Rand Paul: Republicans must agree to disagree on social issues in order to grow the party

posted at 3:21 pm on March 14, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via WaPo, compare and contrast. Here’s Mitch Daniels four years ago:

Beyond the debt and the deficit, in Daniels’s telling, all other issues fade to comparative insignificance. He’s an agnostic on the science of global warming but says his views don’t matter. “I don’t know if the CO2 zealots are right,” he said. “But I don’t care, because we can’t afford to do what they want to do. Unless you want to go broke, in which case the world isn’t going to be any greener. Poor nations are never green.”

And then, he says, the next president, whoever he is, “would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. We’re going to just have to agree to get along for a little while,” until the economic issues are resolved. Daniels is pro-life himself, and he gets high marks from conservative religious groups in his state.

Lots of righties took that as a sign that social conservatism would be a conspicuously low priority for President Daniels. Now here’s Rand Paul last week:

[Q:] Right. But it seems what they’re saying is that the Republican Party should stay out of issues like gay marriage.

[A:] 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.

Daniels wasn’t calling a truce for electoral reasons, and he wasn’t calling it on behalf of the GOP specifically. Both parties would have no choice but to place social issues on the policy backburner, he argued, because dealing with the national debt before it reached critical mass would consume political energies. (In a sane world, perhaps, but alas, not in this one.) Paul really is making an explicit electoral argument, though. If you want to win, you’d better make room for people who support gay marriage. That’s more radical than Daniels’s position because Daniels’s truce in theory would lift once the country had been set on a more sustainable fiscal course. Paul’s truce wouldn’t. In order to steer the party back towards social conservatism, you’d need to show him that doing so would grow the GOP faster than a more pluralistic approach to social policy would. Good luck convincing a libertarian of that.

True blue social cons like Huckabee and Santorum will have field day with this next year. Social conservatives like Rubio or Ted Cruz, whose political brand is broader-spectrum conservatism and who themselves take a federalist approach to gay marriage, will tread more lightly. Paul’s got some cover on it from the fact that he’s personally pro-life and supports traditional marriage, but then again so was Daniels and that didn’t help him much. I think it all depends on which issues, specifically, he thinks there’s room for disagreement on and how much room there is. Gay marriage isn’t abortion; marijuana legalization isn’t gun rights. As long as Paul holds the line on the party’s truest cultural litmus tests, he’ll probably get some slack on the rest. But that’s what I mean in asking how much room there is: What would it mean to “hold the line”? Would Paul be willing to choose a vice president who supports legalizing gay marriage and marijuana? What about one who’s pro-choice and supports an assault weapons ban? The problem with “truce” statements, especially in the context of making the tent bigger, is that it’s never clear how much bigger the pol in question would be willing to make it. We’ll find out next year.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

Rand Paul is 100% correct.
Either the GOP changes or dies.
I’m not averse to the latter.

Pelosi Schmelosi on March 15, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Here’s the paranoid bit.

In my opinion, the RNC and the powers that be have already selected the R Nominee

bluefox on March 15, 2014 at 1:20 PM

MJBrutus on March 15, 2014 at 2:23 PM

That is your perspective. I happen to think Romney was selected also and McCain before him. Why? In order to lose, so Jeb Bush has a clear path in 2016. Let’s wait and see how many R Candidates will be running, so they all but the selected Nominee can be trashed. Isn’t that what happened in 2012?

You don’t think the RNC & their money backers are going to let the people decide do you? Keep an eye on all of the fake 3rd party Candidates that will be on the ballots also.

“Paranoid” enough for you? LOL

bluefox on March 15, 2014 at 3:08 PM

I think Rand is speaking to supporters in his libertarian base as much as he’s speaking to social conservatives. Some libertarians will absolutely not support a candidate that has strong socially conservative views, those voters may have cost Cuccinelli the election in Virginia.

midgeorgian on March 15, 2014 at 3:10 PM

“Paranoid” enough for you? LOL

bluefox on March 15, 2014 at 3:08 PM

Clinical.

