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.
Gay and lesbian "parents" are set to bring up a generation of angry, confused, and licentious children, that as adults will be at each others' throats, which will of course require more of the police state to deal with the crimes and a therapeutic welfare state to deal with the losers. Both are VERY expensive. The more bureaucrats there are the more they vote for more government. Hence, to be a "social libertarian" is to have no comprehension for the preconditions of liberty.
I take exception to Paul’s wanting to kick social issues to the back of the closet
I agree !!!
If we take a hard look at our constitution and the ramifications of the changes that have distorted its original intent, I contend, as it was originally established, the need for a “Moral populace” to maintain this framework has been slipping away. First by inches, but now by miles.
The issue runs deep into our culture and the peer pressure that is on display in our media to accept virtually all points of view as valid.
Mao or Pol Pot could run as a democrat today and get 40% of the vote, as the media as no clue.
The Century of Self, to be sure.
A Brave New World ?
We have lost our moral bearings as a culture. They are still there, but way to many voters are have been indoctrinated into a choice between Socialism or Fascism.
Hitler was a “right wing fascist”, BAD.
Communist’s/Socialist’s were our allies that fought against Hitler, Good.
That’s the extent of their arguments.
Bush = Hitler
Bush = Republicans
Republicans = Bad.
Yea, no kidding. There are plenty of Freepers who seem to prefer to get bent over 100% of the time rather take the best option and continue to push forward with conservative principles. No wonder why we lose.
first off he is more conservative on social issues than romney is...and secondly this so called fatal flaw is the only angle we have to get vast number of morons to vote for us
THAT is the crux of it. Without the force of government behind it, the homosexual "civil rights" agenda would be dead in the water; the majority rejects it, otherwise government force wouldn't be called for.
In spite of what Obama says, America is a Christian nation; our bible defines marriage. Outlawing gay marriage is like outlawing unicorns in any case -- in vain. Allow businesses, churches, employers, the military, schools, landlords, all free people, to deal with two people of the same sex who pretend to be married, in our own civil ways. PERIOD. Take government out of it. PERIOD.
Government force now dictates to us how WE deal with unicorns. Cut it off, prune that government, and watch morality come snapping back as people were restored to being able to tell open homosexuals, "parade it somewhere else, thank you."
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.
The older I get, the more major an issue it appears to me because it is so wickedly destructive to our poor, heart-breakingly vulnerable youths! Compassion is a strength, a Christian strength. Really, I know that sounds sappy, but it's just sad, sorry sin that wears souls down, and these young kids are in such ugly waters, socially. The gay agenda seeks to promote it to our youths! In grade school, no less, and even younger. Jesus had pretty harsh words for those who would lead little ones astray. Vote FOR that in a Republican candidate? In order to vote "against" it in the Democrat?
When rocks float.
If Rand Paul stands for prohibiting any government force that would punish a baker, photographer, hall, entertainer, church, florist, whatever, for turning down a gay client, if Rand Paul stands for ENDING any government force that would punish a business for refusing to extend spousal benefits to "married" gays, if Rand Paul stands for ENDING that kind of government force, he's on the same side of the river as I am.
How has gay marriage affected you directly?
Boom - right from the gate, we have nobody to vote for if Cruz isn't in it.
Let me be CRUEL here.....Rand Paul will NEVER EVER be President UNLESS the person that runs against him is even SHORTER than he is.
Actually I am liking Scott Walker and what he has accomplished better than I like Cruz, and I DO like Cruz, but Walker has really done great things in Wisconsin.
Rand is racist in this article? No, but I am sick of these guys who are capitulating before the first shot is fired. Rand seems to be one. Bob
Right. Cruz is MY candidate right now for 2016. All the issues that Rand is good on, Ted is right there with him. Why NOT Cruz? Bob
I'd be happy to vote for Paul. Or for Cruz. Or for Walker, Jindal, or Kasich. Or for Palin or Daniels if they get back into the fray. Or even for Rubio.
The only two who might possibly cause me to sit it out are Jeb or Christie.
Calling me a "RINO" for this stand has about as much effect as liberals calling me a racist. Water off a duck's back.
Not sure how you took my comments as applying to you as apparently they do not.
My point was concerning the many Freepers who rapidly dispose of a candidate who lacks 100% purity. My analogy would be a football game. Some Freepers think the winning strategy is going out on the field and throwing 50 yard passes on every play. Clearly, you will never a game that way. Sometimes we will have to take a candidate that only gets us a 5 yard gain and we must prepare for the next play.
The goal should be to continue to move the ball down the field on each play (election).
No way I meant that last comment to apply to you. Apologies...
Reagan didn't unite conservatives and libertarians, that is a complete reversal of the facts.
Ayn Rand despised Reagan, and the best election that the libertarians ever had, was running against Reagan in 1980.
As far as winning independents, Romney cleaned up with the independent vote and won it hugely.
INFOGRAPHIC: Obama Lost Independent Vote In Almost Every Swing State
The president only won the independent vote in one battleground state: North Carolina. Things looked very different for Obama in 2008, when independent voters came out in huge numbers to support him. Just before Election Day, the Wall Street Journal reported those polling numbers had hardly changed, with Romney overwhelmingly leading among independent voters across the country. Republican pollster Bill McInteruff told the Journal the Democrats were “really flirting with trouble if you’re losing independents by this margin.”
The left turned out every "body" they could find and independents had their normal...maybe slightly down...turnout.
But the nominally Republican vote didn't show up well.
Do you really think the zombie generation is engaged enough to discern the difference between liberty and fascism ?
As far as they are concerned “liberty” is a property of the “right” and the “right” is fascist (Hitler), Hitler was evil, therefore they reject the “right” as it is like Hitler.
You can’t argue with stupid, but this is what we are left to deal with.
The more “right” our candidates are the more evil they are.
It’s completely messed up, but it is the nature of our shallow thinking, pop and peer pressure culture.
We need to Lie.
Not flat out lie, but be less than honest.
We need to be “Perfectly Vague”.
The left’s vote was way down in 2012, Obama got millions of fewer votes, Rommey’s was up over 2008, Romney cleaned up with Independents, Reagan was hated by the libertarians.
How did libertarians vote in 2012?
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.