Well I definitely disagree with Ron Paul that Americans typically understand "spiritual safety," in the end (because "church" and "state" are never as completely or neatly separated as he evidently wants to believe), as reducible to the maxim: "political philosophy [is] determined by the professors and others who dwell on esoteric ideas."
Most Americans — leaving out the doctrinaire Libertarian Paulians and Left Progressives — do not believe that the American system of liberty and justice under law premised on the principle of inalienable — because God-endowed — rights for each and every citizen depends on "professors and others who dwell on esoteric ideas" for validation.
America is not rooted in "esoteric ideas." America is rooted in the Constitution and American historical experience.
Ron Paul to me is an interesting curmudgeon who doesn't have a clue about what it takes to make societies function towards the well-being of their citizenry; i.e., the Common Good. I strongly doubt he has any well-articulated notion of what the Common (public) Good even is.
And I suspect that his son is just an apple that has not fallen far from the paternal tree.... But if he were to be the GOP nominee, I would, and will vote if I had to, for Rand Paul as the "lesser of two weavils." For even though I regard him as a deranged Libertarian, almost completely out of touch with core American values, he would be infinitely preferable in my book to an opposition candidate who effectively stands for an Obama third-term....
Which is what I would expect from a Hillary Clinton presidency.
JMHO FWIW
So many libertarians are atheists, so it is hard to take them seriously. An atheist, after all can justify anything. Lying is fine for an atheist, so why trust the word of a libertarian who says he is not an atheist?