Rand Paul is mulling a presidential run on the path blazed by his father, but he's apparently decided the Ron Paul Revolution needs a makeover. Rather than ride the coattails of his father, who was seen by many as an ideological crank, Paul is recasting himself to appeal to a broader electorate.

The Kentucky senator is, he declared in his 2012 book, Government Bullies, a "crunchy con" – a term borrowed from conservative writer Rod Dreher's 2006 book, Crunchy Cons: How Birkenstocked Burkeans, gun-loving organic gardeners, evangelical free-range farmers, hip homeschooling mamas, rightwing nature lovers, and their diverse tribe of countercultural conservatives plan to save America (or at least the Republican party).

In a speech at the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California on 31 May, Paul described himself as "a libertarian conservative who spends most of my free time outdoors". After that speech – in which he also endorsed the environmentally destructive practice of fracking – the National Review's Robert Costa picked up the "crunchy con" mantra again. "Paul's unabashed crunchiness" is more than "just a stylistic aside", Costa wrote, but an essential part of his libertarian persona, and a road map for a Republican party equally anxious for a transformation:

"He spoke about how the party needs to be a voice for those who love the environment but want the government to stop intruding in their lives and livelihoods."

Never mind that the Urban Dictionary defines a "crunchy person" as "politically strongly left-leaning" or possibly a "quasi/modern day hippie" who "spends much of [his] time finding way out of woods after smoking excessive amounts of weed". Crunchy cons are much more reliable than that – they're conservatives,. after all. Crunchy Paul might hug a tree, but his higher priority is making sure bureaucratic tyrants aren't storming your small business with their Swat teams. Does the second part of that sentence sound a little nutty? It's roughly paraphrased from Paul's book Government Bullies and a stump speech he gave in 2012.

Crunchy cons claim to be neither country club Republicans nor fundamentalist scolds. Crunchy Paul likes to kayak, and he composts. Take that, Alliance Resource Partners and the Koch Industries. They're two of the top five contributors to Paul's Senate campaign. Joe Craft, the CEO of Alliance, a coal company, also is part of an exclusive club of supporters of the Koch Brothers, as Mother Jones reported in 2011. For a crunchy con, composting makes up for scaling back regulations that would prevent big energy companies from ravishing the country's natural resources, and for promoting climate change denialism.

Ask crunchy Paul about government regulations requiring that newly-manufactured toilets conserve water, and you'll get a conservation-minded response like his diatribe at a 2011 hearing of the Senate energy and natural resources committee:

"I find it really appalling and hypocritical and think there should be some self-examination from the administration on the idea that you favor a woman's right to an abortion, but you don't favor a woman or a man's right to choose what kind of lightbulb, what kind of dishwasher, what kind of washing machine. I really find it troubling – this busy-body nature that you want to come into my house, my bathroom, my bedroom, my kitchen, my laundry room. I just really find it insulting and I find that all of the arguments for energy efficiency – you're exactly right we should conserve energy, but why not do it in a voluntary way?"

Crunchy Paul finds the water conservation regulations "antithetical to the American way". He would rather everyone voluntarily conserve their toilet water, a prospect that's probably too gross to discuss here. Environmental writer David Roberts explained why the government's toilet standards are not tantamount to tyranny:

"The government acted in the public interest to require lower water use. In order to make toilets that work with less water, toilet-makers innovated. The result is toilets that are more effective and efficient – better toilets. Everybody wins."

In support of his argument that the government is tyrannical, Paul frequently cites the case of John Pozsgai, a Pennsylvania man found liable for criminal and civil violations of the Clean Water Act for filling wetlands on his property without a permit. Paul has described this as "first-generation immigrants jailed for moving dirt on their own land" by "an arrogant and armed 'wetlands police'" from the US Environmental Protection Agency.

But Pozsgai's 1989 conviction was upheld by the court of appeals for the third circuit, which also upheld the trial court's finding of Pozsgai's civil liability and contempt of court for violating orders to cease his violations of the act. The author of that opinion, Judge Anthony Scirica, was nominated to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan. And in a telling example of how Pauline ideology has radicalized the GOP since, it was Republican President George HW Bush declined Pozsgai's request for a pardon.

Paul, in his attempt to portray himself as crunchy, has backtracked in statements about his previous criticisms of the Civil Rights Act. But that criticism – that he thinks the government shouldn't enforce anti-discrimination laws against private businesses – is part and parcel of his view that government is an oppressor of individual liberty.

As Paul steps up as one of the few Republicans critical of the National Security Agency's overreach (first reported in the Guardian), it's worth paying attention to how his underlying ideology drives his actions. For Paul, the government's national security apparatus' sweeping intrusion is indistinguishable from the EPA enforcing environmental regulations: regardless of what it does, the government is an abusive destroyer of freedom and the American way.