The Washington Post is reporting that Rand Paul is calling for conservatives to compromise on moral issues:
"I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues," Paul told vocativ.com. "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."
What’s a “social issue”? By describing killing unborn babies and legalizing same-sex marriage as “social issues,” he is purposely obscuring the issues, as liberals have done for decades. These aren’t social issues anymore than slavery is a social issue. They are moral issues.
Judges and elected representatives no longer have a basis for morality. Why is anything right or wrong? No one can say.
True social issues are what to wear at beach, where to dine out on Friday night, what movie to see, and where to go on vacation.
Can you imagine a talked-about presidential candidate in the 1950s saying that in order to increase the viability of a political party that opposition to civil rights needs to be toned down, that we need to agree to disagree on the issue in order to grow the party?
Why is it that leaders in the Republican Party seem always to argue that conservatives need to compromise their views? Why doesn’t Paul tell pro-abortionists and supporters of same-sex marriage to agree to disagree on these two issues and join with those who oppose killing unborn babies and people of the same sex marrying?
Rand and others are looking at poll numbers. A majority of young people support same-sex marriage. I suspect that a majority of young people and other groups like government welfare programs. Talk to college students about what they want. They want more government spending for their education.
Talk to the 47 million people who don’t pay taxes and the tens of millions of people who are on food stamps.
Why is it that libertarian types don’t call for a compromise on economic issues when a majority of voters obviously like many aspects of the welfare state?
Economic conservatives have an uphill battle fighting the entrenched welfare state. They don’t give into the majority by giving up their fiscal free market principles in order to grow the party. The people need to be taught that these principles are fundamental and violating them will lead to dreadful economic consequences.
Like abortion and marriage, economics is a moral issue. Using the power of the State to take money from some people so it can be given to other people is a moral issue. How does one compromise on the subject of stealing?
So how does someone who contends that killing unborn children and supporting same-sex marriage are moral wrongs compromise? How do they agree to disagree? How does a person compromise with a segregationist?
They will agree to disagree by leaving the party.