defects are universal in the same way you may be predispose to heart disease or cancer. We are looking for a very specific type of defect that is contagious in the same way the mental defect of depressive disorders are.

Demented no, misinformed, yes. They honestly believe (as many across the world in more than a dozen nations have) that their policies will bring about the Utopia. Much like teenagers (who think they know everything) experience is a great teacher, they just don’t have any experience with the totalitarian government they seek to create (but they will).

Paul clears up a few political misinterpretations, but as you can see his views also have problems and are informed by what I can only assume is his American upbringing.