MJBrutus on March 15, 2014 at 3:16 PM

No, I am not a libertarian – I am ProLife, Pro Traditional marriage and anti-pot BUT believe mostly in the will of the American people.

BabysCatz on March 15, 2014 at 2:42 PM

I am all of those in my personal life but am libertarian. You don’t have to abandon values to be libertarian.

John the Libertarian on March 15, 2014 at 3:16 PM

Daniels was right four years ago, and for all the right reasons. Show me in the Constitution where it is written that abortion, gay marriage, and other social issues may be legislated. Roe v. Wade is not constitutional, nor is it unconstitutional, and thus should be left to the states or the individual as it was pre-1973.

ThePainfulTruth on March 15, 2014 at 4:11 PM

Daniels was right four years ago, and for all the right reasons. Show me in the Constitution where it is written that abortion, gay marriage, and other social issues may be legislated. Roe v. Wade is not constitutional, nor is it unconstitutional, and thus should be left to the states or the individual as it was pre-1973.

ThePainfulTruth on March 15, 2014 at 4:11 PM

Show me where in recent history where the courts and the democrats will not be legislating or forcing them onto the nation?

Thus Daniels was wrong, because you cannot unilaterally end the issue being taken through at the federal government.

Idiots like you are the problem and offer no solution.

astonerii on March 15, 2014 at 4:28 PM

It is the courts, not the electorate, pushing homosexual marriage.

In the 60′s, “everybody” thought the young would legalize marijuana in a decade or two. But the wave of newer voters didn’t turn out, then got married, started a career, and became more conservative. “Everybody” also knew the Equal Rights Amendment was inevitable. But conservatives like Schlafly fought back and won.

Rand Paul is too quick to put social issues on the block for votes. The answer isn’t Huckabee, who is a major liberal on things like Amnesty. Right now I like Cruz, but 2016 is a ways away. First… a victory in 2014!

DaMav on March 15, 2014 at 4:39 PM

FLASH: Rand Paul wins Northeast Republican Leadership Conference Presidential Straw Poll… Developing…

Resist We Much on March 15, 2014 at 6:07 PM

Daniels was right four years ago, and for all the right reasons. Show me in the Constitution where it is written that abortion, gay marriage, and other social issues may be legislated. Roe v. Wade is not constitutional, nor is it unconstitutional, and thus should be left to the states or the individual as it was pre-1973.

ThePainfulTruth on March 15, 2014 at 4:11 PM

Because of the 14th Amendment, the Federal Government became the guarantor of all rights in she Constitution — with a mandate to enforce them equally for all people.

Fast forward. Abortion: Can I, as a citizen of a state which has outlawed abortion, procure one via a telephone call to a doctor in a state which allows it? What if my state discovers I am having an abortion — what are their options, what are my options? Gay Marriage: Since gay marriage involves a civil contract made in one state, can another state decline to recognize said contract?

In the moment the effects of a law pass a state line, by the 14th Amendment the Government is bound to take an expansive view of the liberties states may confer.

Now, what about firearms? It’s the same kind of issue as those above. The classic example — California has a rule about semi-automatic weapons and removable magazines. If I transport a long arm legal in my state to another state where it is also legal, and in the act pass through California, what are my rights under the Constitution?

unclesmrgol on March 15, 2014 at 6:46 PM

Because of the 14th Amendment, the Federal Government became the guarantor of all rights in she Constitution — with a mandate to enforce them equally for all people.

unclesmrgol on March 15, 2014 at 6:46 PM

Yes, those in the Constitution.

Your other issues such as abortion and gay marriage are States rights to allow or not. You cross the State line you follow those State Statutes. On your phone call for an abortion to another State. A State does not regulate interstate commerce.

Firearms come under the 2nd Amendment a State should not be able to restrict.

Most issues we all have can be resolved by Federalism. If you don’t like one State move. If that doesn’t work maybe your ideas are unusual so to speak.

CW20 on March 15, 2014 at 7:41 PM

With all due respect to Aquabuddha devotees, my religion would take a dim view of putting budget considerations ahead of the lives of the unborn. I’ll even go so far as to say that I don’t care to be represented by someone who would consider doing so.

