• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

How can Ron Paul be so right about domestic economic issues and so wrong about … well, just about everything else?

It’s puzzling to me. And sad.

A perfect illustration of what I’m talking about came recently in an interview Paul did with CNN.

Asked about whether he considered so-called “social issues” a “winning area for Republicans in November,” he said: “No,” said Paul. “I think it’s a losing position.”

We all know what Paul means.

“Social issues” are loosely defined as “moral issues” like abortion and same-sex marriage.

I say “loosely defined” because all political issues are moral issues, as I explained in my most recent book, “The Tea Party Manifesto.” (For a limited time, I am making this important book available for just 99 cents because what you will find in there is so vital to our national debate.)

Think about it. Every issue government deals with – from taxes to speed limits – has a moral dimension. Someone’s idea about “morality” is imposed any time a law is passed.

When we decide what kind of economic system we have in the country, it is based on a sense of morality. Some believe in top-down economic control – or socialism. Other people believe in free markets. We debate this every day today – and we debate it in moral terms, as we should.

Ron Paul himself defends “freedom” and “liberty.” He does so eloquently and with the passion of a preacher, as he should.

So why does he not see, like I do, that every issue we debate in politics is, at its very core, debated on its morality?

Why do we have this phony divide in our lexicon between “economic issues” and so-called “social issues”?

What is a “social issue” any way?

Doesn’t “social” mean people?

Don’t all political issues involve people?

What is Ron Paul thinking about?

I’ll tell you.

Ron Paul boasts of a libertarian worldview.

I take a backseat to no libertarian in defending liberty and promoting free markets. But, the fatal flaw of libertarianism is its materialistic nature.

Libertarians tend to be materialists. It’s not true of all, but it’s a pretty good rule of thumb. Liberals also tend to be materialists. And this is where liberals and libertarians tend to converge.

What do I mean by “materialists”?

Materialists define reality as what we can see, feel and touch. Nothing else really matters. There is no transcendent truth – at least none that can be found objectively and rationally. Nevertheless, they swear that liberty is better than slavery. They just don’t explain where that idea comes from.

On the other hand, most people who take a different position from Ron Paul on the so-called “social issues” do so based on their belief in God and their moral code that, more often than not in America, comes from what is revealed in the Bible.

It’s just that simple.

I’m not suggesting to you that Ron Paul doesn’t believe in God. I’m sure he does. But he isn’t paying attention to what God has revealed to us about truth and justice and liberty through His Holy Scriptures. And, frankly, he shows disdain for those of us who do.

That’s really sad, because Ron Paul has much to offer America through his libertarian worldview when it comes to his economic domestic agenda.

In fact, I wish he had greater influence in the campaign for the presidency on the economic domestic agenda.

At the end of the day, while I agree wholeheartedly with libertarians about the economy and many other things, they betray their own worldview as morally bankrupt when they do not recognize eternal truths staring them right in the face – and, in fact, deny they exist.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.