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 ...
“He is 100% right. The problem is too much government. That should be the only issue.”
Too much government and too much spending. The more fundamentals that I hear from this dude, the more I like. Oddly enough I’m buying into George Washington too, and his no entangling alliances. We need to rebuild the USA, not the world.
This was a poorly titled article, and Rep. Paul is largely right on this. He is in favor of taking the fight to the states where we have a chance in hades of winning.
I find it fascinating that so many of my fellow anti-infanticide folks get all up in arms when it’s suggested that the best way to win this is in the states. If Roe -v -Wade were overturned tomorrow, infanticide would not all of a sudden become illegal in all of the 57 states. It would revert to the situation as it was before; each state decides. I reckon that if RvW were to magically be overturned, we would find about 50% of the states banning infanticide outright (including my beloved VA), maybe 20% restricting it somewhat, and the other 30% allowing it with few if any meaningful restrictions.
I’ll take 50-70% of a win any day of the week over the 0% we have right now. And more importantly, we would have the opportunity to fight the issue out in the state legislatures where we have a ghost of a chance of winning. Unlike the current strategy which seems to be to rally for an ongoing stalemate at the Federal level. I guess we’re going to continue with that not winning/not losing strategy for another 40 years? I’ve said this many times, but I’ll say it again: Federal legislation to end infanticide will come about 3 weeks after the last clinic closes it’s doors for lack of business. Sorry, but I’m just not content with that.
If you want to see a conservative political model that works, look at the progress made in the expansion of concealed carry legislation over the last 20 years. That was at the state level, and our side WON.
Talk about a silent ZoT, hehehe...
Good to hear from you, Elk.
The situation is very serious. People are misinterpreting my remarks to mean that I, personally, oppose the goals of “social conservatives”, when I do not.
But the moral and spiritual degeneracy of our people is far advanced - witness the man in the White House right now, exhibit #1.
I announced my support for Gingrich on October 6, and I voted for him in the NH Primary. I hope he can recover.
Because female contraception is the prerequisite for the fornication that our people love so much, I do not believe that Santorum’s honest questioning about it will allow him to survive as a serious candidate.
All the best to you and yours. Please tell Mrs. Elk that her mail of several years ago about the church has had its desired effect, and I am most grateful.
Thank you, Kansas58.
Jim, if you think social conservatives can't even get elected to the dog catcher positions, what do you think caused Sarah Palin to be elected governor of Alaska, Michele Bachmann to be elected a Minnesota congresswoman, or, for that matter, not only Rick Santorum but also Gov. Bob Casey Sr. and Sen. Bob Casey Jr., all three of whom campaigned on social conservative platforms? Basically the Democrats pulled a reverse Romney — run a guy who looks and acts like the other party to win an election by neutralizing the opponent on his key issues.
I don't happen to think Palin, Bachman and Santorum are the best representatives of socially conservative candidates, but they're three of the more prominent figures in the current national scene representing that wing of the Republican Party, and I don't think any of them ever tried to run for dog catcher.
I do not and cannot agree.
Government has a very limited role, but it does have a role. The most important of those roles, from a biblical perspective (Romans 13), is to defend its citizens and use the sword of justice against wrongdoers.
I may be willing to accept, as a temporary measure, state option on abortion. It's better than what we have now, and might significantly reduce the number of baby murders.
However, is Ron Paul willing to be consistent? What other rights in the Bill of Rights does he think should be open to restriction by state governments? To cite one that is quite realistic, would Ron Paul support a liberal state deciding on the basis of states rights to require registration of all firearms, or following the model of Washington DC by essentially banning private ownership of firearms for people who are not law enforcement personnel or retired law enforcement?
I am the first one to say that the federal government has grossly overstepped its proper role, but it **DOES** have a proper role, and I don't have a problem with the US Supreme Court overturning state laws that violate the federal Constitution, so long as they actually **DO** violate the constitution. Gun registration, gun bans, and abortion are all examples of things that the Supreme Court could legitimately overturn.
For whatever it's worth, I personally hold to a stronger position than this, but based on the federal constitutional language that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law, I think I could accept a mother going before a judge for a legal determination that her pregnancy was a clear danger to her own life and therefore should be allowed to obtain an abortion. There are very rare cases where that is in fact the case, though the number is very low, and I don't think a mother can be forced to carry a pregnancy which truly is a risk to her life. Apart from a formal court action through due process of law, I don't think there is any constitutional grounds to allow an abortion.
