Skip to comments.Ron Paul on Social Conservatism: 'I Think It's a Losing Position'
Posted on 02/20/2012 11:56:59 AM PST by mnehring
(CNSNews.com) - Rep. Ron Paul (R.-Texas.), who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination, told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday that social conservatism is "a losing position" for the Republican Party.
"Do you--are you uncomfortable--certainly Rick Santorum is the one who has been in the forefront of some of this talk on social issues, but there have been others in the race," Crowley asked Paul. "Are you uncomfortable with this talk about social issues? Do you consider it a winning area for Republicans in November?"
"No," said Paul. "I think it's a losing position.
"I mean, I talk about it because I have a precise understanding of how difficult problems are to be solved," Paul continued. "And they're not to be at the national level. We're not supposed to nationalize these problems.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Call me when a social conservative gets elected dog catcher and we can discuss aiming higher.
Earth to RuPaul - the Supreme Court already did. Nearly 40 years ago.
He’s right on about our tendency to Nationalize every single issue.
It’s at the heart of our problems, a one size fits all solution to every problem we have.
Let communities and states try their own thing out. The laboratories of democracy.
The fed should have such little power compared to what they have now.
“I mean, I talk about it because I have a precise understanding of how difficult problems are to be solved,”
Putting aside the immense ego revealed by such a statement, only confused, “nuanced”, self-congratulatory intellectual liberaltarians like Paul, could confuse themselves into a perspective that views the murder of babies as a “difficult problem”.
Yet Mr. Constitution misses that one of they key platforms of Social Conservatives, abortion, is a national issue per the US Constitution- No one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. (paraphrased). The right to one's own existence is a fundamental platform that can't be abridged. Without that, no other rights exist. To say that is something that can be legislated away by lesser governments, ie the States, is a slap in the face of original intent.
There is definitely disagreement in the conservative community in general, and on FR as well, about whether a socially conservative agenda should be fought at the national level, the state level, or a combination of the two.
The headline incorrectly implies that Paul doesn't care to fight for any socially conservative issues at any level.
Ron Paul, DOC (Demented Old Coot)
Why haven’t the men in white coats taken him back to his rest home?
Libertarianism _could_ work if we didn’t use government to alleviate the consequences for behavior.
This would naturally lead to a socially conservative society, because living your life otherwise leads to serious consequences, many of them deadly.
However, liberals have the viewpoint that if there are consequences for choices, then those choices can’t be freely taken. This is what we see from the left - forcing those of us who live socially conservative to pay for the consequences of those who do not in order to enable them to do so.
Which isn't the Social Conservative philosophy because if one doesn't have the basic rights of one's own existence protected, there is no place for any other rights. The Constitution clearly states that one can't be deprived of life without due process of law. That is something the State's have no say in under the 10th Amendment. That is a fundamental right you own that no legislative body should be able to take away (be it federal, state, or local). It is one of those things that pure 10thers miss by not understanding Madison's writings and the 10th Amendment. There was a clear line in the 10th between the States and 'Retained by the people'. As Madison pointed out in Federalist 45, what rights were given to the States were legislative roles of governance while the 'retained by the people' were rights clearly individual rights (speech, bearing arms, etc).
dang if we can only win more votes than the Liberaltrians!!
Hey Paul. STFU and go back to the liberaltarian party where they think you’re a genius. Or go hang around the OWS hippies who believe you’re going to give them free pot and hookers.
You’re NOT a conservative.
You’re not a Republican.
You know very little about the constitution (regardless how much you claim you do).
Which once again establishes that Paul IS NOT pro-life, he is pro-choice-by-state.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
I guess the libertarians are doing just fine without them.
Ron Paul definitely isn’t one of those ‘big tent’ guys, he’s a pup tent kind of guy
Paul is flat wrong.
We need a national social conservative platform just to be able to roll back the liberal crap that has been federally imposed upon us. Even if we take Paul’s comments about issues not being national issues, there is no local solution to undo liberal federal dictates.
So Paulistinians could not be more wrong.
More like a circus tent if you see the type of people under his big top.
You do not understand politics.
Republicans WIN when we are on the correct side of the social issues.
Moderates and Liberals always lose.
And if the Left does not want to abide by YOUR rules?
Exactly right. The "proof" that his fans often offer regarding the claim that he is pro-life is that he delivered babies. What a joke. He's an arrogant fraud whose career is being propped up by those who love his positions regarding drugs and the military.
Rampant drug abuse and hedonism aren’t winning positions either, Ron.
Just as a practical note, Republicans can’t win without them. As a political argument, Paul might as well be saying there is no reason to nationalize debates about the right to life, or property rights. Never mind free speech or the 2nd Amendment, all those things social conservatives think are important. Ron Paul is a nuisance.
ha ha, very good
If the drug abusers and hedonists’ consequences weren’t alleviated by “the government”,
there wouldn’t be many drug abusers and hedonists in just a matter of a couple of years.
