« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Compromise

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) delivered his first Senate speech last week.  Senator Paul discussed the idea of compromise. Please watch an excellent speech by an emerging conservative leader of our great nation.

I will sit at Henry Clay’s desk. There is likely no legislator from Kentucky more famous than Henry Clay. He served as both the Speaker of the House and Leader of the Senate. He ran for President four times and nearly bested James Polk. Henry Clay was called the Great Compromiser. During orientation, one of my new colleagues asked me with a touch of irony and a twinkle in his eye, “Will you be a great compromiser?”

Check out the transcript here.

It is a great speech about a historical figure who refused to compromise over the slavery issue — Cassius Clay.  Cassius clay ”was an unapologetic abolitionists who called out the slave traders.”  Senator Paul used the life of Cassius’ cousin, Kentuckian Henry Clay, to show how some compromise is morally wrong.

Henry Clay’s life story is, at best, a mixed message. Henry Clay’s great compromise was over slavery. One could argue that he rose above sectional strife to carve out compromise after compromise trying to ward off civil war.  Or one could argue that his compromises were morally wrong and may have even encouraged war, that his compromises meant the acceptance during his 50 years of public life of not only slavery, but the slave trade itself.

Senator Paul makes the case against a compromise being promoted today.  He argued that compromising by increasing taxes to balance the budget will encourage more government spending and may be morally wrong.

Should we compromise by raising taxes and cutting spending as the Debt Commission proposes?  Is that the compromise that will save us from financial ruin?  Several facts argue against such a compromise. Government now spends more money than ever before. Raising taxes seems to only encourage more spending.  Government now spends one in four GDP dollars. Twenty-five percent of our nation’s economy is government spending. Any compromise must shrink the government sector and grow the private sector.  Any compromise should be about where we cut federal spending, not where we raise taxes.

What does Red State America think of Senator Paul and his speech?

Tags:

COMMENTS

  • krsnadas

    Great speech! It’s so good to see someone give a speech using cliff notes instead of a teleprompter!

    The story about Cassius Clay was something that a lot of Americans don’t know about, and the contrast he offered was good to show that compromise can’t be at the expense of principles, and in the current situation, the principle that we have to cut spending, period.

  • Brian Hibbert

    as were a significant portion of the people who eventually formed the Republican party out of the ashes of the Whigs. They agreed that it was better to continue to compromise over the issue of slavery while limiting its growth in order to hold the Union together. They were wrong in the end. The compromises only lead to other problems that eventually led directly to the Civil War. Perhaps it would have been better to not compromise in the first place since the end results would have been similar.

    What do I think of this speech? Well done Senator Paul.

    • dajeeps

      Agreed.

      I think the problem of the compromisers is that they compromised once and then kept doing it, and compromise itself became the principle instead of the objective. And of course the repeal of the Missori Compromise in the name of compromise elsewhere ended up as the step too far, losing far more ground than they ever gained.

      It is the spirit of compromise that makes this country an enduring entity, but not when it takes a detrimental course, not when it ends up being a losing battle and only matter of time before we pass the point of no return. Yes, compromise where it gets us to where we need to go, but not when it further enslaves the public to government coersion and tyranny.

  • averagevoterdotcom

    my instincts tell me that this unique guy will be President one day. he exudes honesty, patriotism, calmness, with no smell of “politician”.

  • Right Reason

    Statesmanlike.

    And right now we have plenty of politicians, but precious few statesmen.

    I think back on all of those during the primary who wanted to tar him with his father’s views – even here – and I thank God it didn’t work.

  • ronlsb

    Comment title: Terrific speech and displays exactly why the establishment Republican leadership trembles. Recall, Sen. Paul was not supposed to be the new senator from Kentucky. Sen. McConnell had his hand picked successor lined up until the Tea Party came along and rocked the boat. Oh that this would happen many more times in the future. We cannot slack off with these guys–they either slash this monstor’s throat (federal government spending and debt) or they get replaced!!

  • e_rowe

    And some of those seeds, like John Hostettler, fell by the wayside and got eaten by birds and didn’t make it through the Republican primary. Some of those seeds, like Sharon Angle and Joe Miller, fell on the rocky soil and sprang up quickly in the primary only to lose the general election. Some of those seeds, perhaps Rubio and Toomey, might yet prove to have been sown among the thorns and elected to the senate where the cares of this world might prove to have gotten in the way of the conservative agenda they were elected to pursue. But some of them, like Rand Paul and Mike Lee, fell on good soil and sprang up and bore fruit.

