CRACKPOT REVOLUTION

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.

Talk to Paul supporters (as I did at the Iowa Straw Poll this summer, where they were out in force) and the first reason most will list for supporting him is his foreign policy - namely, virtually complete non-interventionism.

As Paul put it, kicking off his speech at the straw poll: "Our campaign is all about freedom, prosperity and peace!" It was his punching of that last word that made his supporters go wild.

Since Paul is the only anti-war candidate on the GOP side, his picking up a decent chunk of support is no real surprise. Anti-war Republicans unwilling to switch parties really have no other choice.

He's got some other populist views, as well - and not conventionally libertarian ones. He's in Pat Buchanan territory when it comes to immigration - supporting the building of a wall along the Mexican border.

And while he claims to be for free trade in principle, Paul has earned the praise of Lou Dobbs for railing against America's involvement in NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO and every other trade accord under the sun. In Wednesday night's debate, he could even be found endorsing conspiracy theories about a North American Union and one-world government.

In other words, the Ron Paul boomlet resembles that of the real surprise in the GOP race so far - the success of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who polls twice as high as Paul nationally (9 percent versus 4.5 percent). He's also pulled even with Mitt Romney in Iowa.

Huckabee is the opposite of a libertarian. As governor, he hiked taxes repeatedly and oversaw an explosion in state spending. He's explicitly running as a "different kind of Republican," positioning himself as the heir to President Bush's compassionate conservatism (a.k.a. big-government conservatism). His populist economic message includes expanding farm and alternative-energy subsidies and curbing free trade (to insulate us from the global economy).

And this former Baptist pastor has also put out an explicitly sectarian message: Vote for me because I'm the most Christian. In "Believe," an Iowa ad aimed at Romney (a Mormon), Huckabee declares, "Faith doesn't just influence me, it really defines me." Then the words "Christian Leader" float by an image of Huckabee walking down a dirt road.

Big-government, big-religion, globophobic, populist conservatism - this is the message that's got real traction in the first Republican primary. Not Ron Paul's gold-standard nostalgia or support for medical marijuana.

If there's any redeeming irony here, it's this: This populist surge could end up nudging the GOP in a more libertarian direction after all. If Huckabee knocks out Romney in Iowa, the Republican nomination seems assured for Rudy Giuliani.

Rudy is nobody's idea of a libertarian (at least on issues such as government surveillance and executive power), but he's fiscally conservative and socially liberal - the best a libertarian can hope for from today's GOP.