Ron Paul on Social Conservatism: 'I Think It's a Losing Position'

CNS News ^

[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.

[apoliticalone]

“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.

[RKBA Democrat]

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.

[Bikkuri]

Talk about a silent ZoT, hehehe...

[Jim Noble]

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.

[darrellmaurina]

21 posted on Monday, February 20, 2012 2:38:16 PM by Kansas58: “You do not understand politics. Republicans WIN when we are on the correct side of the social issues. Moderates and Liberals always lose.”

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.

[darrellmaurina]

49 posted on Monday, February 20, 2012 3:58:55 PM by Diggity: “He is 100% right. The problem is too much government. That should be the only issue.”

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.

[darrellmaurina]

75 posted on Monday, February 20, 2012 5:47:25 PM by CainConservative: “Rupert Murdoch also tweets that Rick Santorum’s rise in polls shows ‘Values do count in America.’”

Wow.

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?

[lentulusgracchus]

(Article, quoting Ron Paul) "We're not supposed to nationalize these problems."

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.

[I see my hands]

The solution to social problems lies in providing the opportunity for people to create wealth.

[lentulusgracchus]

You err. The solution to "social problems" is more complicated, when the "problems" are people who come to your country to settle, and who do not admit the authority of your People or their laws, and who fully intend to live under their own laws, to the diminishment of yours and to the manifest injury of your People.

When it's about authority, power, sovereignty and control, no amount of money is going to sweeten that into a Sunday-school picnic.

[I see my hands]

Correct, Earth will never be Eden but if your efforts are to legislate sin away then people will continue to sin away. They best we can do is the best we can do and that happens when people have opportunity and can plan for a moral life. People with a vested interest in being the best they can be will make efforts in that direction and be less inclined to screw up their chances.

[Smokin' Joe]

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 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.

[Carry_Okie]

It’s politically true only so long as the economic and libertarian rationale for social conservatism is not communicated. Ron Paul should know better.

[Carry_Okie]

Libertarianism _could_ work if we didn’t use government to alleviate the consequences for behavior.

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.

[Carry_Okie]

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.

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?

[MrB]

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)

[God'sgrrl]

Ron who?

[af_vet_rr]

I couldn’t agree more, and it is both Rs and Ds that are guilty. States rights used to be a core conservative belief. No child left behind still ring a bell?

Agree completely - Don't see any Republican candidates or legislators who care about getting rid of NCLB.

It's very disappointing when both parties buy into this idea that more things should be handled at the federal level. Within the last 12 years, we had a Republican President and Republican Congress, and all that meant was the federal government not only got more expensive, but it got more powerful.

[prairiebreeze]

And this is a prime example of why Ron Paul will never be POTUS.

[Carry_Okie]

You have to be careful with THAT line of thought as well.

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 State’s 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.