    For the sake of those seeds that fell on the good soil, it was worth it.

    • gekster

      Something to think about.

    • sailingaway

      And makes some of the disappointments you mention seem more worthwhile!

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Today we have no issues that approach moral equivalency with the issue of slavery.

    Blood Money.

    And yes, the $2T/year deficit is important too. We could work on both by refusing to give any tax money to this industry.

    • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

      I find it interesting that Rand spent so much time on the moral issue of that day, only to completely miss this current one we have and move directly into the fiscal issue.

      • e_rowe

        It’s not like he’s pro-choice. He’s already a sponsor of the Life at Conception Act, which is more than can be said of most Republican senators.
        http://thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d112:91:./list/bss/d112SN.lst:@@@P

        Also, I fail to see how tyranny is not a major moral issue, and one in which our legislators are directly culpable, and for which repentance of the sort Rand is calling for is imperative. Don’t lessen the severity of this situation just because there’s another severe situation that he didn’t mention by name in this speech, but has addressed in an equally uncompromising way in others.

        • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

          Today we have no issues that approach moral equivalency with the issue of slavery.

          Obviously he doesn’t think tyranny is a major moral issue equivalent to slavery or he wouldn’t have said the above.

          • e_rowe

            But to be fair, there’s a deep sentiment in our nation that slavery is an evil that no other evil approaches. There are important reasons for that.

            I don’t happen to think that sentiment is correct. But I appreciate the rationale of going along with it for the sake of argument while giving a speech that’s supposed to be about something else. It’s a rhetorical decision, not necessarily a window into his world view.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            slavery wasn’t evil, and in fact God’s will.

            I don’t think it’s a window into his worldview either. It’s a misstatement that I’m calling him out on. If he didn’t mean it, he shoiuldn’t have said it.

          • Right Reason

            Government is doing a lot of things we don’t like, but we have recourse. The fact that we have not sufficiently exercised it until recently has brought us where we are. And now, it’ll take us awhile to get back. But we do have recourse.

            Slaves had none. To whom did they complain when they were whipped? Come to think of it, if our situaion today is to be compared to theirs, when was the last time you were whipped?

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            You think the unborn can speak for themselves better than slaves could? At least slaves could run away. The unborn have no such option.

          • Right Reason

            If you were referring to abortion, you sure didn’t indicate it. Abortion, while abnhorrent to me, doesn’t exactly fall under the category of tyranny.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            I was replying to the previous comment about tyranny by e_rowe. Comments are threaded here. If you want to figure out what’s going on, you start at the beginning of the thread. If you want to look like you don’t know what you’re talking about, by all means jump into the middle and do what you’ve done.

            I started out by saying Rand Pau’s comment,

            Today we have no issues that approach moral equivalency with the issue of slavery.

            was inaccurate. We do have a issue today that not only approaches, but is it least as immoral if not more. That issue is abortion.

            As for your last comment that abortion isn’t tyrannical, try considering it from the aborted’s point of view and tell me if you still think that way. There’s nothing more tyrannical than the taking of innocent life.

          • Right Reason

            to describe our current situaion as tyranny is a bit much. Attempted tyranny, perhaps. As last November proved, we still retain the power of the ballot. True tyranny would allow no such recourse, as there was no such recourse to blacks in the antebellum south.
            Our current difficulties do not approach the level where the treatment of millions of individuals as property resides.

            Slavery was an abomination. Our current government sucks, but it doesn’t come close to that.

          • Bill S

            “Tyranny” was equated to as “taxation without representation”, during the time that we often hearken back to.

            In the case of Obamacare and other things we like to refer to as “tyranny”, we have representation. We have LOTS of representation. It’s just not the representation that conservatives care to acknowledge. They were voted in fair and square (and spare me the birther chatter, folks). We got what we asked for. It was a sure freakin’ thing that once Obama and the Dems hit DC that this stuff would happen.

            No, it’s not tyranny. It’s the result of an electorate who didn’t think before they voted. Now we’re paying the price.

            This is why I was so pissed at people who said before the election “Oh, they can’t do any harm in 2 years. We’ll teach the Republicans a lesson now and fix it later”

            Thanks loads, 100%ers and all you “true conservatives”

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            The murder of millions of children every year rises to the level of slavery. See my original comment above.

      • rightwingmom52

        and he rightly framed it as a moral issue. I’m willing to bet that he can and will give a pro life speech when that is the topic and will rightly frame it as both a moral and a spending issue.

        • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

          Let me post that quote again.

          Today we have no issues that approach moral equivalency with the issue of slavery.

          If he hadn’t said that, I wouldn’t have said a word about this.

          • rightwingmom52
        • sailingaway

          He called Roe v. Wade “one of the most horrific judicial travesties in the history of our nation.”

          I think he was just trying to underline that he was not trying to equate pre civil war slavery to the same level of moral imperative of the debt…. yet debt slavery is foul, as well.

          did you know indentured servants in colonial times ‘only’ had to pay 20% of their wages to their masters? Kind of makes you look at income tax in a new way, doesn’t it?

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            And I’m calling him on it. We do this all the time. Words have meaning, and you need to be careful what you say and how you say it. I’m not giving him a pass on this one.

          • e_rowe

            Then look no further than here:
            http://thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d112:91:./list/bss/d112SN.lst:@@@P

            If you want to call people out, then the people to start with are the ones not on that list.

            And the truth is, the GOP had 6 years that it controlled both Congress and the White House that they could have repealed Roe v. Wade legislatively, rather than waiting for some court ruling to overturn it. And they didn’t. There were bills like the Sanctity of Life Act that Ron Paul repeatedly authored that would have done that. But only a handful ever signed on as cosponsors.

            I have a lot more hope in Rand Paul that he will be among those who will pursue that actively than I do most other so-called pro-life Republicans. That’s for sure.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            The author of this diary asked for thoughts. I gave mine. That you don’t like me saying something negative about your new god-man doesn’t bother me in the least.

          • Brian Darling

            And you make a strong point. I do believe that Senator Paul is a strong pro-lifer, but I hear your point. I think the point is fair.
            That being said, it is the best maiden speech for a Senator that I have ever experienced. Senator Paul is going to be a great Senator. Although you can critique that one sentence, the speech as a whole is heads and shoulders above all other freshman to date.
            Senators Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Jim DeMint are true American patriots. Tea Party and conservative America has three strong Senators in the Capitol standing up for limited government and constitutional conservatism.
            Cheers to them.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            It was a good speech, and as I said elsewhere, if he hadn’t said that one sentence I wouldn’t have replied at all.

            I do hope Rand will be a good Senator. There have already been a couple of things that concern me, but overall he’s way better than what we had before.

            That said, we’re in a new era now. We have to hold their feet to the fire. Quite honestly, if I had the opportunity to talk directly with Rand Paul and said something about this comment, he’d probably agree with me too.

            I suppose there’s the chance that we can become overly critical, but we’ve been given our elected officials a pass for so long it’s likely that we’ll err the other way for awhile.

            I agree it was a very good speech, and I hope you don’t feel I’ve threadjacked too much.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            We haven’t done such a good job of that in the past, so this is the beginning of a new era. :-)

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
          • Right Reason

            If you think cap and trade, Obamacare and the like even approaches the leagailzed owning of other human beings, you need to get some perspective.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            And that was my point. Perhaps you didn’t read my original comment. Scroll up and you’ll see it.

          • aesthete

            that Rand didn’t mention abortion, which is comparable both in degree and kind to slavery. The speech was excellent but for that omission, though.

          • chamberD

            is morally worse than slavery.

            Rand’s implicit dismissal of that fact stood out glaringly, as I listened to his comments. I could not believe my “ears.” One must wonder what on earth he was thinking as he wrote out his speech.

            Our fiscal crisis is real enough and must be addressed; but the very fact of it is symptomatic of our nation’s moral decline, a nation now so steeped in the ethos of thievery, greed, and envy, that to reverse course will require many multitudes of “good men” to rise up and take a stand. These are the points I wish he would have made. Where are our good men? I note that my two AZ Senators are NOT listed as co-sponsors of the Life at Conception Senate Bill.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            of his not being a part of the beltway and just made the comment in the context of the issue of race. I’m sure if asked, he would acknowledge the semantic kerfuffle. But Rand is pro-life, and you can’t get any better than that on abortion!

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            Hopefully he reads RedState and I’ve helped him see it. I’d have been fine if he hadn’t mentioned abortion at all until he brought up moral equivalency. If you go down that road, you have to go all the way down it, not halfway.

          • Right Reason

            Didn’t see the original post. I must wholeheartedly agree with you on that point.

            Mea Culpa.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            Ignore my rant above… :-)

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            What if millions of people were being murdered for convenience between the ages of 24-55? Would we be content to let the carnage continue in hopes that Anthony Kennedy changes his vote?

