What is it about tea-party Republicans that brings out the strange and strained J. R. R. Tolkien references? First John McCain calls them Hobbits, and now Henry Olsen suggests they’re flirting with the Ring. Rand Paul as Boromir? Okay, I’ll play.

Mr. Olsen writes:

Let’s begin with the case that libertarian Republicans make, a tale that often starts with blue-state governors. They remind us that states well outside the reach of GOP presidential candidates have in the last decade elected pro-choice Republicans as governors. Republicans such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, George Pataki, Mitt Romney, and Linda Lingle have won statewide in California, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, and even Barack Obama’s Hawaii. All ran as fiscal conservatives and social moderates, and all succeeded where GOP presidential nominees got creamed.

I cannot think of very many libertarian-leaning Republicans who would cite George Pataki or Mitt Romney as models of success. The careers of pro-choice Republicans who are moderates on many other issues probably do not have very much to tell us about the prospects of a pro-life Republican who is a hardliner, indeed a radical, on many other issues. If Mr. Olsen’s point is that Senator Paul is unlikely to win over voters who strongly favor things like Obamacare, controls on carbon emissions, and the pillaging hordes at AFSCME, then he is of course correct. If I thought there were a Republican likely to attract such voters, I would be very skeptical about him. 

It is of course true that libertarians oversell the popularity of their positions. This simply is not a libertarian country. But it might be worth appreciating that the people who were electrified by Senator Paul’s filibuster, who suspect that expanding our portfolio of Middle Eastern conflicts to include Syria is not the best policy, who would rather deal with things like marijuana liberalization and same-sex marriage at the state level, etc., are not in the main doctrinaire libertarians, or even necessarily on the right. Bringing them in would expand the coalition. Whether such policies can overcome the Obama bloc’s dependency agenda is open to question; I have my doubts, but that is why we have elections. 

Being pro-life, a federalist, and sympathetic to drug liberalization does not place Senator Paul outside of the conservative mainstream. Where he differs substantially is in his foreign-policy views. There are two questions to ask about that: The first and more important is whether Senator Paul’s views are the correct ones. How he would govern as president is anybody’s guess; as a senator, his voting record on these issues is respectable, and he is rhetorically no more extreme than Dwight D. Eisenhower, and arguably less so. The second question — the inevitable question about whether his views would be popular, and help him and other Republicans win elections — is more difficult. Voters may prefer Republican policies on things like fiscal issues, but they do not much care for Republicans themselves, as The Hill notes: 

An even stronger majority of respondents, 65 percent, said U.S. budget deficits should be reduced mostly by cutting spending rather than by raising taxes. Just 24 percent said the budget should be balanced mostly by increasing revenue. 

… Notably, many respondents who identified themselves as Democrats actually supported key Republican proposals, according to The Hill poll. Just 44 percent of Democrats said budget deficits should be reduced mostly by raising taxes, while slightly fewer, 40 percent, said balance should be achieved mostly by reining in spending. 

… However, as soon as respondents heard the words “Republican” and “Democrat,” the picture changed drastically. A plurality of voters, 35 percent, said they trust the Democrats more on budgetary issues, while 30 percent said they trust the Republicans more.

The question is not just Republican policies, but Republicans per se. Senator Paul’s great advantage as a candidate and as a national Republican leader is that you can say almost anything about him other than that he is the second coming of George W. Bush. President Bush was unfairly maligned, both as a man and as a leader, but the Bush hangover is a non-trivial part of the Republicans’ problem. Barack Obama understands that — he won two elections running against George W. Bush: in 2008 and 2012. The Democrats would love to run against Bush again in 2016. 

Senator Paul may not have the right foreign-policy views for the Republican party, but his emergence as a leader is an opportunity for Republicans to rethink both the substance and rhetoric of those policies, which it does need to do.

I am a qualified admirer of Senator Paul, and, while I am not very good at predicting elections, I find it difficult to imagine his being elected president of the United States. But, again, I do not think that I am very good at predicting elections. 

As for LOTR, I think Senator Paul is more of a Haldir (movie, not book), who shows up with reinforcements at the key moment but does not survive the battle. Orcs gonna orc.