I can’t say I’m a big fan of Rand Paul. I don’t hate the guy. I think he is right about a lot of things. His old man was entertaining, even if he was a bit wacky. Rand appears to be a lot less wacky and a much better politician than the old man. That’s why Conservative Inc hates Rand Paul, I suspect. The old man was no threat because he always said something nutty to turn off people attracted to his libertarian arguments. Rand is far more ambitious and far more disciplined as a politician.

Anyway, Rich Lowry has a wishful thinking post about Rand Paul coming around to the neo-con foreign policy view. I say wishful thinking because I don’t think the Bush foreign policy has any takers left, outside of people scribbling for National Review and The Weekly Standard. The public, particularly the Right, has had enough of policing the provinces.

I wrote a column last year on the Rand Paul moment, on how events in the midst of the NSA controversy and Paul’s canny capitalizing on them were making him a real force in 2016 Republican presidential politics. He’s obviously still such a force, but events haven’t been so favorable to him lately. We’ve been starkly reminded of how dangerous the world is and how important American leadership is over the last few months. Now, on two very important questions, Paul has had to reverse field after initially, we can assume, going with his gut. First, he counseled against “tweaking” Vladimir Putin and sounded like we should give him running room in Ukraine, then toughened up his rhetoric. Second, after the Islamic State took Mosul, he wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal titled, “America Shouldn’t Choose Sides in Iraq’s Civil War.” Now, as Eliana notes below, he wants to declare war on the Islamic State.

In both cases, I obviously agree with his second position, and always welcome evolution in the right direction. His defenders can argue that none of these positions are strictly contradictory and defend it all on “when facts change, I change my mind” grounds. But the more cynical interpretation is that he was following the politics. Amazingly enough, if he had maintained his initial attitude of not doing anything to check the rise of the Islamic State, he would be to the left of Elizabeth Warren right now.

There are two big problems for Paul here. One is that the politics of foreign policy are shifting, not just on the right, but more broadly. That means that Paul’s foreign policy, which was running with the grain of Republican sentiment in the post-Bush era, is now running against it. Navigating that for him will obviously be tricky, and creates the second problem. Paul is a conviction politician. That is an enormous part of his appeal. If he is seen as playing it too cute on foreign policy — trotting out robust Paulite sentiments, before walking them back into more conventional positions — he will undermine a major part of his broader appeal as a straight-shooter. Paul can run as a Paulite purist on foreign policy or he can run as a traditional Republican/cautious hawk. He can’t run as both.

Engaging in the debate in the comments section, it strikes me that the Right is really out of gas. They have nothing to offer. They are making a huge deal over ISIS and Iraq, because that’s all they have right now. The GOP seems to have gone underground, hoping public disgust with Obama is enough to carry them to victory in November. There are no Republican leaders anyone finds interesting, except Rand Paul and he’s not on good terms with Conservative Inc.

Politically, there’s not a lot of space between the parties on domestic issues. Republicans want to give tax breaks to the rich and Democrats want to give regulatory breaks to the rich. Theoretically, the lower classes are getting handouts from the Democrats, but that’s just lip-service. No one cares about the poor. The great American middle-class has no party. There is no tribune of the people. Both parties make commercials declaring their love for the people, but no one can name a single policy or position held by either party that benefits the middle-class.

That’s the attraction of Paul and to a lesser degree libertarianism. Even though it is not said, their offer is simple. Since the state does nothing but harass you and steal your money, why not vote for the guys who will not harass you or steal your money? Instead of promising to rebuild your trust in the state (Obama 2008, GOP 2016), the politics of personal apology, they offer to help you get even with the state. It’s populism for dorks and compared to what the GOP has on offer, it may look pretty good in two years.