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’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.
“Libertarianism _could_ work if we didnt use government to alleviate the consequences for behavior.”
I agree. That would be the evental result. But too many conservatives aren’t willing to let go of their desire to shape the culture by way of a powerful central gov’t.
He was smart enough to keep the socons pacified while running a remarkably socially tolerant administration. He was very clever with that - never once appeared at the March for Life, but always sent a tape. Nominated Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, to balance Scalia and Rhenquist's elevation, and make sure Roe would be protected.
Socons always had a sympathetic ear at Justice, and at HHS, but Education could continue to run wild.
What do YOU remember, other than speeches, that he did to move the socon agenda forward?
..and yet in Paul's world, States can regulate rights away and leave fundamental rights like life to the whim of whatever governmental body isn't 'Federal'. That doesn't reduce government, it hands away your rights to the whims of 50 governments. In his world, there are no fundamental rights but simply legislation that is passed down so you have no real protection of fundamental rights. It is a bastardization of original intent and in no way reduces government.
Ron Paul can call me when abortion is devolved back to the “...to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Mostly “social conservatives” want to be left alone (and their children, too!). That doesn’t seem to be in the Fed’s interests. So, until then I’ll vote for Santorum or Gingrich.
Social conservatives are not providing most of the votes or platform issues, conservatives are. Theres a place for social conservativism in the primary and general. Out in front isnt necessary, or probably even wise.
If the party needs a total disaster to finally liberate itself from the ideas that Santorum represents, so be it. I am prepared to accept the consequences.
What do you mean by 'liberate itself from the ideas that Santorum represents'? What ideas should we be liberated from?
Ron Paul is not opposing conservatives positions on social issues; he is saying that social issues should be dealt with exclusively at state level.
As I’ve stated before in several comments, the Conservative position on issues such as life is a national position. Saying States can regulate away those fundamental rights is liberalism at its finest and creates 50 tyrannies with the authority to trample your rights.
Either rights are fundamental and can’t be ‘dealt with by any government’ or they aren’t rights and you are simply a subject.