Maybe I read it wrong.

“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 “I believe Roe v. Wade should be repealed.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.

How exciting.


I just have to add that I think Paul’s position on life is excellent. I love how he declares that he doesn’t just believe that life begins at conception, he knows it scientifically. I think that’s a perfect answer, and I like it. I just don’t understand how he can declare that the government is bound to protect life from the moment it begins, while simultaneously claiming that the government should leave everyone alone to do whatever they want with their bodies.

3 Responses to Maybe I read it wrong.

  1. “The only objective of Liberty is Life”>
    G K Chesterton

    “Unless we resolve this and understand that life is precious and we must protect life, we can’t protect liberty”
    Ron Paul

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
    Declaration of Independence (Thomas Jefferson)

    Chesterton, Paul, and Jefferson, I believe, are making a declaration of first principles, Unalienable Rights… God given – Life and Liberty.

    From this point forward, in the governance of men, social forces are just that, forces that wax and wane according to the will and desires and priorities of the governed. The priorities are no small thing. It may well be, for example, that Paul and others (myself) think drugs are a blight on the body and soul of the individual and society but the state should have little say in the matter not because it should remain singularly callous but because the cost incurred and the result realized, are worse than the problem. Such things may be decided by the people and their representatives, and society. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit Of Happiness, may not.

  2. April, I don’t think it’s intellectually dishonest at all. If life begins at conception, abortion is murder of the baby, which should be against the law. Thinking the mom can do anything she wants with/to her body doesn’t affect that. Perhaps that’s how Paul sees it. It’s not just about the mom, as there is another life involved. Marco Rubio made this point very well here.

  3. I’m making this comment everywhere I can because it can not be said enough.

    A reply by Santorum in an
    interview by Greta Van Susteren on 2/21/2012.

    The hypocrisy in this case, I think, is pretty obvious and we’re going to stand up and articulate what the truth is, which is, in this case, as in many cases, my personal feelings and personal moral judgments are not those that are going to be reflected in public law, nor should they all the time. Not everything that is immoral in this country should be illegal or should be within the governance of the federal or state government, or any government. {about the 5:00 mark)

Your Turn!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s