Posted on 03/21/2014 2:24:28 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
Rand Paul is an appealing candidate to many conservatives. But he has a fatal libertarian streak on social issues that will make his candidacy in 2016 a non-starter for convictional conservatives.
According to Breitbart.com, Paul is urging the Republican party to "soften on social issues." But this is the one thing it cannot do and remain the Republican party.
The GOP was founded in 1854 to fight slavery and bigamy, those "twin relics of barbarism." In other words, the GOP came into existence to declare and defend a principled stand on the two leading social issues of its day.
Says Paul,
"I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues. The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who don't want to be festooned by those issues."
(I'm not sure "festooned" is the word he was looking for here, as it means "a decorative chain or strip hanging between two points," but his overall meaning is clear.)
Let's take Paul's template and see if it would work for the GOP in 1854 on the leading social issue of its day. Would Rand Paul have said that because of the need to grow the party, we must "agree to disagree" on slavery? Hardly. And it would not have mattered how many "millennials" thought otherwise.
The Republican party changed history precisely because it decided not to "agree to disagree." It took a stand on the most significant moral issue of the time and told millennials and everyone else, here's where we stand. If you stand somewhere else, then your home is in the Democratic party, the party of slavery.
There certainly were many at the time that thought it was political suicide to take such a fixed stand on such a controversial issue. "Why, if we're going to grow this party, we've got to have a big tent on social issues. We've got to make room for slaveholders if we don't want to alienate half the country. We just ought to keep the government out of the slavery business, and just leave that whole issue up to individuals. That's how you get the young'uns on board, tell 'em they can have their slaves if they want 'em because we're gonna be the party that wants to keep the government out of those pesky social issues."
To waffle on the major social issues of the day would have been wrong for the GOP in 1854, and it's just as wrong in 2014. The GOP did not go soft on slavery, and every black man in America today has the GOP to thank for standing without compromise on the side of the unalienable right to liberty.
If the GOP wouldn't go soft on liberty because of pro-slavery millennials, it shouldn't go soft on marriage because of pro-sodomy millennials.
Christianity says unambiguously, "Let marriage be held in honor among all" (Hebrews 13:4). I looked up the word "all" in the Greek lexicon, and it means "all." That includes you and me, Sen. Rand Paul, the GOP, and the United States of America.
The GOP needs to grasp that leadership is not capitulating to pro-homosexual millennials, but persuading them of the superiority of natural marriage.
That's not as difficult as it sounds. Millions of millennials know the pain and heartache of fractured homes and the soul-crushing impact of divorce. They want something better for their marriages and their children, and they need political leadership that will raise the guardrails that protect natural marriage, not lower them.
There is much I admire about Sen. Paul. He is principled and unbudging on matters of his political convictions. This makes him an enormous force for good when he is right, and a danger when he is wrong.
On marriage, he has made it clear that he will not fight for the fundamental social values that have made America morally and spiritually strong. What good is it to have a country in which the government is not listening in on the phone calls of millennials if their lives have been wrecked by family implosion and their bodies ravaged by sexually transmitted diseases?
Liberty unrestrained by morality is just license. We've had enough of that to last us for the rest of the century.
Ted Cruz, on the other hand, was asked by the Des Moines Register to respond to Sen. Paul's "Let's just go AWOL" on social issues. He said,
"There are some who say the Republican party should no longer stand for life. I don't agree with that. There are some who say the Republican party should no longer stand for traditional marriage. I don't agree with them either. I think that we should continue to defend our shared values....We should continue to defend life and we should continue to defend traditional marriage."
Bottom line: when it comes to 2016, Rand Paul is not the guy. But Ted Cruz might be.
100% correct
The implication is that two dudes who want to get married is the moral equivalent of slavery. That’s absurd.
It seems to me that the GOP should be leading the effort to not let the federal government define what marriage is or isn’t. Why cede that power to the feds? Let churches define it. And/or municipalities. Whatever. And don’t let the federal government say you have to perform a gay wedding, or be forced to decorate a cake for such.
I think this issue is one of the least important issues of the day. What consequence is it to me and my marriage if two dudes in Cali get married? Whose rights are violated? Slavery, of course, is a whole ‘nuther ballgame. Obviously.
