Ron Paul Offers Social Conservatives Real Solutions
Success in straw polls, caucuses, primaries and ultimately elections, has always been about having strong organization—but also the ability to appeal to multiple constituencies. It’s no secret that economic conservatives and free market champions adore Ron Paul. But increasingly, so do religious conservatives who champion faith and freedom. Reports Politico:
“The missing link for us, the outreach to evangelicals, which is so key to South Carolina and the south — we’re filling it,’ said (Senior Paul strategist Doug Wead), speaking to POLITICO in between announcements on Paul’s stage.
Wead told POLITICO that the outreach included mailing 5,000 DVDs of Paul to pastors in Iowa before Saturday’s events. And it relied heavily on a new team of evangelicals who are backing Paul. They include Wead himself and also Brian Jacobs, who used to work with Rev. Billy Graham. Jacobs spent the days before the Straw Poll calling pastors throughout Iowa.”
The Politico notes that Paul’s strong pro-life stance, emphasized in his speeches in Iowa and elsewhere, translated into electoral success for Paul.
But there’s also a significant difference between Paul’s social conservatism and that of so many politicians who love to wear their religion on their sleeve. First, Paul is often reluctant to advertise his faith precisely because it is genuine. Let’s face it—there are plenty of politicians who love to talk about God while spending little time actually living godly lives. Paul’s faith is far too serious and important to him to constantly risk cheapening it through politics.
But perhaps more significant, when it comes to social conservatism, Paul asks the same frustrating question as many of his fellow Christians—where’s the results?
This is where Paul’s political philosophy offers real solutions to people of faith.
Perhaps the two greatest historical events that led to the politicization of many American Christians were the banning of school prayer and upholding of Roe v Wade by the federal courts. Fellow presidential contender and self-styled social conservative Rick Santorum attempted to excoriate Paul’s belief in the 10th amendment in the Iowa debate, saying that “American values” were more important than states’ rights.
But what did the federal government determine were “American values” when it comes to school prayer? It determined that states and communities should not be allowed to have it. What did the federal government determine were “America’s values” when it comes to the sanctity of life? Before Roe v. Wade there were plenty of states that outlawed abortion—but after Washington, DC stepped in in 1973, every state was forced to submit of the court-ordered “America value” of a “woman’s right to choose.”
If our federal government still obeyed the 10th amendment—as Paul, the champion of the Constitution, insists it must—American Christians would once again be free to express their faith in public institutions. The same state and local decision making would be true of abortion: America might not be ready to confront the grisly realities of abortion—but Alabama might.
But this would also be true of determining the definition of marriage, and there lies the rub—so-called religious conservatives of Santorum’s stripe are always calling for national solutions to what constitutionally should be individual state prerogatives. Santorum can rant about “American values” all he wants, but when the federal government is given the power to decide what those values are—it almost always favors secular liberalism over anything resembling Christianity or conservatism. Santorum’s national solutions rhetoric reflects zero historical reality.
Not even Ron Paul believes states’ rights are a perfect solution to everything, but letting the people through their states decide these issues, as opposed to the federal government, would finally yield some of the results religious voters have long desired.
Santorum’s plan is to convince liberal Vermont and Massachusetts that school prayer is great and that abortion is wrong—well, good luck with that Mr. Santorum. Paul’s plan to simply follow the Constitution and allow each state to follow its own vision, would indeed allow liberal states to be their liberal selves—but also for conservative states to do the same. This would mean, quite literally, a cultural revolution for millions of American Christians—in their favor, for a change.
Once again, simply following the Constitution would solve so much of what plagues our modern politics.