Knott Buyinit on March 15, 2014 at 8:38 PM

For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?

randy on March 15, 2014 at 9:04 PM

The tent needs to be bigger. Setting out membership rules if offputting to folks that don’t necessarily share that one item of belief. I’m agnostic, so I don’t care for some issues but that’s not a reason for exclusion. Independents matter, you know.

Nape-wa-ste on March 16, 2014 at 7:22 AM

randy on March 15, 2014 at 9:04 PM

I sold mine for a pack of gum. Never been happier :-)

MJBrutus on March 16, 2014 at 10:59 AM

Going back to try and talk about common sense, which the people who hate social conservatives refuse to accept, there is no big fiscal conservative, liberal social voting block that would vote GOP but for abortion and gay marriage. If there were, the dems would be fiscally conservative and the GOP would be fiscally conservative, because that’s where all the independent voters allegedly reside.

As neither party pursues fiscal conservative policies whatsoever, it completely disproves, in a factual way, the claim that fiscal conservatism with social liberalism is a winning combination.

To claim otherwise is about as dishonest as it gets. You can argue all day that huge swaths of voters will switch to GOP if we simply abandoned social conservatism, but the facts disprove your claim.

Bush won as a pro-lifer, the GOP has control of the house with a pro-life platform. The GOP is likely to capture the Senate with a pro-life platform, so the claim that abortion keeps the GOP from winning if factually disproven.

You purists who insist that everyone believe exactly as you believe and vote how you want them to are simply dishonest from your first assumptions. No facts support your cause. The facts go in the opposite direction.

And, again, as I argued much, much earlier, there has never been a candidate who was not socially conservative who stuck with fiscal conservatism. Name one. If Rand Paul does it he’ll be the first.

Social liberalism leads to some of the stupidest ideas out there, such as entitlement programs, which all start from the assumption that the gov’t has to take care of people, which is one of the foundations of social liberalism. Social liberalism is not free, which is another of the false assumptions made by those who hate social conservatives.

Absent social conservatives, the GOP would not have the house, Bush would not have won, Reagan likely wouldn’t have won (the Reagan democrats were mostly social conservatives, not fiscal conservatives), and the GOP would likely not even have the Senate seats it now has.

So, you are arguing about biting off your nose to spite your face. It is inane at best. Your self rightousness causes you to avoid all sense.

And, I note, you would revolt if social conservatives told you that we should give up on fiscal conservatism to win more elections – which is far more likely to be a winning coalition, as we are always told, blacks and hispanics are mostly socially conservative but fiscally liberal – so a pro life, anti-gay marriage party that is also for wealth redistribution and entitlements would garner far more votes from those groups than the opposite.

Monkeytoe on March 16, 2014 at 1:22 PM

CW20 on March 15, 2014 at 7:41 PM

My point is — no they are not State issues any more — the 14th Amendment to our Constitution makes them a federal issue.

Strangely, the States do apparently have a right to restrict firearms use — as the Supreme Court has told us by declining to take some cases on exactly that topic, in which private citizens accuse a State of curtailing their 2nd Amendment rights. States have varying rules against felons possessing firearms. California has the decade-old “bullet button” rule.

So your blanket 2nd Amendment defense falls flat.

With respect to gay marriage, what happens when two gays married in a state which allows such marriages moves into another state which does not allow them? I would recommend that you look at Loving v. Virginia for some framework on this topic. The state which has outlawed gay marriage does not have the right to not recognize this, as it was a binding contract made in another state — not to mention that the 14th again rears its head with the “equal protection”.

As for the abortion one, the conspiracy to commit murder would be recognized in only one of the two states — the state in which the woman resides; if the murder act takes place in another state, which state controls — the one in which the murder was contracted, or the one in which it was performed?

And if a fetus has a right to life in one state, why does it not in a nearby state? Given that the 14th Amendment differentiates between a “person born” and the more general “person” in its mandate for equal application of law, it seems that “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” must be uniformly applied among the States.

