Who Should 'Get Out of the Social Issues' and Where?

March 19, 2014 - 10:07 AM

Rand Paul was asked recently if he believed the Republican Party should "get out of the social issues," and he responded, "I think it's partly that," but went on to talk about privacy issues that the youth are more concerned about.  When pressed further, he said, "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."

Is Rand Paul aware that there are many Republicans already under "the big tent" who are pro-abortion and many who are pro-gay-marriage?  They have found a place in the Republican Party mostly because the Democratic Party has completely left them.

The problem arises when said group of newcomers hope to change the platform of the party to accommodate them. If you join and change the party, many will leave, and that doesn't grow the party, does it?

But the central question I'd like to ask is, "When will the Democratic Party get out of the social issues?"

The Democratic Party stands for abortion-on-demand and their last President's DNA made a blue dress a keepsake for a young intern.  The campaign of 2012 hinged on whether or not grad school coeds would get their birth control paid for by taxpayers.  Obamacare's main selling point for the youth is free birth control, and free abortions, especially if you qualify for expanded Medicaid.  Obama has "evolved" on gay marriage, and in a very short amount of time, we now have a demand that transgenders be allowed in the military, you know, because, baby, they were born that way.

My point is, that it is central to the Democratic Party's campaign tactics to push their version of social issues to the forefront and stand on them without waiver until they win because the Republicans, under current leadership, almost never defend what they claim to be for: pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, fiscal and personal responsibility and so on.

Yet the Republicans can't seem to find out if there is a Democrat alive who is against gay marriage, against abortion, or both, and will leave the party over it.

The left has made it clear that not only are they for the most liberal interpretation of free choice, that is, until Gosnell made the images too much to take, but also that the traditional family unit is to be ostracized and accused of bigotry.  But in addition, they have used the power of taxation and federal benefits to cement those "values" into our governmental system.

There is no reason why the Republican Party cannot make the case that social issues are fiscal issues, and in doing so, can show that the Democratic Party is not about to give up their social issues and rob you of your hard-earned money to support an increasingly immoral society.

If the youth, as Paul says, do not want to be, "festooned" by traditional values, there is a place for them in the Republican Party, but they cannot expect the party to change its overall view that a moral society offers the greatest freedom and liberty for all.  In short, they themselves would have to "get out of the social issues," and focus on the fiscal issues in order to climb aboard.

Any other arrangement institutionalizes intra-party fighting.

When Lincoln addressed the immorality of slavery, "he denounced members of the Democratic Party for backing a law that 'assumes there can be moral right in the enslaving of one man by another.'"  Now the Democratic Party claims a moral right in the cavalier promotion of taxpayer funded abortion-on-demand, as well as a moral right in the federal government dictating state-controlled issues like the definition of marriage. In both instances, higher and higher taxation in order to continue their very liberal social policies.

As Mark Levin has oft repeated, "Big, bloated government is immoral."  Would the youth, if not "festooned" by traditional social issues, fight against the securing of public moneys to pay for the left's most liberal interpretation of those issues?  If so, both traditional conservatives and newcomers have a common fight.

So, say what you will about the social issues and who is or who isn't supposed to talk about them, the party whose main focus is on what you can get from your government, is staying their course of promoting immorality, and paying for it out of your pocket.