If you missed Ryan Sager's New York Post column on Saturday, "Crackpot Revolution," it's worth a read, since it's one of the strongest condemnations of the Ron Paul "revolution" from a libertarian that I've read. (For an example of a pro-Paul libertarian argument, read Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch's Nov. 25 Washington Post column.)

Sager takes on the idea that Paul's unexpected popularity has to do with a "libertarian moment" in American politics. While there certainly has always been a "live free or die" attitude among segments of the public, to say that libertarianism, correctly understood, is gaining popularity is to strip the label of much of its intellectual force.

Libertarianism is, above all, an economic philosophy that originates from an Austrian school of economic thought championed by economist Ludwig von Mises, among others. Most importantly, it is an extreme view, insofar that it argues government intervention in any way -- including national defense -- is inferior, if not destructive, to private initiative. Not even Paul holds many of libertarianism's most extreme views, like on national defense. But to legislate even a watered-down libertarianism does away with most forms of the U.S. government. That's not necessarily a bad thing in some regards, but it certainly can be accurately characterized in today's mainstream political context as an extreme view. It is way too simplistic to say that libertarianism is fiscal conservatism mixed with social liberalism -- otherwise, college campuses all across the country would be hotbeds of libertarianism.

So to say that a libertarian movement is sweeping the country, as evidenced by Paul's surprising popularity, is also to assume that people actually understand what Paul is advocating. Sager argues that they do not. Instead, Sager writes:

But what does the Ron Paul Revolution, as it's dubbed itself, really represent? Paul, a 10-term congressman from Texas and the 1988 Libertarian Party candidate for president, has a well-deserved reputation as a principled constitutionalist. But his success now has more to do with anti-war populism than radical libertarianism.

Indeed, 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.

The point here is that though Paul holds some non-traditional libertarian views -- pro-life, etc. -- were he to become a serious contender for the nomination, his candidacy would sputter fairly quickly. But if Ron Paul were to soften his more extreme views, he would lose much of his popularity among the libertarian base. Simply, he'd become a conservative. Once Republican voters understood Paul's larger ideology beyond his anti-war stance, they'd head for the hills.