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            There’s a lot of appeasement now just like there was for slavery. I don’t know what it’s going to take to force the issue this time, but I do hope it’s not as drastic as last time.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
          • acat

            Would really like to avoid a repeat…

            Mew

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
          • itrytobenice

            I hate it when someone tweaks my guilty conscience this way. Just when I think I’m perfectly strongly pro-life, I imagine what I would do if there was a shop here in town where parents could go to drop off their 3-5 year old children to be murdered.

            And that the shops were all over the US and that they were murdering millions of them every year.

            Then I know I still am not taking my own beliefs very seriously at all.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • sailingaway

    We already have too much compromise, of the sort that makes taxpayers fund two sets of special interests instead of one.

    Go, Rand Paul!

  • jeepingeoff

    Wonderful delivery of the speech. I was riveted to the screen for all 8+ minutes. That doesn’t happen much with most of these guys. Will be keeping a “hopeful” eye on this gentleman…..

  • froster

    Paul was certainly the best.

  • http://www.coloradans4palin.com bjwilson83

    A rising star in not only the GOP, but also the Tea Party. He could be president someday.

  • rick554

    I vote TEA Party!

  • bigredone

    I am a Kentuckian who was ‘on’ the Paul campaign early on. His message has not changed one little bit.

    Compromise is for Cowards! Courage. Courage in the face of enemy fire. Just plain guts.

  • Brian Darling

    “Compromise” will go down in history as Senator Rand Paul declaring to the Senate and America that he is not going to give an inch on his core beliefs. An A+ for Senator Rand Paul!

  • Doc Holliday

    Clay was trying to forestall a Civil War, and he did so. Paul could have made the same speech using Lincoln as the evil compromiser. Paul made his point, but he practiced bad history. The historian must judge a man by the mores and society that man lived in. For if we judge everyone in history by our own amazingly enlightened selves, we could argue that Snooky is better than Churchill, Cato Katlin better than Scipio Africanus, and Obama better than Washington.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      quite honestly gives his view. I must say that I’m not a huge fan of Clay but recognize his greatness and would say that yes, his position most certainly was based on moral grounds as well. But I think its also fine that Rand used that analogy to make his own stands.

      • Doc Holliday

        with Paul’s strongly held views of not compromising with the present liberal elite. I just think he cherry picked some things about Clay to make it fit the speech. Clay was not exactly loved by the slave holding South. It was John C. Calhoun who spoke for slavery in the debates of that compromise.

        and the idea Clay would have won the presidency if he was just a bit more of an abolitionist is really a stretch. so he gains New York, but what would have have lost to get it.

        Also, there were attempts to abolish slavery during the Constitutional Convention. But the only way to keep the country intact was to COMPROMISE, if they did not, there would have been no USA. We can now regret that slavery wasn’t abolished right then, it would have saved a lot of misery. But since it could not happen at that time if we wanted a new nation, do we not now see that compromise was needed?

        I have always said slavery was an evil. I have said that the Civil War was really the last battle of the American Revolution. The Declaration and Constitution planted the seed of freedom. The words did not fit reality and caused discomfort. It took almost another hundred years for that discomfort to explode and in the end, we were better for it, and we paid dearly for our mistakes. But if we had not planted that seed early, if our ideals were not ahead of our actions, God only knows where we would be today, and if we would be a nation at all.

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Wayne

    and it telegraphed that he was not going to be a “great compromiser”. All the comments creating misdirected distraction from the intent of his speech is a microcosm of what’s wrong with the conservative movement.

    Either, (as some have indicated on this site) we have moles amongst us, or some conservatives are really idiots after all (as much as I hate to perpetuate such a rumor).

    Compromise, is a victory for progressive politics. Progressive politics is a virus that has infected both parties. Rand Paul may be our secondary antibiotic against it’s spred. Obviously other’s we have elected to represent our will have been generally ineffective and consumed by power and politics as usual.

    Compromise means failure in our attempt to regain our heritage. Make no mistake, it has been lost and the economic decline that is touched on in Senator Paul’s speech has already affected many American lives. I would suggest that at least some who post on Red State already feel the dreadful pinch of inflation and decrease of income. More to come regardless of speeches and politics in the near future. Only crisis will result in change. History has demonstrated this time and again.