These are tough topics, and to dismiss them with a simple “states rights” argument is disingenuous. You can see just how disingenuous by examining the issue of slavery — in particular the slave status of a slave taken from a slave state into a free state. The Taney Court ruled — rightly — that a person’s property rights remained inviolate under interstate commerce — that his property did not suddenly become “not property”. That such an argument could succeed even in the absence of the 14th Amendment showed how false the concept of “states rights” was back then (the South had won the Civil War, but then proceeded to fire the first shot) and, by extension, are even more false today.

California’s separate firearms laws exist only by the courtesy of the Supreme Court.

unclesmrgol on March 16, 2014 at 2:24 PM

Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists was never law. It was a bloody letter…one, in fact, that was written for precisely the opposite reason for which it is cited today. Jefferson wrote it to assure the Danbury Baptists that the State would NOT involve itself in the Church.

Please review this and tell me where you find the ‘separation of church and state’:

‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’

The phrase ‘separation of church and state’ is not in the First Amendment. The Establishment Clause only prohibits the establishment of a national church. Massachusetts had a state church and religion until 1833.

While the phrase was contained in some of the writings of Madison and Jefferson and in Treaty of Tripoli’s Article 11 (it is not in the Arabic version of the treaty), the very first mention of a ‘wall of separation’ occurred in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, in 1878. It wasn’t mentioned again until a line of cases beginning in 1947 with Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).

In fact, feast your eyes upon this Supreme Court decision:

In Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892), the Supreme Court declared that Pennsylvania was founded as a “Christian nation.” The Court said:

“If we examine the constitutions of the various states, we find in them a constant recognition of religious obligations. Every Constitution of every one of the forty-four states contains language which, either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the wellbeing of the community.”

“There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. While because of a general recognition of this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Com., 11 Serg. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that, ‘Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania.”

“The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I in 1606, after reciting the application of certain parties for a charter, commenced the grant in these words:

“We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet government; DO, by these our Letters-Patents, graciously accept of, and agree to, their humble and well intended Desires.”

The fundamental orders of Connecticut, under which a provisional government was instituted in 1638-39, commence with this declaration:

“Forasmuch as it hath pleased the Allmighty God by the wise disposition of his diuyne pruidence so to Order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and vppon the River of Conectecotte and the Lands thereunto adioyneing; And well knowing where a people are gathered togather the word of God requires that to mayntayne the peace and vnion of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Gouerment established according to God, to order and dispose of the affayres of the people at all seasons as occation shall require; doe therefore assotiate and conioyne our selues to be as one Publike state or Comonwelth, and doe, for our selues and our Successors and such as shall be adioyned to vs att any tyme hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation togather, to mayntayne and presearue the liberty and purity of the gospell of our Lord Jesus weh we now prfesse, as also the disciplyne of the Churches, weh according to the truth of the said gospell is now practiced amongst us.”

In the charter of privileges granted by William Penn to the province of Pennsylvania, in 1701, it is recited:

“Because no People can be truly happy, though under the greatest Enjoyment of Civil Liberties, if abridged of the Freedom of their Consciences, as to their Religious Profession and Worship; And Almighty God being the only Lord of Conscience, Father of Lights and Spirits, and the Author as well as Object of all divine Knowledge, Faith, and Worship, who only doth enlighten the Minds, and persuade and convince the Understandings of People, I do hereby grant and declare.’

The Constitution of Illinois, 1870:

“We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations,” etc.

It may be only in the familiar requisition that all officers shall take an oath closing with the declaration, “so help me God.” It may be in clauses like that of the Constitution of Indiana, 1816, Art. XI, section 4: “The manner of administering an oath or affirmation shall be such as is most consistent with the conscience of the deponent, and shall be esteemed the most solemn appeal to God.”

In fact, between Everson in 1947 and Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), which invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of human evolution in the public schools, the Court decided Zorach v. Clauson, 343 US 306 (1952), which was actually cited in the radical Epperson case, and which explained:

“We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. We make room for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of man deem necessary. We sponsor an attitude on the part of government that shows no partiality to any one group and that lets each flourish according to the zeal of its adherents and the appeal of its dogma. When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.”

