Is Rand Paul a Bismarck, a Quisling, or a Chamberlain?

Rand Paul's endorsement of Romney may be realpolitik, or it may be an appeasement policy.  Barry Lyndon of Policymic argues that it was a political masterstroke. Nevertheless, realpolitik is difficult to execute; it frequently fails.  In choosing to play ball with the GOP, Rand entangles himself in the GOP's all-encompassing nexus of corrupt special interests.  Few politicians have so entangled themselves and survived without fundamental compromise.  Did it make sense for Neville Chamberlain to appease Hitler?  My point is not that Romney is Hitler; rather, Romney is a more powerful competitor who has little to lose from deceiving the Pauls.

The best example of realpolitik is its inventor, Otto von Bismarck, the German minister president who fashioned the German Empire, created the modern welfare state, and developed a complex set of alliances.  Yet Bismarck's system led, in a little more than two decades, to World War I, and I would argue his welfare state contributed to the rise of totalitarianism.  It is just as likely that Rand Paul's realpolitik will turn out to reflect that of  Vidkun Quisling.   Quisling was a Norwegian prime minister who assisted Germany as it invaded Norway; his aim was to lead a puppet government. 

Realpolitik is sometimes necessary, and Barry Lyndon may be right that Rand Paul's strategy will turn out to be effective.  At the same time, even Bismarck's realpolitik led to Germany's humiliation.  It is understandable that the Pauls' supporters are concerned.  Might Rand inadvertently be exploding the movement that his father has assiduously developed?  Even if his tactic works in the short run, might he be diverting and confusing the nascent millennial libertarian movement, causing its ultimate abortion?