Americans have short memories. It was not long ago that the nation was beset by war-weariness. The American public, we were told, was snake bit as a result of a long war to subdue insurgent elements in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, with a new and terrible enemy before us, Americans do not seem all that apprehensive about getting back into the international security business as a result of their experience in the last decade.

According to a recent CBS News poll, 65 percent of Americans see ISIS as a major threat and 57 percent would support the use of U.S. troops to neutralize them. That includes 50 percent of Democrats and 53 percent of independent survey respondents. In short, America is growing tired of President Barack Obama’s dithering response to the threat posed by ISIS and they do not want to wait until the nation inaugurates a new president to get on with the destruction this messianic cult of apocalyptic Islamists.

These are tough times for the libertarian-leaning non-interventionist. An ascendant philosophy not all that long ago, today only Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) still overtly backs an approach to international affairs that has disengagement at its core. On Thursday, The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf gave voice to a constituency set adrift.

Four years after intervening in Libya’s civil war, that country is a failed state. Islamist elements, including ISIS, are fighting over the post-war remnants. In a post, Friedersdorf wondered whether Clinton’s decision to back and defend the Libyan intervention will sink her presidential campaign.

“On Libya,” he wrote, “I strongly suspect that Clinton will be attacked by Democrats in the primary and most Republican opponents in a general election (if she makes it that far).”

Eight years after her hawkishness cost her the presidency, Clinton must be looking at events in Libya and thinking, “Uh oh, staff, how am I going to address this?” Perhaps she’ll do her utmost to bully Democrats who opposed the Libya intervention out of the Democratic primary and hope the GOP nominates a hawk. Then voters can choose among two candidates with a history of urging failed wars.

You can just sense the pain in these words, and the wishful thinking that gave birth the entire column. Clinton faces no real competition for the Democratic nomination save perhaps Vice President Joe Biden (who also supported the president’s decision to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe in Libya in 2011). Today, according to Real Clear Politics, Clinton enjoys an average lead of 46.7 percent support over her nearest competitor for her party’s presidential nomination. If Clinton’s judgment on foreign policy is going to be an issue in the Democratic primary, it is pretty unlikely to be one that sinks her candidacy. If Clinton can be robbed of the nomination, her decision to back a policy preferred by President Obama will not be the issue that does it.

As for Clinton’s Republican opponents, most of them are likely to raise some objections to the intervention in Libya. But they will also make an issue out of Clinton’s “reset” with Russia, her premature celebration over the aborted Burmese “thaw,” or her inability to convince her boss to follow through with his “red line” for action in Syria. If Republicans criticize Clinton for her role in support of the intervention in Libya, it will not be because they believe that course was wrong but that it was done halfheartedly and with no eye toward securing the post-Gaddafi future.

Republicans are going to be a pro-interventionist party in 2016, and it increasingly looks like Democrats are going to support an activist foreign policy as well. No majoritarian political party can afford to ignore the policy preferences of the majority of the members of their base. As for the non-interventionist libertarian, their moment has passed. It is ironic that disengagement might still be a viable policy for the 45th President of the United States had the non-interventionists lost the argument in 2012 and 2013. If Obama had been forced to attempt to contain the Syrian civil war, and ISIS with it, inside Syria’s borders, international disengagement might still be a viable and popular approach to foreign affairs. In a sense, the non-interventionists are victims of their own success.