    Those who think nothing is more important than the social issues facing our nation, are missing a big gorilla sitting in their living room. You’d think it would be obvious. But often crisis is necessary in human affairs to affect a paradigm shift of moral, ethical and political perspectives in the populous. The trouble here is predicting whether the crisis will have a positive effect on the latter or the opposite.

    Sad but true…

    My two cents…

    • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

      I’ve written more diaries against single-issue values voters over the past 3+ years than anyone else. The more we social conservatives put our concerns on the back burner, the more we’re told to do so.

      Let me be clear. The more you try to force me to shut up about my most important issue, the more I’m going to talk about it. I’m doing being on the losing end of the coalition. I can walk and chew gum at the same time. That you can’t isn’t my problem anymore.

    • lineholder

      The paradigm you mentioned can not shift any further in a direction that would contribute to the continuing moral decay in our nation, Wayne. Why? Because our government has now reached the point of blatantly displaying a deliberate mindset of lawlessness. The kind of leadership being provided for us is one of lawlessness, and of all things we should not do is to follow this lead.

      Fighting this battle on the basis of morals and the impact on our society as a whole could be very effective, and if other people on the conservative side of the spectrum are not willing to take a stand on that particular battlefield, SoCons can and we will.

      • Wayne

        as it seems I may have (yet again) not articulated my view very well. In any case, there should be some convictions that are taken for granted on a conservative forum. For “me” conservative thinking springs from one of moral and ethical standards we can all agree on. Thus, discussing them seems oddly unnecessary and detracts from the intent of my post. Consequently, they have subtracted, not added to the focus of the post that oddly, paradoxically and ironically reinforces its intent.

        What I am learning in posting comments is that there is a smorgasbord of possible interpretations of anything that everyone has to say. Consequently, one must learn to be fairly thick skinned when going public with their thoughts. It’s frustrating because, at the same time, it seems to make one feel as thought the conservative party is doomed to stagnation, alienation and division from within. Not so with our enemies…

        I’m just saying…

        • lineholder

          And yeah, I agree with the part about being thick-skinned.

          You may see it as a given that certain principles will automatically be considered a “given” for conservatives. Unfortunately, part of what is going on right now is that one portion of the battle force that could be very, very effective is being minimized, which accomplishes nothing more than “gutting” our own ability to succeed.

          Those of us on the SoCon side of the spectrum know that we can’t just give way, not without losing everything we hold dear in this country. It isn’t an option any more. We’re in this to win it!

  • Wayne

    To interpret my post as an indication that you should “shut up” is only an example of the kind of division that strengthens our enemies.

    Free speech is not the issue… I believe it is quite possible you misinterpreted the intent of my post… However, as you have pointed out, You can chew gum and walk so I’ll leave it to you to contemplate alternative interpretations…

    Good luck!

    • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

      I assume this was a reply to me.

      Those who think nothing is more important than the social issues facing our nation, are missing a big gorilla sitting in their living room.

      Hard to take that any other way. Especially when you say,

      All the comments creating misdirected distraction from the intent of his speech is a microcosm of what?s wrong with the conservative movement.

      Since it was my comment and subsequent replies that take up the bulk of the comments in this diary, I’ll make the obvious assumption that your comment was directed at me.

      So, let me be clear. I’ve been told by Senators, Congressmen, Tea Partiers, and others to go sit in the back of the bus for too long. So, I’m changing tactics.

      I don’t care about how much tax you have to pay.
      I don’t care about inflation.
      I don’t care who provides your healthcare (or doesn’t)
      I don’t care what the marginal tax rate is.
      I could go on…

      You see, I got Rand’s point on the issue of compromise, and I’m not willing to anymore. Now, if you want to have a discussion about these fiscal issues above without telling me to shut up about social issues, I’m all ears. But as soon as you tell me,

      Those who think nothing is more important than the social issues facing our nation, are missing a big gorilla sitting in their living room.

      and also say,

      Either, (as some have indicated on this site) we have moles amongst us, or some conservatives are really idiots after all (as much as I hate to perpetuate such a rumor).

      then I’m just going to turn up the volume. Nothing is more important than the taking of innocent life. Not your wallet, and not mine. If we can’t ensure the freedom of those that have no say about it, why should we have it for ourselves?

  • Wayne

    but, I get your point and while I am an ally of yours with regard to abortion, I am not in agreement with you as it applies to my other comments. The intent was not to insult, though I can see how one would be, or to give the impression that I want anyone disagreeing with me to shut up. It was specifically about misdirecting the purpose of Senator Paul’s speech, noting more.