I'm on Murdoch's Twitter feed too. I've been quite surprised by the positions he's been taking.
We seem to be finding out that the raw unfiltered Murdoch is different from the one being presented by the people who work for him.
His personal morality obviously leaves a lot to be desired, however, especially in his more distant past. I've always cut Murdoch a fair amount of slack considering his background in Australia where politically conservative positions are not usually connected with religion or even basic morality in the way they are in the United States. Maybe Wendy Deng convinced him of a secular Chinese version of cultural moral standards? A lot of Gingrich's supporters cite Callista’s apparently positive influence on him after their marriage, despite the obvious problems that created that marriage, and I wonder if something similar happened with Murdoch and Wendy Deng?
What? Not even invasion and insurrection, nor "combinations too great to be resisted by lawful authority"?
The United States Government owes every State in the Union a republican form of government ..... that includes States overrun by MeChistas who have issued a grito and a Plan for a new constitution that drives whites out of the Southwest. Smoke that, Dr. Paul.
When it's about authority, power, sovereignty and control, no amount of money is going to sweeten that into a Sunday-school picnic.
If your State Constitution does not protect your Rights, I'd suggest either you and others of like mind seek to get such measures adopted or that you move.
It’s politically true only so long as the economic and libertarian rationale for social conservatism is not communicated. Ron Paul should know better.
True for an adult, but with serious complications for all when it comes to their children, who are not accountable for the parents' choices. That philosophy does nothing for them.
So, if a drugged out person kills somebody, do you support a death penalty, with no possibility of appeal, so long as they were proven to be beyond self-control? Swift trial and execution, how many "libertarians" would go for that?
As to harming others, how about their kids?
You have to be careful with THAT line of thought as well.
If you say that, ultimately, it is the states’ purview to determine and protect the welfare of children,
what of the parents?
You’re talking “UN Rights of the Child” if you follow that path.
If the State’s determination of “best” is in conflict with the parents’, who gets to say?
(eg access to pornography, homosexual indoctrination, abortion, contraceptives)
And this is a prime example of why Ron Paul will never be POTUS.
Well duh. It just happens to be true. My wife works in a newborn intensive care unit. She sees the consequences of drug abuse on babies every day. It is a real and life long consequence of drug abuse and it is horribly expensive. Who pays when the parents are incapable?
As far as I am concerned, bearing a child while abusing drugs should be considered a crime against another person. Given the problem of intrusion into the family, how to deal with it sounds to me like precisely a problem for federalism, the laboratory of republican government.
If you say that, ultimately, it is the states purview to determine and protect the welfare of children,
Look, I've wrestled seriously with every one of these problems for two decades. I've written two books and numerous well regarded articles dealing with the history and hazard of UN treaties. Try this one as an example. I've even spoken at a couple of Henry Lamb's Freedom21 conferences. You don't have to preach this "who owns the child" crap to me.
The question is: when the parent is legally found to be criminally irresponsible to a another person, who then assumes responsibility for the kid? Someone must. The problems for the kid are real and life long. Libertarians, tending to be young, tend to discount them to their own political peril in a fashion directly analogous to the political problem for social conservatives cited by Mr. Paul.
As a society, we do have to work out just means to deal with problems perpetrated by individuals. In the case of drug moms, I prefer adjudicated forced adoption and private charity for the kid to an agency like CPS, with work camp for the rest of the mother's life (effectively slavery), don't you? Deprive someone else of health or liberty for their whole life and you will surrender yours, an eye for an eye, and then some.
If the States determination of best is in conflict with the parents, who gets to say?
If you don't have any idea of what is "best," offer a rhetorical question instead of proposing an answer, which is exactly to my point. There are MANY problems in society that do not lend themselves well to any form of government because enforcing solutions to those problems with police power IS the slippery slope. Yet the consequences of individual acts MUST be managed by someone because the owners' irresponsibility does inflict a public cost. Whether the venue is traffic accidents with death or disabling injury to innocents or drug kids, these costs still have to be managed by someone other than the victim. Churches used to deal with that cost, to which secular
libertarians would scream (which is why Marxism is pointedly atheist). Then what? How innovations are tested is why truly federal systems are so effective. Putting as much accountability on the perp as they can bear productively while doing as much as we can to have remedial action remain private is probably the best we can do. Use any drug you want, but if you damage or destroy the life and/or property of someone else, you will surely pay, big time.
