Who would have expected it? At its outset, Paul’s campaign promised to be a curiosity. The nominee of the Libertarian Party in his previous run for the presidency (in 1988), Paul seemed likely to play a predictable gadfly role–using his stage time to press hoary libertarian bugaboos like the abolition of Social Security, the legalization of drugs and prostitution, and–Paul’s special obsession–a return to the gold standard. Instead, thanks mainly to his adamant opposition to the Iraq war, he has assumed a far more serious role. In a Republican field that has marched in lockstep with George W. Bush on the war, Paul’s libertarian isolationism has exposed an intraparty fissure over foreign policy that is far wider than has been acknowledged, encompassing not only disgruntled libertarians but some paleocons and social conservatives, as well as such GOP lions as William F. Buckley, George Will, and Bob Novak. As populist-isolationist Pat Buchanan wrote in an op-ed last week, Paul was “speaking intolerable truths. Understandably, Republicans do not want him back, telling the country how the party blundered into this misbegotten war.”

Paul, for his part, thinks his view is commonsensical. “This is a very Republican position,” he told me. “I just think the Republicans can’t win unless they change their policy on Iraq.” ~Michael Crowley

As usual, Rep. Paul is right about this.  There is a fissure over foreign policy, and probably one-third of Republicans is fed up with the war, but I have to wonder whether it is enough.  As I noted yesterday, over half of Iowa Republicans want out of Iraq within six months, but they don’t rally around the one Republican candidate who would actually embrace this goal.  Part of this is a function of voters not knowing anything about Paul and being inundated by Romney’s advertisements.  Another reason why Republican opponents of the war haven’t really rallied around the only antiwar Republican in the race is that their opposition to the war may not derive from a opposition to much of the rest of U.S. foreign policy.  It’s one thing to be against staying in Iraq and quite another to endorse a policy vision that dictates that we should get out of Korea and Germany and most other places around the world as well. 

Nonetheless, Rep. Paul is having an impact on the race and a more serious one than Chuck Hagel could have had.  Paul distinguished himself by offering a clear, sharp contrast with the standard pro-war message of the party.  If Hagel could be bothered to run, he would have had something to say about selling insulated shoes, or some other hot air that he sends out for the media’s enjoyment.