    However, on the most important subject facing us today, you and I are not in agreement. We are both conservatives, let’s lock elbows and move on… I am not a fan of planned parenthood, legalized murder or pandering to progressive thinking any more than you are… I am a Constitutional Conservative. If that is against your stand, we cannot lock elbows and move on. We may in fact be enemies.

    My two cents..

    • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

      As anyone that’s been around here long can attest. It’s just that you’re using Single Issue Fiscal Voters (SIFV) language, e.g.

      Those who think nothing is more important than the social issues facing our nation…

      See, I believe that Social, Fiscal, and NatSec (Rand fails here too) issues are all very important, and I’m not willing to give any of them up. But if pressed, and told to shut up about social issues that are very important to me, that’s where I’ll default.

      See, I’m tired of the single issue tea party folks that only care about what’s in (or not in) their wallet. I hate that the government is stealing from us as much as them, but there are other issues that are important too, and we don’t need to back-burner any of them. Quite honestly, the real tea partiers (soccer moms, retirees, etc.) care about other stuff too.

      Sure, there’s a right way and a wrong way to approach each issue, and I’ve written such. What I’m not going to do is let the libertarians monopolize the discussion and tell me I need to be quiet about my social issues until the economy is fixed. Social issues have been broken for a long time too….and more so that fiscal issues.

      In the end, I reserve the right to call down any Senator or Congressman if I think he’s compromising on issues important to me and all well-rounded conservatives. If I don’t, then a Rand Paul soon becomes a Bob Bennett because I didn’t do my part and allowed him to go that route.

      Even the best elected government officials age like cheap wine left alone. Eventually it just turns to vinegar and all you can do is throw it out and get another bottle.

  • Wayne

    will work on my wording. Thanks for your view and thoughts. I must try to find a better way to articulate my views so that they are not misinterpreted.

    It may be as simple as my definition of “social issues” are not in sync with yours. I’m thinking of social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare and other such social programs. I don’t believe that legalized murder is a social conservative issue, but moral conservative conservative one that is not a matter of division in conservative thought.

    No compromise, means… no compromise, I understand that.

    Regards,

    • Scope

      do you see the red “reply to this” button. It’s helpful if when you are replying to a specific comment to use that button. Then no one is trying to figure out who you are replying to.

    • lineholder

      Here’s how I see it as a social conservative.

      We have written laws (via our Constitution) and we also have unwritten moral laws (whether they be laws of common decency, laws of human nature in general, etc.) and to a certain extent our written laws were derived from unspoken moral precedents.

      When it gets tricky is when there is enough of moral decay in a society that individuals in positions of authority become so corrupt that they begin to establish laws that undermine those unspoken moral laws. It can end up putting those under that authority in a position of having to choose whether they will follow the lead that is being provided for them by the written laws or whether they will stay within the boundaries of what they know to be right in the scope of those unspoken moral laws.

      Social conservatives like myself have been facing that inner conflict for quite a while. So far, most of us have managed to hold our ground on the issue of personal accountability by staying to the side of what is of good in a moral context.

      But now, we have moved into the realm of lawlessness, where even the laws designed to protect our society as a whole are being violated from the top down. Take the situation in PA with Dr. Gosnell. There were laws in place to prevent this kind of irresponsible behavior on the part of a physician from occurring. Both the state DOJ and the DOH were aware of the situation. Neither government agency within the state supported the law as it written, thus failing to meet both a legal and moral obligation that was owed to the community of people that these laws were designed to protect.

      Will those agencies be held accountable for their failure to support the law? Probably not, because the mentality of lawlessness is from the top down.

      This being true, it is going to be that much more important for those of us who are inclined to hold to certain standards of behavior, if for no other reason than for those unspoken moral laws and a sense of obligation to the society in which we live, to stand our ground.

      If those in authority over us are not willing to be voice of reason on moral issues….someone has to do it, Wayne. And whether we like it or not, the task is falling to SoCons. This is the part we play right now in our society.

  • Wayne

    I will have to get back with you on the subject of moral decay of our society…

    I’m a little shocked, though not naive of the world being a combat veteran, I know that men are capable of horrible things. I occasionally suffer from the delusion that people are basically good. Dr. Gosnell is a criminal and should be dealt accordingly.

    I will further consider your point of view on the subject of societal moral decay but at this writing I am of the opinion that people like Dr. Gosnell have always existed. But I do see how one could perceive that he is representative of our society. I’m just not sure that I agree it is without further thought.

    Regards,