Now, this is the back story on Everson about which you have probably never heard:

Justice Hugo Black first recognised a “separation between church and state” in his decision, which he wrote for the majority, in Everson, supra. Black had been a member of and an attorney for the KKK. He was a rabid anti-Papist. His son said that he wrote the decision in Everson not because he wanted to keep the government out of religion, but, rather, to punish the Catholic Church. According to his son, Hugo Black, Jr., the elder Black believed that the Catholic Church took advantage of the poor, demanded allegiance to Rome over the United States, was too wealthy and benefited from tax-exempt status, among other things. Emerson was his way of getting back at the Catholic Church.

I agree that the state should not be involved in religion, but it is demonstrably wrong to claim that “America [was not] derived from Christianity or Judaism. Further, it is entirely inconsistent with the Founding Fathers’ intentions and principles to assert, maintain, and/or insist that citizens only be allowed to practise or reveal their faith in their homes or 11:00 on Sunday morning. In addition to being contrary to the meaning of the First Amendment, such a position would constitute a burden on the faithful that would, essentially, render their religious beliefs irrelevant…

‘Yes, Dr Smith, you can have a faith-based opposition to abortion when you are at home, the park, and at religious services, but at all other times since you are in the ‘public square,’ you must perform the procedure on women demanding them at any point in their pregnancies and for any reason.’

Resist We Much on March 16, 2014 at 4:25 PM

Dime IV on March 14, 2014 at 11:44 PM

I agree, though for me, amnesty is like the fire department rolling up and breaking out the cans of kerosene to throw on your burning house. It, like the runaway spending, *is* an immediate and existential threat.

Midas on March 16, 2014 at 4:36 PM

Republicans must agree to shrink the government in order not to shrink the party further.

After a life time as a Republican, I no longer consider myself a Republican because I believe in cutting the budget and balancing the budget. The Republicans don’t.

Over50 on March 16, 2014 at 5:41 PM

festooned“?

Sounds like a word Obama would use.

I’m for Cruz over Rand.

Paul’s amnesty squishiness should relegate him to Secretary of Energy, or the Interior, at best.

profitsbeard on March 16, 2014 at 7:05 PM

If I transport a long arm legal in my state to another state where it is also legal, and in the act pass through California, what are my rights under the Constitution?

unclesmrgol on March 15, 2014 at 6:46 PM

There is a federal law, signed by Reagan that protects you when you are merely transporting a weapon across state lines.

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/articles/2010/guide-to-the-interstate-transportation.aspx

claudius on March 16, 2014 at 7:12 PM

The Paulbots will destroy any chances Rand may have. Their Big Tent mentality is why Conservatives keep losing.

Haters hate…

trs on March 16, 2014 at 7:38 PM

If I transport a long arm legal in my state to another state where it is also legal, and in the act pass through California, what are my rights under the Constitution?

unclesmrgol on March 15, 2014 at 6:46 PM

There is a federal law, signed by Reagan that protects you when you are merely transporting a weapon across state lines.

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/articles/2010/guide-to-the-interstate-transportation.aspx

claudius on March 16, 2014 at 7:12 PM

Each State has their own laws as well as local jurisdictions, so Traveler Beware!!

From the link posted:

If in doubt, a traveler should carry firearms unloaded, locked in a case, and stored in an area (such as a trunk or attached toolbox) where they are inaccessible from a vehicle’s passenger compartment and not visible from outside the vehicle. Any ammunition should be stored in a separate locked container.

My take: As long as the firearm is useless to you, in other words.

But just in case, Contact each Attorny General of each State you may be driving thru and or each Local Law Enforcement Dept. etc.

Amazing isn’t it, that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been amended and we didn’t even know it.

So that’s the way the State takes away the Rights of the people.

bluefox on March 16, 2014 at 8:46 PM

[Matthew 16:26, Mark 8:36]

For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?

randy on March 15, 2014 at 9:04 PM

.
I sold mine for a pack of gum. Never been happier :-)

MJBrutus on March 16, 2014 at 10:59 AM

.
What does that say about you? … Satan would’ve gone much higher, than that.