But this issue is perfect for sucking up a huge proportion of the political discourse, and for raising money. For both parties. That’s the real reason why we debate this. It helps keep the two-party system rollin’.
With the current make-up of the courts it's likely going to take a Constitutional Amendment to stop homo marriage. It's also very likely the USSC will be required to vote on the issue prior to 2016.
Cruz is my guy and I hope I'm not holding my nose voting because a bunch of RINO's decided they needed someone "nicer".
Then say hello to 8 years of Hillary. I disagree with people who put so much stock on the social issues. Social issues are not going to be solved by legislation considering the diseased judicial system we have. Social issues are best addressed at the grass roots level by winning hearts and minds.
Let's imagine a world where Rand Paul is in office. Does his lack of addressing social issues stop you from affecting change? I look at what people are doing at the local level like those secretly filming Planned Parenthood and local legislatures attempting to enact common sense guidelines for abortion centers.
I get so sick of those that dismiss a potential candidate cause they would rather sit home and pout over an 80% candidate and end up with a 0% liberal. It's just plain stupid.
You must be referring to, like, ALL of them?
Does Ted Cruz advocate for those Amendments? Any of the candidates?
Exactly right. Whether 2 guys get married has no effect on me. The ever increasing power of the welfare -surveillance state is a far greater threat to freedom.
I have no favorites between Cruz and Paul. But I will take either of them over any of the RINO “front runners”.
The problem for many Republicans and conservative voters is that they are fatally purists and readily dismiss a candidate permanently if they don’t pass the test 100%.
Liberals, on the other hand, will take the chosen candidate regardless of any warts, fallacies, illegalities, or lies and vote like zombies.
Conservatives are generally more principled people and the strict adherence to those principles splits us and we lose.
Spot on !!!!
Liberals will vote on one or two issues that have been articulated to their satisfaction. They don’t hear the rest, they don’t care about the rest, they certainly don’t consider the implications of the whole.
Conservatives exclude candidates based on one or two issues, we listen to everything, we care about all the issues and consider the whole.
A liberal will vote for a Democrat because they agree with them on, say, gay marriage, even though they completely disagree with 0bamacare. They hear what they want to hear and ignore the rest.
The implication is that two dudes who want to get married is the moral equivalent of slavery. That’s absurd.You left out bigamy... which is exactly where same sex "marriage" is heading.
If you allow for the creeps and weirdos to define marriage, which is what you are doing... then they will.
In 1980 there was little doubt who the nominee would be...and we sailed to complete victory.
We haven't had that since.
Reagan was able to unite the conservatives and libertarians.
Who can do that now?
I'm doubtful there are the votes to get something done on abortion at this point in time. Maintaining marriage defined as a man and women would easily pass a popular vote but getting 2/3rd's of the states on board could be another issue. Also, the courts are a huge problem with gay marriage.
I am more of a fan of the efforts underway by pro-life groups that are attacking the safety of women's clinics and forcing enforcement of laws already in place that apply to other health care providers. We are seeing less and less providers out there.
All I can say is we need term limits and work to get the most conservative candidate possible on the ticket. This does NOT include Christie and any retreads like Santorum or Huckabee.
Not a hairpiece - it is a dead squirrel, which expired looking for nuts up there.
Ted Cruz is everything the world expects a Texan to be. Technically, he was born in Canada, but of one natural-born US citizen parent, which is at least as much as was found acceptable for the Current Occupant now squatting in the White Hut. And further, Sen. Cruz has renounced all right by birth to ever become a Canadian citizen. Dual citizenship by soil and by blood is not all that uncommon among US citizens, as witness the children of military servicemen born while stationed in any of a number of foreign countries. John Sidney McCain III was accorded US citizenship on just that technicality, and it was not successfully challenged at any time.
I agree.
We need to WIN First.
I also believe that many of our social/cultural issues would resolve themselves with a political structure in Washington that was committed to both limited government and the reduction of the Federal Government with the States calling their own shots.
BTW, as much as I love Reagan, he had a lot to do with advancing the Abortion business while Governor of CA.
Also.
Rand Paul actually connects with people.
For conservatives to vote for Paul in 2016 will require a degree of “trust”. Independents will vote for him.
For Independents to vote for Cruz in 2016 will require and be an expression of their need to have a strong leader. Conservatives will vote for him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.