Skip to comments.Rand Paul: Republicans Need to Soften on Social Issues
Posted on 03/15/2014 12:24:23 PM PDT by TitansAFC
click here to read article
"There's room in the Republican Party for moderates, like Chris Christie. They seem to be the only ones that are winning in the Northeast... The other thing that might happen in the Northeast if we had a little more libertarian-leaning Republicans, they would have a chance in the Northeast. But there's room for moderates, like Chris Christie, and he's got a place in the party."[Posted on 11/06/2013 4:19:17 PM PST by Olog-hai]
Ron/Rand Paul - emphasizing the “LIB” part of liberTopianism.
“I’m quite socially conservative in my own life, but I think that politicians who thump on “social conservatism” and moral issues often sound like fools.”
IF you really think a “social/moral conservative” politician sounds like a “fool.” Then you ARE NOT a social/morale conservative and you should STOP calling yourself one. You are “ashamed” of what you claim you hold true.
The nonsense you spout is what I have been hearing on the abortion issue for years and it makes me sick to my stomach. I.E. “I am pesonally “pro-life” but I don’t think I should force this on others.” That is NOT being pro-life. Pro-life means you think abortion is MURDER...thus one cannot take a “well this only applies to me” attitude and be trully pro-life.
The same is true about homosexuality (and adultery for that matter). You cannot straddle a fench and say you are conservative. IF it is really wrong...then it is wrong for all. While we may want to use a little restraint and not become draconian. Taking a “let’s do what we can to discourage adultery and homosexuality.” One way to discourage adultery is to make the adulterer to come out badly in a divorce proceeding. A unfaithful spouse needs to pay dearly when a marriage dissolves as a result of this. In regards to homosexuality, we need to make it “uncomfortable” to be one. Definitely they should in no way be a “recognized and protected” group. They should NEVER be recognized by ANY level of government as a legitimate “couple.” It is NOT too late to reverse this downward slide on this issue.
IF you are NOT a social/moral conservative first, then the others “forms” on conservatism are useless. Get the social/morale issue right and the rest WILL fall into place.
I fully believe (know actually) that 95% of the fiscal problems of this country come from liberal views on the social/morale issues that result in bad fiscal policy.
A world where drug addicts or AIDS-infected homosexuals have to deal with the consequences of their decisions without a welfare state to bail them out will do much more to deal with these issues than the trillions we've wasted on the "war on drugs" and all the tub-thumping about gays on both sides of the aisle would ever accomplish.
IF you really think a social/moral conservative politician sounds like a fool. Then you ARE NOT a social/morale conservative and you should STOP calling yourself one. You are ashamed of what you claim you hold true.
There's a world of difference between finding something distasteful and wanting government, especially the Federal government, to pass laws outlawing it. I find most of the idiocy that's on TV nauseating. My solution to this problem is not to watch it, rather than to push for Federal laws curtailing free speech.
I am pesonally pro-life but I dont think I should force this on others. That is NOT being pro-life. Pro-life means you think abortion is MURDER...thus one cannot take a well this only applies to me attitude and be trully pro-life.
The abortion issue is not like the drug use or homosexuality issue. Laws against drug use or sodomy laws are there to protect people from themselves. I disagree with such laws, and they would be redundant in a world where people were financially responsible for their actions. Women who have abortions are in a different category because their actions harm another party. The right way to deal with this issue is to work to appoint SCOTUS justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade, which should have never passed regardless of what one feels about abortion because it violates the 10th amendment.
Politicians like Obama who think government is in the business of promoting and subsidizing 'LOVE" as long as it's the right kind of love, the politically correct love like homosexual sex premised love but not sexually void sibling love or multi sex partner premised polygamy? What about the politicians in black robes who proclaim that government has no rational basis to exclude procreatively null homosexual sex premised unions from the same societal recognition, privilege, & benefits of heterosexual sex premised unions?
Social conservatism is all about limiting government from imposing upon society. The Constitution limits government fiscally & socially e.g. the 2nd Ammendment is not a fiscal issue.
In many cases, you are correct, in others, allegedly conservative social policy means the expansion of government (i.e. law enforcement/surveillance) power over citizens. One glaring counterexample, is the War on Drugs, which many (not all, but many) Republicans continue to support in the name of social conservatism and morality. You would think that advocates of limited government and constitutional liberties would see the WoD for the huge waste of resources and frequent violation of personal liberties that it is.