Jesus bid highest of all, but you have to acknowledge (endorse?) it before it “takes effect”.

listens2glenn on March 16, 2014 at 8:49 PM

Okay, so scratch Rand Paul off the list of those I will vote for.

And I mean it this time. I will NOT compromise my beliefs one more time. Never again. I did it with $50 abortions Mitt, because of my fear of Obama. Some greedy libertine, aka. fiscal conservative social lib isn’t going to save us. Look how many who feel like me stayed home with Mitt as our nominee and he was even ‘saying’ the right things. I will stay home with them if this is the attitude of our nominee. I will not tell God to butt out of our lives so we can ‘win’ an election.

If the GOP wants me to sit down and shut up, then they can kiss my ass goodbye, along with my donations and my vote. Good luck! They’re going to need it.

pannw on March 16, 2014 at 10:04 PM

If “festooning” is to occur I’d prefer that my family and I not be festooned with the anal intercourse ideology and the host of perverse, abnormal, diseased and unhygienic practices linked to endorsement of homosexual behavior in the service of access to their political donations.

Mason on March 16, 2014 at 11:59 PM

What does that say about you? …

listens2glenn on March 16, 2014 at 8:49 PM

That I idea of souls and the commerce thereof to be comical, of course.

MJBrutus on March 17, 2014 at 7:01 AM

To claim otherwise is about as dishonest as it gets. You can argue all day that huge swaths of voters will switch to GOP if we simply abandoned social conservatism, but the facts disprove your claim.

Put another way, if the independents were all fiscally conservative and socially liberal, the GOP wouldn’t constantly abandon fiscal conservatism at every opportunity, as it now does. If the the votes are all in the fiscal conservative camp, why then does the GOP always refuse to cut spending (or even hold spending constant rather than increase it)? Why does the GOP cave on the debt ceiling? Why does the GOP cave on entitlement reform? Why does the GOP cave on unemployment extensions?

If the GOP thought there were tons of votes out there to earn by being fiscally conservative, the GOP would act fiscally conservative.

And so would the dems. the dems wouldn’t push its anti-math spend, spend, spend . . . tax, tax, tax agenda if the dems thought the independent votes were fiscally conservative.

The sad truth is, most voters do not understand economics or simple math and therefore think the Gov’t can keep spending and everything will be o.k. (which is an argument for another day – I’m against universal suffrage because the vast majority of people are too stupid to be trusted to vote).

As I said before, I’m not passionately socially conservative. I lean that way, but am not a single-issue voter on abortion, and frankly the only thing I care about re gay marriage is that it not be found to be a “right” under the Constitution, but instead by enacted (if it is) democratically through state legislatures.

But, having said that, I don’t want to drum social conservatives out of the GOP because, a) they make up a huge swath of the GOP’s base and b) as I’ve said before, I don’t trust political candidates who don’t take a social conservative position because such candidates, in my experience, always move left on fiscal issues. I don’t know of one example that stands the test of time of a “socially liberal / fiscally conservative” politician who remained steadfast in his fiscal conservatism in office (now, social conservatives are also pretty sad on this score, but the non-social conservatives tend to move left farther and faster, and a few social conservatives actually do stand steadfast). The closest thing out there for social liberals is probably Ron Paul, and he is a nut job.

This is because candidates who take social conservative stances are tempered by abuse from the left and the media over their social conservative positions, and therefore aren’t likely to be cowed into moving left on fiscal issues. Fiscally conservative / socially liberal candidates never build up that thick skin and tend to wilt under the first pressure they face to move left.

I just don’t think the facts are on the side of the social liberals that kicking social conservatives out of the GOP will result in electoral victories. Or, result in electoral victories that end with any kind of fiscal conservatism resulting. Sure, perhaps of the GOP moves left on every front, it might suddenly win in places it did not before. But what is the point of that?

Monkeytoe on March 17, 2014 at 7:59 AM

I just don’t think the facts are on the side of the social liberals that kicking social conservatives out of the GOP will result in electoral victories. Or, result in electoral victories that end with any kind of fiscal conservatism resulting. Sure, perhaps of the GOP moves left on every front, it might suddenly win in places it did not before. But what is the point of that?

