In today’s New York Post, I make the argument that Ron Paul’s success has far less to do with any “libertarian moment” than it has to do with an unfortunate rise of populist sentiment in the Republican Party:

December 1, 2007 — FOLKS in Washington seem to think that the unexpected success of Ron Paul in the Republican primary suggests the country is in some kind of “libertarian moment” that will reshape American politics. Sorry: While I’d be delighted if the GOP were gripped by libertarianism - that is, a resurgent commitment to economic and social freedom - the truth is actually quite the opposite.

Both The Washington Times and The Washington Post ran pieces over the weekend reading big things into Paul’s showing in the polls. He’s at around 5 percent nationally and in Iowa - far above the 1 percent blip you’d expect from a fringe candidate. And he’s done phenomenally in fund-raising, bringing in $9 million-plus so far this quarter (which may put him ahead of John McCain in the cash race).

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.

How else to reconcile the simultaneous rise of Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee?