Rand Paul: GOP Must ‘Agree to Disagree’ on Social Issues in Order to Expand Party

Mediaite ^ | March 14th, 2014 | by Andrew Kirell

[PapaNew]

Rand Paul is no Socialist and he's a free market guy. If that breaks the pre-formed ID mold, so be it.

Small "l" libertarian simply means a lover of freedom. I also don't fit into that pre-formed ID mold. Nobody does. That's why we have states so people can vote and live in a state with like-minded people. As the name of this site says, we are a free republic (free to pursue our lives without centralized governmental power).

The federal government forcing their perversions on all of us is the big problem. Those who don't recognize that by thinking government done another way is the solution are unwittingly helping the Left.

[aimhigh]

social issues are not up to the president.

Seriously? Every liberal agenda item is a social issue.

[ansel12]

Small “l” libertarian simply means libertarian, and social liberalism, which leads to economic liberalism and opposes conservatism.

That is why this site is conservative, not libertarian.

[PapaNew]

As far as I'm concerned this site is about FREE and REPUBLIC. That's also what I'm about.

You're very careful to hide your views on what a "conservative " is.

What issues do you think the federal government should be trying to fix?

[ansel12]

This site is about free, and republic, that is why it is conservative and not libertarian.

Didn’t you read post 60?

[stanne]

Right. The liberals are correct on this?

You want to fight them in an arena no one belongs in, that they are using to heir advantage at the country’s expense, and in an arena tgat depends on the media, which the liberals rule, the republicans need to stay out of it

If they could win the country over on an anti abortion conservative culture campaign great but they’d half ass it the same way Romney did, who should’ve run on the yeah I’m not going to get 47%. That’s what dems do. Republicans wimp out. And because they don’t belong in there in the first place

How is a campaign for smaller government going to win on telling us how to be culturally

And find it in the constitution it’s not there

Anyone who wants to run on cultural issues from the right has to be willing to do a no holds barred anti abortion campaign. Pictures statistics birth control the works.

Otherwise sta

[SoConPubbie]

Small "l" libertarian simply means a lover of freedom. I also don't fit into that pre-formed ID mold. Nobody does. That's why we have states so people can vote and live in a state with like-minded people. As the name of this site says, we are a free republic (free to pursue our lives without centralized governmental power).

Reagan, the consummate small "l" Libertarian would Strenuously object and argue against your definition because it lacks an adherence to social issues.

Want proof, just look at Reagan's support for the Human Life Amendment to the Constitution he supported:

Writing forThe Human Life Review in 1983, as reprinted by National Review Online in 2004, President Ronald Reagan gave his take on life and federal action regarding it. He praised legislation prohibiting "the federal government from performing abortions or assisting those who do so, except to save the life of the mother."

He continued:

I have endorsed each of these measures, as well as the more difficult route of constitutional amendment, and I will give these initiatives my full support. Each of them, in different ways, attempts to reverse the tragic policy of abortion-on-demand imposed by the Supreme Court ten years ago. Each of them is a decisive way to affirm the sanctity of human life. [My emphasis.]

President Reagan admitted that an HLA Amendment would be difficult, perhaps beyond his reach. He might have been more reluctant to embrace the federalism on this issue endorsed by Thompson (and Romney) because of his own experiences therewith.

Your definition(And Rand Paul's Apparently) and the definition that apparently Ronald Reagan used, and he was a big proponent of being a small "l" Libertarian as even a cursory examination of his writings will prove, is apparently miles apart.

[ansel12]

Reagan wasn’t a libertarian, he called himself conservative, and he was.

[Theophilus]

Im not not gonna “festoon” guys at war with God with my vote. It wouldn’t be prudent.

[PapaNew]

States don’t make the laws that I just brought up on abortion, marriage and immigration and employment at the federal level.

That's my point. Constitutionally, the feds have NO authority to interfere with abortion, marriage or employment (except federal employment). Your enemy is not libertarian, its the excesses of federal government and those who support its excesses whether in its current form or in its revised form.

