- President Obama’s authorization of the killing of Osama Bin Laden last year was deeply disturbing in legal terms.

- Terrorist attacks on the United States are essentially a reaction to American policies, specifically the occupation of Islamic countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq.

- Bush administration officials reacted with “glee” after the attacks on 9/11, because it gave them an opportunity to invade Iraq.

- The reason that Paul doesn’t speak about various conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 is not necessarily that he disbelieves them, but because in his own words, he “can’t handle the controversy.”

- We have no real evidence that Iran is working on building a nuclear weapon.

- If Iran were building a nuclear weapon, its motives would be defensive and entirely understandable due to America’s own policies.

- Wikileaks is a heroic enterprise.

- The United States should dismantle the vast majority of its military bases, commitments and alliances overseas, and cut defense spending in half.

This is not the place to explain why each of the above positions is wrong. Suffice to say that most Republicans and most conservatives, including Tea Party conservatives, recoil from a candidate who embraces them. There is considerable evidence that this is exactly what happened in Iowa. Paul was in first place there as of mid-December. Later that month, attention began to focus on Paul’s foreign policy positions, and his support sagged. Reporters found that one of the most frequent comments about Paul among Iowa Republicans was: I like him, except for his foreign policy views. It is entirely possible that if Ron Paul were more of a national security hawk, he would have won the Iowa caucus. But then of course he would not be Ron Paul.

Paul’s distinct combination of libertarianism with a strictly anti-interventionist foreign policy no doubt inspires his core supporters, and gives him a clear niche within Republican Party politics. In other words, it gives him a rock-solid floor of support. But it also gives him a low ceiling. The floor has always been between 5 and 10% of GOP primary voters – the small minority who enthusiastically support his foreign policy views. The ceiling, in certain favorable states at best, seems to be between 20 and 25% of GOP primary voters – a larger minority who are willing to vote for him, sometimes in spite of those same foreign policy views. This is an impressive number, but it is not the path to the nomination in the end. Moreover, both Iowa and New Hampshire were unusually ripe soil for Paul. As South Carolina demonstrated, he will not do so well in Dixie. Most southern conservatives who vote Republican are pretty hawkish on national security issues and do not appreciate labored rationalizations as to why America’s enemies hate or attack the United States. This will continue to be a serious problem for Ron Paul in many GOP primaries.

As the primaries continue, it will be useful for other campaigns to consider how to handle the Ron Paul phenomenon. Paul may end up being one of only 2 or 3 candidates who make it all the way to the summer GOP convention with his own bloc of delegates. And while Paul will not win the nomination, he will likely have the ability to make a powerful impression. An independent third party run by Paul, for example, could be enough to cost Republicans the White House in a close-run election this autumn. Paul has said he has no interest in such a run, but there might be pressure on him to make one from some of his own supporters. This is where the treatment of Paul and those who voted for him by other campaigns enters into the equation. Some of Paul’s core supporters will not be appeased, in any case. But many of those who vote for him in these primaries are essentially libertarian-leaning Republicans, conservatives, and independents who can and should be won over by the eventual GOP nominee.

Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum cannot pretend that they agree with Ron Paul’s foreign policy views, nor should they, in order to cut into Paul’s constituency. Still, that is just the point: they don’t have to. Most Republicans, and for that matter most Tea Party supporters, are instinctive national security hawks, not isolationists. Those who vote for Paul say that they appreciate his skepticism of big government, above all else. The other candidates maintain that they share this skepticism. It ought to be possible, then, for the eventual GOP nominee to rally libertarian-inclined Republicans and independents, on the strength of domestic economic issues and principles, against the endless and unsuccessful domestic experiments of the Obama era. There is neither any need nor any call to dismiss the majority of people who are voting for Paul as marginal fanatics. They are not. They are leaning libertarian – which in many ways is about as American as it gets. The leading GOP candidates can make it clear that they agree with the libertarian critique of the Obama era on domestic economic issues; disagree with Ron Paul’s basic foreign policy position; and look to form a common front with libertarians against Obama this November. The very lack of current interest in foreign policy will allow serious Republican candidates to do this, while they continue to speak out in favor of American leadership overseas.