Ron Paul: Social Issues a "Loser" in This Election

Congressman Paul is currently my second choice for the presidency behind Rick Santorum. But I may have to re-evaluate that based on the fact that it doesn't appear that the issues that are most important to me are all that important to him:

Yesterday on CNN’s State of the Union, Candy Crowley asked Ron Paul about the new focus in national politics on social issues and whether a national debate focusing on them would help Republicans in November. Paul called it a “losing position,” but neglects to mention that he has campaigned on his opposition to abortion at least since the Ames straw poll, an omission caught by CNS News:

“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. The founders were very clear that problems like this, if there needs to be legislation of sorts, the state has the right to write the legislation that they so choose. And that solves a lot of our problems.”

Back on Dec. 19, Paul signed the “Personhood Pledge” published by PersonhoodUSA. This pledge says in part: “I stand with President Ronald Reagan in supporting ‘the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death,’ and with the Republican Party platform in affirming that I ‘support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children.”

The current context of the debate on social issues hinges on federal mandates, a point which Paul acknowledges in this interview. Why would that be a loser? It’s practically the entire context of his campaign — reducing the power of federal government to issue the kind of mandates like the HHS mandate for employers to essentially provide free contraception to their employees. Tying that in with social issues should make the argument stronger, at least if it’s handled correctly.

Matt Lewis argues that not only is Paul wrong, but history shows that Republicans do well when social issues are in play...

[More]

(emphasis added)

I keep hearing from Dr. Paul's supporters that he is the "REAL" Catholic choice in this race. But it sounds to me as if the issues of utmost importance to faithful Catholics in this election are not going to receive the attention they deserve from the so-called "REAL" Catholic choice. He's forfeited the field of play, since it is the LEFT who is pushing these issues at the federal level, and the social conservative pushback is merely a reaction to the federalizing of the culture wars. And citing the 10th Amendment is simply NOT going to be a successful response to the next leftist incursion in this ongoing battle for the soul of America.

As I am often asked why I support Rick Santorum over Ron Paul, especially since I do have some major disagreements with Santorum's stance on foreign policy, torture, immigration, etc., allow me to just go ahead and state here for the record why I have backed Santorum. Winning this blasted culture war is what animates me to get involved in politics in the first place. I detest politics, but feel compelled to get involved because I see the daily attacks on my values by people who consider me and mine to be backwards and brainwashed. This culture war is one of attrition that can be won, IF and only IF we are willing to fight it.

On the one hand, Ron Paul has just stated that he doesn't have the stomach for the fight. Rick Santorum, on the other hand, for all his flaws, appears willing to take the fight to the left. In this race, I am backing the guy who will be a warrior for the preservation of what's worth preserving and for restoring what needs to be restored. The guy who just said the fight's already lost need not apply.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Social Conservatism a Winning Formula for GOP

Irony: Group Pushing for Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell Warns GOP Leadership to Stay Away from Social Issues

Same-sex-issues-obsessed group calling itself GOP Proud wants to use the federal government to push its social agenda while telling the Republican leadership to avoid social issues.

Not surprisingly, some of the more libertarian (libertine) elements of the Tea Party movement have joined them.

Jim DeMint: “You Can’t Be a Fiscal Conservative and Not Be a Social Conservative” [UPDATED]

Damn straight!

Not surprisingly, the God-hating, same-sex "marriage" advocating, pro-abort libertarian over at HotAir doesn't like it one bit.


UPDATE
At The American Catholic, my friend Paul Zummo echoes Sen. DeMint's and my acknowledgement that "conservatism" can't be compartmentalized and still be "conservative":

Naturally this bothers AllahPundit and some of the other shrieking libertarians at Hot Air, but DeMint is of course right.

First of all, anyone who has paid any amount of attention to politics over the past couple of decades should recognize that the people who label themselves fiscally conservative and socially moderate or liberal – let’s call them cafeteria conservatives – are the first people to betray the cause of limited government on economic issues. A prime example of this is Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger...

[...]

John Hawkins did a bit of analysis that shows a fairly strong correlation between fiscal and social conservatism. Though the measuring device is a bit crude, it shows that when it comes to economic issues, social conservatives are the most reliable votes in favor of fiscal conservatism.

Second, it is simply illogical to divorce economic and social issues. As I’ve said in the past a conservatism that disregards social conservatism simply isn’t conservatism. If one approaches conservatism more as a general political philosophy rather than a political ideology, one realizes that social and cultural issues are the central core of conservatism. Conservatism is at root a belief in tradition, among other general beliefs... for the most part conservatism is about preserving the social order. If you eliminate social issues from the conservative creed, you’re left with nothing of substance.

Finally, I think that there is great misunderstanding as to what social conservatism entails, especially as it relates to the concept of limited government. The notion that social conservatives want the heavy had of government involved in all personal matters is a bit of a strawman caricature.

[More]

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
For All You Atheist Libertarian Types ...

HotAir's Strange Assessment of the Virginia GOP Electoral Juggernaut [UPDATED]

Pot ... Kettle

For All You Atheist Libertarian Types ...

... who are lamenting over the notion that social conservatives have allegedly "hijacked" what you see as "your" Tea Party movement, let's just get a couple of things straight:

(1) Social conservatives (of which I am one) were part of the Tea Party movement (of which I am not) from the very beginning, providing much, if not most, of the energy behind the movement (social conservatives don't tend to compartmentalize their conservatism as do, say, so-called "fiscally conservative/socially liberal" types - in fact, social conservatives tend to be more consistently fiscally conservative than the self-described fiscal conservatives).

