Rand Paul’s Risks - ...reforming the GOP demands creativity—and maybe contradictions.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'm interested.

There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerfull ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus, God, or Allah, or whatever one calls the supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A,B,C, and D. Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism.

-- Barry Goldwater in the LA Times 17 SEPT 1981

Yeah...he has even harsher words for the So-Cons (Falwell / Robertson / etc.) and their ilk.

 

[TheTexan]

I like Rand. Really, I do. I think his intentions are in the right place.

But this plan sucks. Bad. The plan is to basically hold the entire country's hand until they like freedom.

First off, that's not going to happen. Most people do not want to be free. They want to exercise petty control over others, and have most of their choices made for them. No amount of hand-holding will change this.

Second, what's with the incessant desire to get people to like us? This "plan", inherently requires at least a majority to work. Isn't relying on a majority just a little bit hypocritical, considering that most people here generally understand that it was the tyranny of the majority that got us here in the first place?

The simple fact of the matter is we will never have the majority of people needed to consistently pass freedom legislation. And, as long as we are relying on that, we will never make progress, because pursuing that as a realistic goal is nothing short of delusional.

It's only once we accept that we are a minority, and stop caring about what the majority thinks, can we assert our rights as individuals and truly make progress.