In point of fact, candidates who are strong fiscal conservatives while also being social liberals are rarely elected to posts above dogcatcher.
Can't think of a single one, actually.
Of course, Paul despises originalism. He is an advocate of the anti-Constitution, anti-Federalist approach known as "strict construction." Yet this Blame America Firster still has boosters on FR.
Thank you. Ron Paul is a scurrilous, creepy liar masquerading as a man of principle. He has no principles, only fixations.
Eh, he’s right. Nationalizing social issues is a loser position. That stuff needs to be dealt with on a local levelthe Feds shouldn’t be having a role in any of this. It shouldn’t even be up for discussion as a national issue.
I also don’t want to be talking about BIRTH CONTROL as a central issue, when it’s little more than a petty distraction from far bigger problems like crippling debt and creeping socialism.
Did you even read the article you posted? He agrees with you that the definition of a human life beginning at conception should be set at the national level. He just believes that how this is enforced, like with most issues regarding acts of violence of one person against another, should be managed at the state level.
I realize that conservatives have been suckered in by so-called "law and order" candidates whose only act in support of law and order is to federalize a state crime, so they are reluctant to support people who haven't been similarly suckered.
With Paul’s kind of circus it would be a Flea Circus. Him and his occutard followers could all fit in a handkerchief.
I agree with you on that issue 100%!
I know his personal standing on the right to life is so so strong.
I think his political stance on the right to life issue is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
He is such a anti-federalist that he wants no federal edicts, even ones that have a constitutional backing such as the right to life (As you said the first and foremost right guaranteed by the constitution).
Just a guess to his motives.
I don’t agree with Ron Paul on much, but I agree with him on this and on cutting $1tril the first year.
Another BIG TENT moderate.....when the GOP surrenders the social issues, they’ve given up much of their platform and the distinctions between our choices is blurred. Run on socially conservative issues and people turn out to vote. When both parties run on the DUmocrat platform, people stay home and the Commiecrats win.
Give up and smile.
Of course, if the social conservatives stay home, or vote Dem, you get to blame them. If they vote, and you lose, you get to blame them. If they vote, and you win, you say it was because of the mussy brainless middle that made you win.
Eventually, we will go somewhere else. The GOP has the social conservatives on a plantation just like the DNC does with minorities. If either group leaves, or rather when they do, we are in for some interesting times.
Assuming we keep having elections that mean anything, which at this stage of our decay I wouldn't bet on to many more. No matter who wins.
He’s absolutely right. Sorry America isn’t obsessed with those damned homosexuals any more.
Really? So local governments have the right to deprive you of life without due process of law? That right really isn't a right, just a convenience the granted to you by the government? How about freedom of religion? Should local governments be free to restrict that? That 'right' yet another convenience granted to you by the grace of some governemnt body? What about speech? How about ownership of property?
If those things are something not 'retained by the people' and can be legislated away by any government body, be it federal, state, or local, then we aren't free citizens but simply subjects to whatever government body feels free to 'deal with it'.
Far too many people leave out "Or Reserved To The People" when reading the 10th Amendment.
Can't think of a single one, actually.”
Chris Christie? Despite his recent veto of a same-sex marriage bill in NJ, many people on FR (myself included) view him as a social liberal but a fiscal conservative.
Ron Paul is a walking, talking, &^#&$&#@ing losing proposition.
Losers like Ronnie “Rue” Paul don’t know much about losing propositions.
First I'd like to say I believe life begins at conception and I would support a Constitutional Amendment outlawing it and charging those who perform them AND the "mother" with Murder One.
That said, I believe the law is less than clear on when a "fertilized egg" transitions to "unborn baby". Viability outside the womb is only sometimes the the legally recognized transition. I would cite 3rd trimester abortion and the fact that if you kill a woman that is 8 months pregnant that you are charged with two murders.
Absent any clarity in the law as now written and despite your contention (along with many pro-life Freepers) that were talking "Equal Protection"...there is no such legal precedent and an immense body of precedent to the contrary.
For the most part, and it's grey, the law declares personhood as a born child or one that would be viable if born now. The exception being late-term abortions for whatever reason.
He is 100% right. The problem is too much government. That should be the only issue.
No but the federal government trying to legislate one’s personal ability to engage in either is not too fundamentally different than deciding what people can and can't eat.
If a free person elects to engage in a life of personal depravity, as far as I am concerned, that is between that individual and his maker so long as his actions are not injurious to others.
This is how as conservatives, we wind up shooting ourselves in the foot over and over. We engage in semantics over where we erect our personal barriers on social issues and are rarely able to coalesce and project a cohesive message.
The left know this and do an excellent job of parsing our inconsistencies and lampooning us on them.