One major problem that seems to greatly be dividing the GOP party during this upcoming Presidential election is the differing ideologies on social issues. Ron Paul recently commented on this party division by stating that social conservatism in today's day and age is "...a losing position...And this whole idea about that talking about the social issues and who is going to pay for birth control pills, I'm worried about undermining our civil liberties, the constant wars going on, the debt of $16 trillion and they are worried about birth control pills and here he [Santorum] wants to, you know, control people's social lives" (Jeffery, 2012). Paul, sticking true to his libertarian roots, believes that the government needs to completely step out of our lives and to stop controlling and manipulating our social life. This viewpoint, however, is looked down on by many GOP as it is considered too "extreme" to be electable. During the South Carolina debate, Santorum aggressively and ignorantly attacked Paul's pro-life voting record:
The very meaning of libertarian is the defending of the doctrine of free will, therefore Paul is advocating staying out of citizen's social lives and promoting complete freedom in regards to social issues. Since when has the GOP began to vilify freedom? I think that the Republican party's biggest fault is that it needs to change and evolve with the times. Today's society is significantly more accepting of gay marriage, abortion, the legalization of marijuana, the lowering of the drinking age, ect., than they were twenty or so years ago. As the mindset of the U.S. changes, the GOP need to reevaluate and revise their strategies because otherwise they are setting themselves up to fail and their voting base will diminish. I believe that in order for the GOP to become most successful, they should adopt a more libertarian point of view. By doing so, they would be able to hold on to more power in the government since it would be promoting social freedoms. I think that many Republicans would view that transition as disregarding and discarding their ethics and values, however how is that possible? One can only affect their own ethics and morals when they themselves break away from their believes and perform an act that they consider to be immoral. How does someone else's actions cause another person to suddenly become immoral?"Congressman Paul has a National Right to Life voting record of 50 percent, which is pretty much what Harry Reid’s National Right to Life voting record is. So for — to go out and say that, you know, you’re someone who stands up for the right to life, you repeatedly vote against bills on a federal level to promote the right to life, and you say that this is an individual personal decision or state decision. Life should be protected, and you should have the willingness to stand up on a federal level and any level of government..." (Bearing False Witness, 2012).
Another display of division occurred at a meeting in Texas between social conservative leaders as they debated which candidate they were supporting in the upcoming Presidential election. Some of the leaders included the President of the American Values, Gary Bauer, and James Dobson, who is the evangelical Christian that founded the conservative group Focus on the Family.
"Social conservative leaders have met several times during the nomination battle to compare notes and ideas about various candidates," Bauer said. "Some of those conservative leaders have supported Mitt Romney. Some have supported Newt Gingrich. Some have supported Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum. I believe all of those candidates are exceptionally better to lead this great nation, in contrast to the failed presidency of Barack Obama" (Holland, 2012).
Based off this statement, it leads me to believe that the candidacy has not only become a competition between which GOP has the strongest social conservative views, but also a fight of which candidate is the best of the worst. With the Republicans being so willing to put any Republican in office, regardless of their qualifications, character, level of leadership, ect., they run the risk of making that candidate a one term President. Should this "best of the worst candidate" fail during his Presidency, then it will cause citizens to want to stray away from Republicans in the 2016 elections, similar to the events of the 2008 Presidential election. The GOP needs to look at candidates in terms of quality rather than in terms of their ability to beat Obama. Simultaneously, they need to adjust their message so that they can gather a wider voting base, rather than just playing to the extreme Conservative constituents. They are indeed setting themselves up to lose unless they change very soon, until then, it will be President Barack Obama in 2012 once again.
Works Cited
Holland, Steve. " Social Conservative Leaders Meeting To Try To Coalesce Around Consensus GOP Candidate ." Huffington Post. Huffington Post, January 5, 2012. Web. 22 Feb 2012. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/05/mitt-romney-rick-santorum-social-conservative-meeting_n_1186729.html>.
Jeffery, Terrance. "Ron Paul on Social Conservatism: 'I Think It's a Losing Position'." CNSNews. CNS News, February 19, 2012. Web. 22 Feb 2012. <http://www.google.com/gwt/x?wsc=vb&wsi=3ace9a2c6cc800f7&u=http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ron-paul-social-conservatism-i-think-its-losing-position&ei=DWxFT5PmDZK6wQKO8aGJDA&ct=imb&cd= 3&whp=317>.
"Bearing False Witness." Liberty vs. Leviathan. N.p., January 22, 2012. Web. 22 Feb 2012. <http://libertyvsleviathan.wordpress.com/>.
