Rand Paul Re-Assures Evangelicals That he Will Not End The War on Drugs
FAIRFAX, VA – OCTOBER 28: U.S. Sen. Rand Paul listens speaks at a “Get out the Vote” rally for Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, the Republican candidate for Governor of Virginia, October 28, 2013 in Fairfax, Virginia. Cuccinelli is running against Democratic candidate Terry McAullife in a very close race. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
At a lunch Friday with about a dozen evangelical pastors in a Cedar Rapids hotel, the younger Paul assured the group that he disagrees with libertarians who support legalizing drugs. When one pastor inquired about ideological ties between Paul and his father, the senator asked that he be judged as his own man.
Paul said he believes in freedom and wants a “virtuous society” where people practice “self-restraint.” Yet he believes in laws and limits as well. Instead of advocating for legalized drugs, for example, he pushes for reduced penalties for many drug offenses.
“I’m not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot,” [Rand] said. “I’m not a libertarian. I’m a libertarian Republican. I’m a constitutional conservative.”
“He made it very clear that he does not support legalization of drugs like marijuana and that he supports traditional marriage,” [said Brad Sherman of the Solid Rock Christian Church in Coralville, Iowa].
Just to hammer home what’s been said already: Paul isn’t a libertarian on drugs. He wants to keep everything illegal, but institute gentler penalties. That’s not remotely libertarian. (Is it politically practical? Sure. So are farm subsidies.)
As for “traditional marriage,” here’s how Paul is selling his position to evangelicals:
He said he’s not ready to “give up on” the traditional family unit. But he added that it is a mistake for conservatives to support a federal ban on same-sex marriage, saying, “We’re going to lose that battle because the country is going the other way right now.”
“If we’re to say each state can decide, I think a good 25 or 30 states still do believe in traditional marriage, and maybe we allow that debate to go on for another couple of decades and see if we can still win back the hearts and minds of people,” he said.
“Win back the hearts and minds of people”? What does that even mean? That if we give the country enough time, a majority of voters will change their minds about extending equal protection to same-sex couples, and revoke it? And that would be a good thing?
Considering just how “radical” candidate Obama was, I can’t help but wonder how Paul would be different from any other Republican president.
Published on reason.com by Mike Riggs
