“To summarize my views–I believe the federal government has a role to play,” said Paul. “I believe Roe v. Wade should be repealed. I believe federal law should declare that life begins at conception. And I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence.”
So I wonder how this plays with the Paulistas, as Mark Levin calls them. I know some Paulistas, and they’re some very, ah, interesting people. Socially liberal, vegan doomsday preppers — the kind of folk that believe that all drugs should be legal, abortion is a woman’s own business, and anyone should be able to do anything they want in their own home, regardless of how depraved it may be.
Paul’s kind of riding the fence on the social issue question. On the one hand, he says that he unequivocally believes – knows — that life begins at conception and that federal law should declare such. And then, in almost the same breath, he condemns conservatives for championing social issues, saying it’s a losing strategy and that government shouldn’t attempt to control people’s social lives.
How does that work, exactly? How can he claim he would repeal Roe v. Wade while haughtily declaring that social conservatism is threatening to people’s civil liberties? He may view these issues as separate, but the pro-abortion movement does not. Apparently, the right to kill one’s unborn child is a universal human right, and even thinking about taking it away is tantamount to enslaving women’s bodies and souls. Roe v. Wade assumed the right to privacy extended to the very personal decision to commit infanticide, and for someone to claim supremacy on civil liberties and then attempt to appeal to the pro-life crowd just seems a little, I don’t know, intellectually dishonest.
I don’t think that social conservatism is a losing issue, because I think that people are longing for someone who actually believes in something, who is willing to stand for something. I think that’s why Santorum is doing as well as he is with people from all walks of life. Romney believes in whatever you want him to believe in, at least outwardly. Newt is — he’s just Newt. Obama is a moral relativist, and while that’s liberating for awhile, it undermines the fabric of society.
Do I think Santorum is “electable” on a national scale? I don’t know. I think that fifty years ago, he would have been, but I’m not sure we can regain our social conscience so quickly. While many people desire a candidate with clearly defined stances on important issues, I’m not sure the country as a whole is ready for a grown-up in charge. On the other hand, at least the Left would have someone to demonize, and they’d get to pull out their “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” bumper stickers and slap ‘em on their Priuses.