He's pro-life and he vetoed that bill, plus he lives the life of family man. He is a walking and talking social conservative as far as I can see.
That he disappointed social conservatives because he talked the talk but didn't do enough for them when elected?
Assuming that this is true, it kind of undermines your original argument - namely that social conservatives can't get elected. If Reagan governed as a social moderate but gave socially conservative speeches and ran as a social conservative in order to get elected, your original thesis is invalid.
“He is a walking and talking social conservative as far as I can see.”
If this is true, then I don’t understand why Christie is regularly vilified on FR as a RINO. I like the guy, myself. He seems to be head and shoulders above the current contenders for the Republican nomination.
With Paul supporters it always eventually comes down to our support for those rascally joos. Why, if we weren't so dead-set on helping those darned joos there would have been no 9-11!
Without government running people’s lifes you have no need for social conservatives. Social conservatives are trying beat liberals by playing the game the same way as liberals do by getting the government to legislate their agenda.
Social conservatives can not win this way.
Best way to win is to get rid of the government that created the social conservative movement backlash to begin with.
Government is the root of all that ailes the country. The less the better.
Have you noticed that everything Ron Paul says has to be parsed by his bots?
They have to twist every single thing he says to mitigate the damage done thus proving that he is a crazy old racist lying fool.
That's largely due to his support for Romney and his practical attitude toward immigration.
Plus he's from the Northeast.
I’ve become very cynical. The thing we overlook about “social issues” (and I’ll include illegal immigration) is that they will never ever be resolved with clear outcomes. They aren’t intended to be resolved. They are intended to be USED by politicians to get votes or donations. Republicans could have solved illegal immigration and the abortion issue when Bush was in office but they were not even seriously addressed.
To resolve them and extinguish the burning embers would be the same as curing cancer, or diabetes, or heart disease. It would leave an enormous void in the status quo establishment that use and get rich on the fight, whether it be to cure disease or fix the social issues. There are embedded self interests on all sides that want the status quo to last forever. I am not at all hopeful on our society.
Why would you say that?
You aren’t MSM? I ask because the media has perfected the art of dividing us, and calling people racists, as they did with the Tea Party and with Glen Beck if it suits their underlying goal. They keep the masses dumbed down too by stuffing us full of their crap entertainment.
How much longer must we hear them “memorializing” (aka brainwashing us) Whitney Houston so they can sell more of her copyrighted music to clueless Americans? They are surely working on movies too to boost sales further, all subsidized by taxpayers, thanks to their crony crooked politicians.
I will answer you question with a question: which "entangling alliance" is most concerning to you?
“I will answer you question with a question: which “entangling alliance” is most concerning to you?”
Every single one. If the philosophy was good enough for George Washington, the country’s founding father to support it, it is good enough for me.
Why don’t I like entangling alliances, or supporting others with our tax money, or go to war for them? Because we don’t have any money. Let these countries get their own ducks in order, or their own killed, and they must pay for it too. I’ve come to the belief that not one country is worth the death of a US serviceman.
We need to put all of our emphasis and eggs into rebuilding the USA first and only, or we won’t have a country. To those who think we should sacrifice the USA, I disagree. USA Love It or Leave it.
Fortunately most Americans have not shared your attitude. If they had, we'd all be speaking German.
Sorry I don’t buy your theory that the USA would have ever fallen to Germany.
But have you looked at Germany lately? Maybe we should see what they are doing right. While the USA is going down the potty hole in most areas of measurement, infrastructure, fiscally, and except for a perpetual desire to send our troops into wars for other countries, the Germans have little debt.
Instead they have trade surpluses, and their people are generally doing much better with real production jobs that pay much better than most Americans who work in a pathetic service economy. While Americans attack each other, Germans stick together. They weren’t as culturally decimated by non-producers, thanks an intentional policy of the elite looking for cheap labor while destroying our common Euro bond.