Now, you can argue that as long as the rest of us have to foot the bill for other people's healthcare, it makes sense to outlaw illicit drugs. The same argument could be applied to sugary snacks, cigarettes, and alcohol, the regulation of which most conservatives by the likes of Bloomberg (rightly) oppose. A much more sound and consistent argument should be made for a war against Medicaid and socialized medicine, instead of the current misguided and unwinnable criminalization of illicit drugs.
The same argument could be applied to sugary snacks, cigarettes, and alcohol, the regulation of which by the likes of Bloomberg most conservatives (rightly) oppose.
In my opinion, the legitimate premise underlying the war on drugs, and on what basis the federal government has built it's war on drugs empire upon, is maintaining social order.
Some argue that maintaining social order is irrelevant, others like myself argue that maintaining social order is what make society civil.
Looking at the social order issue I see a great divide between Libertarians (Social Anarchy) & Conservatives (Social Order) that entails on the one hand Libertarians promoting and celebrating federal government imposed social disorder/social anarchy and on the other hand Conservatives seeking to get federal government out of the business of defining social order and simply in the business of enforcing it WHILE at the same time NOT encroaching upon or violating individual unalienable rights
“Laws against drug use or sodomy laws are there to protect people from themselves. I disagree with such laws, and they would be redundant in a world where people were financially responsible for their actions.”
That is Libertarian idiocy and why Libertarians like Rand Paul SHOULD NOT call themselves “conservative” or “republican.” Besides, laws against “illicit drugs & sodomy” are NOT just to protect people from themselves...but to protect society from those people.
You are ENTIRELY wrong about placing fiscal matters ahead of morale concerns....and you are COMPLETELY wrong if you think fixing fiscal issues will promote morale behavior. No, fixing “fiscal” issues without first addressing moral behavior may at best produce some momentary prosperity...which in of itself NEVER produces a moral society.
Please stop screwing up the Republican Party with Libertarian (Libertine) lawlessness. Stay in your OWN party. The GOP belongs first to its social/morale conservative base.
No, fixing fiscal issues without first addressing moral behavior may at best produce some momentary prosperity...which in of itself NEVER produces a moral society
I pointed out that it's a lot easier to be a long-term drug addict (or a drunk) in a society with a welfare state such as ours than in a society without one. That's a clear-cut example of how fiscal conservatism can correct anti-social behavior in people by creating a very strong disincentive against engaging in such behavior. Will this eliminate vice entirely? Of course not. Neither has "the war on drugs," nor did Prohibition. The difference is that the solution I propose doesn't require a bloated law-enforcement bureaucracy and a penal system that incarcerates people at a higher rate than China in order to be implemented.
Incidentally, I'm not a (capital L) Libertarian. They lost me by advocating open borders, as did Rand Paul. That doesn't mean that they don't have good arguments on other issues.
I pretty much agree with you, but the danger of the civil union thing is that, at least here in the People's Marxist Republic of Illinois, that won't satisfy the other side. The next year they'll be demanding (and getting) gay marriage, unfortunately.
“I fail to see the difference between your “we need a war on drugs to protect society from drug addicts” is any different from “we need to bring back Prohibition to protect society from alcoholics and drunks.” We tried that a century ago, how did that work out for us?”
That is because you are obtuse. Illicit drugs have NEVER had wide spread social acceptance. Whereas, the use of alcohol was a long standing accepted practice.
Besides, I am more concerned about his other LIBERAL stands than just drugs. He is NOT a CONSERVATIVE. He needs to be silenced and or destroyed politically and forced to go third party if he wants to run. Those fools like you ARE NOT CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS you are LIBERTARIAN INSURGENTS THAT NEED TO GO AWAY. We do NOT need you!
I care a lot more about what medical science has to say than "social acceptance." The bottom line is that alcohol addiction is as damaging as addiction to many illicit drugs, if not more so, so the double-standard on the issue reflects raw emotion (as evidenced by your childish ALL CAPS) rather than reason or facts. Much the same way as liberals think.
Besides, I am more concerned about his other LIBERAL stands than just drugs. He is NOT a CONSERVATIVE. He needs to be silenced and or destroyed politically and forced to go third party if he wants to run. Those fools like you ARE NOT CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS you are LIBERTARIAN INSURGENTS THAT NEED TO GO AWAY. We do NOT need you
You ought to be a speechwriter for your candidate of choice, i.e. "Unless you agree with me on every single issue, don't vote for me. If you agree with some of my policies, that's not good enough! You'd better agree with everyword I say or else I don't want your vote!" You're guaranteed to be a winning ticket there.