Your definition of conservative is probably not the same as mine. I view Paul’s stance on the war and foregin policy as arguably conservative in the classical sense— a hands-off sense— much the same as the conservative position on the business and the economy is “hands-off.”
I disagree with Paul to a certain extent on the war, (and I don’t think there is a perfect position to occupy here) mainly because I see that the great tide of history, and our interference, has dragged us into much of the conflict we find ourselves in, and it is somewhat naive to think that every president and every congress will have the ability to withstand the pressure to intervene in various enterprises throughout the years ahead.
But I DO understand where he is coming from and in fact believe there is some truth in it. Personally, I would prefer a United States that was much stricter about extending it’s affairs abroad. Do I think this is actually practical— No.
But, Paul is definitely the most classically conservative man in Congress, in my opinion.
Primarily for the same reason that shrinking government is impractical - too much of the economy is tied to the continued growth of foreign policy adventures.
I see you are a good study of history. Most posters who claim to be good Republicans don't realize the "original" Republicans dislike war and government involvement at all stages.
We dragged ourselves in. The world has changed so much because we forced it to change to suit us. Now we're crabbing because we've encountered resistance?