There is something to be said for being on the receiving end of aid instead of having rented government leaders that give away our taxes, economy and will co-sign the credit card for every other country that asks. Instead of real leaders we have puppets.
I certainly am.
While Reagan was a good deal better than his predecessor, I can't find any indication he actually cut-out full government agencies.
From this article:
Reagan arrived in Washington with a full head of steam, vowing, as he put it in the major economic speech of his 1980 campaign, "to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending." To conservatives, and many others, he seemed destined to fulfill campaign pledges to abolish entire government agencies, rein in the excesses of the welfare state, and end Americans' overreliance on government.and
But after his initial victories on tax cuts and defense, the revolution effectively stalled. Deficits started to balloon, the recession soon deepened, his party lost ground in the 1982 midterms, and thereafter Reagan never seriously tried to enact the radical domestic agenda he'd campaigned on.
It's too bad he mellwed-out/toned-down; we'd honestly be better off if he had... esp. WRT the Dept. of Education.
You do realize that "anti-federalist" is a well-reasoned position put forth in the anti-federalist papers; and Brutus (who eloquently laid out the anti-federalist position & reasoning) had a level of insight that borders on prescient.
In short; calling someone an "anti-federalist" is much more a complement than anything else.
You are holding a european socialist state up as a model for the USA? LOL. No Republican or conservative wants us to be "more like Europe". And no Republican or conservative would throw our allies under the bus. There are web sites for people who love europe and hate Israel, and this isn't one of them.
I know that you are not opposed to social conservative goals. Also that the moral and spiritual degeneracy of our people is far advanced.
There is hope nonetheless. La Rochefoucald observed that hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. Many who engage in fornication or adultery, for that matter, do not advocate that others should do so. Thank God for the beneficial effects of hypocrisy.
Many men who cheat on their wives are not eager for their wives to cheat on them. Many wives who have cheated on their husbands REALLY don't want their husbands cheating on them. They make exceptions for their own dalliances which they deem somehow special and unique. Straight boyfriends, straight girlfriends, etc. There are probably even philandering lesbians who don't want to be cheated on as they cheat on their significant other. Homosexual men are notoriously promiscuous but even a few of them either practice monogamy (of sorts) or wish their significant others to do so.
Santorum is the daddy figure whom we expect to object to lives lived promiscuously. In that respect, he is consistent in resisting abortion and even birth control in his role as husband and father. His position on abortion as a Catholic needs no further explanation. His position on birth control is quite consistent with Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae, that each act of marital intimacy should be open to the conception of a child as well as providing a unitive function of binding the married couple closer together. There are those who intentionally distort that teaching to suppose that a couple incapable for whatever reason of conceiving a child should not marry including those who are beyond the age when childbearing is possible. All that the Church requires of parties to such a marriage is frank revelation of any facts known which would lead to the conclusion that conception and childbearing are not possible or very likely.
As to candidates, in this exhausting nomination cycle, I have found myself supporting Sarah Palin, then Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and now Rick Santorum. Whichever of them is the most likely anti-Romney du jour will get my vote in the Illinois primary. Right now that would be Santorum. Three weeks from now, who knows? Never have I or would I support Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, or Ron Paul, each for various reasons.
I do believe that Santorum has forced Romney to publicly promise (not that I believe him) to defund Planned Barrenhood, re-establish the Mexico City policy of Ronaldus Maximus not to fund overseas abortions and a few other worthwhile positions.
Had I been voting in New Hampshire's primary, I might well have been voting with you for Gingrich. Now he would have to get back into a position ahead of Santorum against Romney to get my vote. Either Gingrich or Santorum, for very different reasons, would make a first class candidate. If the choice were strictly up to me, I would choose Santorum because he is an outstanding husband and father. Gingrich's past indiscretions would neither qualify him nor disqualify him and his potential to really rock the GOP-E's boat and infuriate the Demonrats would be a compelling argument for his candidacy.
I dare hope that Gingrich and Santorum will forge a partnership to restore our nation. I also hope that Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain will have a significant role to play in a new GOP administration taking office next January. I could tolerate even Romney so long as his role was strictly limited to something somewhat alien to him: restoring industrial jobs to our economy. I suspect that Romney would reject that role.
In any event, may God continue to bless you and yours.
Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften war stance...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.[Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by xzins]