Monkeytoe on March 17, 2014 at 7:59 AM

And, I understand that social liberals aren’t explicitly saying “kick social conservatives out of the GOP”, but it is the same affect.

If they are single-issue voters (i.e., a big swath of the religious right put abortion ahead of much else), then telling them the GOP won’t pursue social conservatism any longer is the same thing as kicking them out of the party. They aren’t going to vote for a socially liberal or “neutral” (same thing because what you are saying is that the GOP will not oppose the left’s desire to push their pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-whatever policies as far left a possible) party candidate. You are telling them their concerns are not only unimportant to the GOP, but will be actively ignored.

So, it just isn’t good strategy from a purely political standpoint. It is not going to “grow the party”, but instead will likely shrink the party. It is not going to result in a GOP that is more steadfast on fiscal conservatism, but will likely allow the party to move left on every front, including fiscal issues. the media/left will not start treating the GOP fairly because the main thrust of the media/left is Marxist wealth redistribution, they just use abortion / gay-marriage and whatever else as wedge issues. So, the media/left is just going to continue as it always has.

So, no benefits, lots of downside. Sure – for this particular politician or that particular politicians, such as Rand Paul, getting the GOP to decide to drop social conservatism helps him personally, as it helps him possibly win the nomination. It does not, however, help the party at all.

Now, there is a huge difference between saying “let’s drop social conservatism” and “in this particular election, let’s put social conservative issues on the back burner and focus on fiscal issues”. I’d be open to the latter, but not the former.

Monkeytoe on March 17, 2014 at 10:01 AM

I don’t adhere to the “Big Tent” philosophy. I absolutely will not–under any circumstances–vote for ANYONE who does not respect the right to life for the unborn. That’s as basis a right as it gets.

Additionally, I will not support any candidate who recognizes marriage in any form outside the union of one man and one woman.

Bob Davis on March 17, 2014 at 10:32 AM

I don’t adhere to the “Big Tent” philosophy.

Bob Davis on March 17, 2014 at 10:32 AM

The problem with a big-tent philosophy is that you still need some basic principals that everyone agrees on, otherwise you don’t have anything.

If the party represents every possible position on every possible issue – then what is it? What is the point of it?

Monkeytoe on March 17, 2014 at 10:57 AM

That is your perspective. I happen to think Romney was selected also and McCain before him. Why? In order to lose, so Jeb Bush has a clear path in 2016. Let’s wait and see how many R Candidates will be running, so they all but the selected Nominee can be trashed. Isn’t that what happened in 2012?
You don’t think the RNC & their money backers are going to let the people decide do you? Keep an eye on all of the fake 3rd party Candidates that will be on the ballots also.
“Paranoid” enough for you? LOL
bluefox on March 15, 2014 at 3:08 PM

How about this for conspiracy ala 2012: hey mr Santorum, I see you have a lot of campaign debt. If you drop out now, I will pay it off

Brock Robamney on March 17, 2014 at 12:36 PM

You can not separate social and fiscal issue as they are intimately intertwined. Immoral people act immorally, i.e. they are irresponsible in everything. If you try to lay aside the social issues, then you will fail on the fiscal side. We will be ruled by someone’s morality or lack of it. The only choice that remains to you is whose will rule you. So far, it goes to the libertines.

Libertarianism is an impossibility in the face of immorality. What Libertarians push is not Libertarianism, but Libertinism and that, like socialism, has always failed as a ruling philosophy.

Quartermaster on March 17, 2014 at 6:49 PM

Quartermaster on March 17, 2014 at 6:49 PM

.
While I was reading your comment, it “dawned on me” that fiscal issues are just another ‘sub-issue’ of morality. Government waste of our tax dollars is a waste of other people’s productivity.
That’s theft. The fact that government did it, doesn’t make it okay.