(2) Thousands of social conservative activists getting together in church basements around the country to organize in support of families, marriage, decent schools, and the right to life - THAT's a "movement". You and a couple of your stoner buddies getting together in your mom's basement to smoke pot, view porn, and bitch about the government - NOT a "movement".

Joe Hargrave on "Catholic Distributarianism"

Definitely read this very interesting and enlightening post by Joe Hargrave on whether Distributism and libertarianism are compatible. Here's an excerpt:

... Though I will be branded by some as a heretic for arguing this, the labor theory of property developed by Locke and accepted by most libertarians is not essentially different than Leo’s own treatment of property in Rerum Novarum. Let us compare, bearing in mind that they don’t proceed in exactly the same manner, but make all of the same points in their arguments...

(Hat tip: The American Catholic)

HotAir's Strange Assessment of the Virginia GOP Electoral Juggernaut [UPDATED]

Leave it to a God-hating, anti-Catholic, self-described "squishy on abortion" libertine like "Allahpundit" to view the results of yesterday's elections and come away with this ludicrous reality-impaired assessment:

One interesting footnote to this race in case you haven’t followed it is that Deeds did his level best to paint the Republican as a hard-right culture warrior while McDonnell, wisely, ran on jobs. Just one more bit of evidence that fiscal conservatism, not social conservatism, is the GOP’s path going forward.

Please.

Yes, Governor-elect Bob McDonnell is a fiscal conservative and certainly ran as one during his campaign. But he's also a hard-core social conservative, too, and virtually everybody in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and anyone outside of Virginia who was paying attention to the race, knows it. McDonnell's opponent, Creigh Deeds, and Deeds' cheerleading section at The Washington Post saw to that, making McDonnell's social conservatism - highlighting a dissertation McDonnell wrote in 1989 as a 34-year-old grad student that was critical of mothers working outside the home, argued for preserving the “traditional family” structure, and concluded that “every level of government should statutorily and procedurally prefer married couples over cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators” - one of the most prominent issues in the campaign. McDonnell didn't need to highlight his social conservative bona fides (although his views on those issues are every bit as prominently displayed on his campaign website as are his fiscal and economic policy positions) because his opponent was doing that for him.

In addition, Attorney General-elect Ken Cuccinelli is also a hard-core social conservative. And everybody in Virginia knows that, as well.

That fact didn't seem to hurt either McDonnell or Cuccinelli - both devout pro-life Catholics - one bit (and certainly helped them among the significant base of voters for whom such issues are of primary importance), as evidenced by their winning their races by over 15 percentage points each.

If anything, yesterday's results show that the key for the GOP to remain unified and win elections is to run as BOTH a fiscally AND a socially conservative party.

And just in case it wasn't completely obvious that social/cultural issues aren't losing issues, check out the results of the gay marriage referendum in Maine. Voters in Maine - that's MAINE, mind you; home to Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe - voted yesterday to repeal the state's recently enacted same-sex "marriage" law.

Yeah, "Allahpundit", whatever.


UPDATE
Deal Hudson highlights the genuine social conservative bona fides of yesterday's electoral victors:

... It's important, as well, that the GOP notes the kind of candidates who won in New Jersey and Virginia -- pro-life, pro-family, and aligned with religious conservative groups, both Catholic and Evangelical.

Bob McDonnell, the new governor of Virgina, is a bona fide religious conservative among Republicans, and a practicing Catholic who attended Notre Dame and who maintains strong ties to Evangelicals as a result of his Master's degree from Regent University.

The attempt of his Democratic opponent, Creigh Deeds, to smear McDonnell based upon his Regent's Master's thesis not only fell flat, it turned around and bit Deeds.

The new Virginia attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, has been a Catholic pro-life GOP activist in northern Virginia for many years. His election is the product of Cuccinelli's decades-long effort of building a religious conservative coalition to back his candidacy. That coalition undoubtedly helped both McDonnell and Bill Bolling, the new Lieutenant Governor.

[More]

UPDATE #2
Bill Donohue of The Catholic Leagues says that last night was a "Big Night for Catholic Values".


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Virginia Democrat Stakes Gubernatorial Campaign on Killing Babies [UPDATED]

Pot ... Kettle

Narcotics-Induced Libertarian Quote of the Day

My pointing out at Feddie's blog that George Will's description of "conservatism" is NOT, in fact, conservatism, but "classical liberalism" or even "libertarianism", elicited this well-reasoned response:

In case this fact is lost on you Jay Anderson,”Classical liberalism” or “libertarianism” **WAS** true conservatism before it was bastardized by American religious zealots. The only difference between these modern religious conservatives (like YOU, Jay) and modern liberals is the type of society that they wish to FORCE on the rest of us through Federal Gov’t COERCION.

Hey “conservatives”, please point me to the EXACT clause in the US Constitution that gives the Federal Gov’t authority to regulate marijuana that is grown, sold and consumed INSIDE of the state of California. HINT: you’ll find your reason right beside the imaginary “penumbras” cited in Roe vs. Wade.

My Comments:
I suppose there's no need to ask what "JC" is smoking.

Classical liberalism WAS true conservatism? So what was "classical conservatism"? Next these libertarian dopeheads will be claiming that classical squares were circles.

And, in case the point was lost on you, scratch a libertarian, find an anti-Christian bigot.