[PapaNew]

ansel12 has a whole bunch of definitions that make no sense as far as I’m concerned. And he absolutely refuses to define what he claims to be - a conservative.

[SoConPubbie]

ansel12 has a whole bunch of definitions that make no sense as far as I’m concerned. And he absolutely refuses to define what he claims to be - a conservative.

I'm not talking about Ansel12 here, but your definition of what it means to be a small "l" libertarian stacked up against Reagan's definition and how he lived it.

Hint, yours doesn't match up with his.

[ansel12]

No, it is you that wants to create definitions to conceal libertarianism and your supporting it.

Libertarians are social liberals, that is the reason to never support one, for instance the feds have to have federal laws regarding gays, and gay marriage, and abortion, we don’t want libertarians who support leftist views on those issues being elected.

We sure don’t want to tolerate libertarians wanting to rewrite the GOP platform to reflect those left wing politics.

[PapaNew]

So in your book, a “lover of freedom” “lacks an adherence to social issues”. (I assume you mean lacks adherence to traditional American social values.) How so?

[PapaNew]

Hint, yours doesn't match up with his.

How so?

[ansel12]

See, that is someone just making up definitions, social liberals are not “lovers of freedom”.

[SoConPubbie]

That's my point. Constitutionally, the feds have NO authority to interfere with abortion, marriage or employment (except federal employment). Your enemy is not libertarian, its the excesses of federal government and those who support its excesses whether in its current form or in its revised form.

You've shown right there the real difference between conservatives and libertarians, whether small "l" or big "L".

Conservatives put their morals and their stated principles above everything else, including the current political/governance enfrastructure. They realize that both Abortion and Gay Marriage rise to the level of being protected against and will work for constitutional amendments (which by the way by the very word is constitutional and exactly why the founders put this process in place) to solve the issue.

Libertarians on the other hand, will point to the current political/governance infrastructure and will state it is a state's rights issue effectively proving that their statements to the contrary, they really do not believe in the social issues.

I have not seen one post by those supporting Rand Paul and his states rights position and claiming to be either social conservatives or Christians who support the necessary constitutional amendments.

When the States Rights supporters, including Rand Paul, support vocally and sincerely constitutional amendments for both Abortion (Human Rights Amendment) and Gay Marriage, I'll believe they are serious and sincere about being social conservatives, and even Christians.

Until then, they are hypocrites.

Your Christianity comes before your political persuasion or it does not mean squat.

[SoConPubbie]

How so?

Simple.

Reagan talked about/wrote about what small "l" libertarian meant. Reagan supported the Constitutional Amendment approach (Human Life Amendment) to solve the Abortion issue, and I sincerely believe he would have supported a Homosexual Marriage Constitutional Amendment if he were alive today.

You(and Rand), on the other hand (unless I am totally misunderstanding your position which is possible) want to solve the issue at the state level, as a states rights issue, completely ignoring the problem with that approach embodied in the 14th Amendment's "Equal Protection Clause".

[Mashood]

Rand Paul = Rodney King

[PapaNew]

Libertarians are social liberals,

I'm not a "social liberal" and you know it. At least be honest.

for instance the feds have to have federal laws regarding gays, and gay marriage, and abortion, we don’t want libertarians who support leftist views on those issues being elected.

The feds UNCONSTITUTIONALLY make those laws. Apparently you acquiesce to such federal governmental power. I do not. My fight is to give those things back to the states where they belong. If you think that the fight is just to get the right politicians in there so the government can do the wrong thing the right way, then you are delaying the inevitable.

I'm sure you'll construe what I'm saying to mean "I'm against conservatives" but that is also a dishonest statement. My ideal candidate is a Reagan or a Palin who knows the greatest threat we have is big government, but who also hold to traditional Christian values. The mistake is to unconstitutionally put these things into the hands of the federal government where they don't belong and where sooner or later they will be twisted and perverted as we see now.

Please tell me where our federal government who have unconstitutionally commandeered laws regarding traditional American values has advanced such values in the last 50-100 years?