If it’s not wrong on the basis of immorality, then on what basis is it wrong … at ALL … period ?
.
If it IS wrong on the basis of being immoral, then why shouldn’t “government mandated, societal acceptance of homosexuality, as a valid, legitimate, alternate state of ‘normal’” (same-sex marriage) be considered WRONG, on the basis of being immoral ? … Why shouldn’t “abortion on demand” be considered WRONG on the basis of being immoral ?

listens2glenn on March 18, 2014 at 2:37 AM

You can not separate social and fiscal issue as they are intimately intertwined.

Quartermaster on March 17, 2014 at 6:49 PM

Already did so long ago and it’s been a tremendous success. You should try it.

John the Libertarian on March 18, 2014 at 2:39 AM

Already did so long ago and it’s been a tremendous success. You should try it.

John the Libertarian on March 18, 2014 at 2:39 AM

So silly.

If you can get the gov’t out of the abortion business, our of the business of paying for illegitimate children, out of the education business, out of the business of paying for addicts health care and maintenance, out of the business of caring for the poor.

I would agree on completely renouncing ANY morality from governance, if we could do so. But, as long as the federal gov’t is sticking its nose into everything and paying the bills of things I disagree with morally, morality si part of the equation.

What you are really arguing for is social conservatives separating the issue while everyone else continues to pursue their version of morality through gov’t enforcement (i.e., gov’t paying for abortions, gov’t “taking care” of people, etc.).

Your silly self-righteousness aside, you are simply wrong on the facts. The claim that gov’t is at all separated from morality is ridiculous. Perhaps in some fictitious world of the future we can have a completely neutral gov’t that takes no position on any moral issue and allows its people to make those decisions and accept the consequences of those decisions, again with no help from the gov’t. Until then, morality is part of politics.

Monkeytoe on March 18, 2014 at 10:43 AM

Your silly self-righteousness aside, you are simply wrong on the facts. The claim that gov’t is at all separated from morality is ridiculous. Perhaps in some fictitious world of the future we can have a completely neutral gov’t that takes no position on any moral issue and allows its people to make those decisions and accept the consequences of those decisions, again with no help from the gov’t. Until then, morality is part of politics.

Monkeytoe on March 18, 2014 at 10:43 AM

Put another way, if drug addicts were allowed to shrivel away and die with no medical care or other gov’t assistance, if baby mamas were not given WIC and Section 8, and HEAP, if gov’t schools refrained from trying to teach children that homosexuality is right and proper, if gov’t stopped giving money to Planned Parenthood and other abortion mills, I would agree to forego social conservatism in politics. Because until that day, gov’t has taken a moral position on these issues and thus, until that day, it is all fair game in politics.

As another example, the only argument for amnesty is a moral argument, that somehow we owe illegal aliens legal residency or citizenship out of “fairness” or out of human kindness to “help them come out of the shadows.” There is no non-moral argument – no fiscal or other argument – that lends support to amnesty.

Or, during every election cycle, the left wants to increase spending and taxing and offers as support a moral obligation to help the poor.

So, by asking social conservatives to stop arguing morality, you are essentially asking one side of a debate to lay down its arms.

Monkeytoe on March 18, 2014 at 10:53 AM

If the Republican Party gives up on social values then I am walking. Notice how the Liberals haven’t stopped fighting for their social values, but have instead re-branded their message and values to become somehow “moral”?.. And just why should anyone stay with the Republican Party anymore? What exactly do they stand for and why not get it from the Democrats instead?

SGinNC on March 18, 2014 at 12:19 PM

You can not separate social and fiscal issue as they are intimately intertwined.

Quartermaster on March 17, 2014 at 6:49 PM

.
Already did so long ago and it’s been a tremendous success. You should try it.

John the Libertarian on March 18, 2014 at 2:39 AM

.
HEY JOHN’ ! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

listens2glenn on March 18, 2014 at 6:29 PM

Damn it . . . . . . . . . hit the wrong button.

Continuing :
.

John the Libertarian on March 18, 2014 at 2:39 AM

.
HEY JOHN’ ! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

listens2glenn on March 18, 2014 at 6:29 PM

.
What’s wrong with government high taxes and wasteful spending ?
.
If it’s NOT “immoral”, then there’s nothing wrong with it.

listens2glenn on March 18, 2014 at 6:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5