Listening to Sen. Rand PaulRandal (Rand) Howard PaulOvernight Defense: Congress poised for busy week on nominations, defense bill | Trump to deliver Naval Academy commencement speech | Trump administration appeals decision to block suspected combatant's transfer Democrats mull audacious play to block Pompeo Overnight Defense: Trump steps up fight with California over guard deployment | Heitkamp is first Dem to back Pompeo for State | Dems question legality of Syria strikes MORE (R.-Ky) talking about foreign policy this morning, it was hard to believe that this was the same person accused by Senate Majority Leader Harry ReidHarry Mason ReidDems walk tightrope on Pompeo nomination The Memo: Teens rankle the right with gun activism Dems to party: Go on offense with Trump’s alleged affairs MORE (D-Nev.) of being on the side of terrorists for opposing the renewal of the Patriot Act.

I was curious to find out where the Tea Party stands on the burning foreign-policy issues that have been overshadowed by budget matters since the 112th Congress began. Not only did I agree with most of what Paul said, but many of the points he made had already found their way into this blog.

For example, on Libya, he said we should never have intervened in the first place. Check. On Afghanistan, the death of bin Laden means that America should be able to bring the troops out, or at least hold a full-blown debate. Check. We should not be doing nation-building. Check. We should be careful about the unintended consequences of military intervention. Check. Unfortunately, he didn’t get to talk about Syria, which is ruled by a fellow ophthalmologist, but I guess he and Bashar al-Assad wouldn’t see eye to eye.

In the Q-and-A session following his speech at the Johns Hopkins SAIS Center of Politics and Foreign Relations, he clearly bristled at the “isolationist” label, and seemed to think that liberals treated the Tea Party with “disdain.”

But based on what I heard this morning, he doesn’t sound like a dangerous radical. If I were to put him on one side of the eternal “idealist” versus “realist” debate in foreign policy, he is obviously in the realist camp. In his prepared remarks, Paul argued for a balanced approach to military intervention that would send troops “somewhere, some of the time,” and upheld the Reagan model of foreign policy. He also emphasized the constitutional role of Congress, which he complained had become an “irrelevancy” in matters of war.

Of course, the freshman senator has no foreign-policy experience, and he cited tourist trips to Europe and Mexico as his only foreign travel. But in that he’s hardly alone among elected U.S. officials.