There are some changes that do not sit well with nationally syndicated columnist Starr Parker.<\/p>\n
One of these is a change that she perceives has having taken place among college Republicans over the span of the last 20 years or so. \u00a0In her latest article, Parker writes that unlike the youth to whom she regularly spoke during the 1990\u2019s, today\u2019s young Republicans care not nearly as much about Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley as they do \u201cthe <\/em>\u2018leave me alone\u2019 candidate\u201d\u2014Ron Paul.\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n Parker sees the Paul phenomenon as the offspring of the union of \u201cself-centered materialism\u201d and \u201cmoral relativism.\u201d\u00a0 Even though his young Republican supporters \u201cmay be pushing back on government,\u201d they are motivated, Parker contends, by the very same \u201csense of entitlement\u201d that prevails among \u201ctheir left wing contemporaries.\u201d\u00a0 They have \u201can interest in claiming rights with little interest in corresponding personal responsibilities.\u201d<\/p>\n In following her train of thought (no mean feat), it becomes painfully obvious to anyone genuinely concerned with truth just how wrong headed is Parker\u2019s position. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n The college audiences that she once addressed embraced \u201cindividual freedom, respect for constitutional limitations on government, and traditional values [.]\u201d\u00a0 Seeing \u201cAmericaas a \u2018shining city on a hill\u2019,\u201d they shared \u201ca sense of [national] purpose.\u201d\u00a0 In stark contrast, an ever growing number of her \u201ccollege hosts\u201d today request that she speak not about \u201cvalues\u201d but, rather, \u201cthe economy.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Parker may very well be correct that college students have redirected their moral energy from the likes of Reagan and Buckley and toward Ron Paul.\u00a0 Yet if this is true, it most certainly is not <\/em>because these same students have lost their zeal for \u201cindividual freedom, respect for constitutional limitations on government, and traditional values.\u201d\u00a0 \u201cLibertarians\u201d like Paul are known for nothing if not their affirmation of both \u201cindividual freedom\u201d as well as<\/em> the \u201cconstitutional limitations on government\u201d that make this freedom possible.\u00a0 Nor can Paul credibly be said to inspire contempt for \u201ctraditional values.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n St. Francis of Assisiis credited with having admonished his followers to spread the Gospel\u2014and to use words <\/em>\u201cwhen necessary.\u201d\u00a0 Paul said something similar during one of the later GOP debates.\u00a0 When questioned whether he thought that the \u201ccharacter\u201d of a candidate should be treated with importance, he responded in the affirmative.\u00a0 Yet he was quick to point out that a genuinely virtuous human being\u2014like, say, a real military hero\u2014isn\u2019t one who feels the need to continually talk about his excellences.\u00a0 Good character is self-revealing; it is disclosed through deeds.\u00a0 Translated in terms of the popular idiom of our times, character is essentially a matter of \u201cwalk,\u201d not \u201ctalk.\u201d<\/p>\n With respect to his stances on the key \u201csocial issues\u201d of abortion and marriage, we can see that Paul is all walk.<\/p>\n A staunch proponent of life, Paul is an obstetrician who delivered over 4,000 babies during his career.\u00a0 He never performed a single abortion.\u00a0 He has repeatedly insisted that life begins at conception and opposes all <\/em>government-funded abortion services.\u00a0 That Paul holds marriage and family in high regard is clear: he has been married to the same woman\u2014his high school girlfriend\u2014for about 55 years.\u00a0 Together they have raised a sizable family.<\/p>\n Paul rejects the idea of a Constitutional amendment explicitly defining marriage as a monogamous, heterosexual union for the same reason that he rejects the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Roe v. Wade <\/em>preventing the individual states from prohibiting abortion: the Constitution, he is convinced, does not <\/em>authorize the federal government <\/em>to speak to such matters.\u00a0<\/p>\n Similarly, Paul opposes the federal government\u2019s <\/em>\u201cWar on Drugs,\u201d not because he believes that drugs are harmless, but because he sees clearly that individual freedom and the Constitution positively preclude it.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Paul and his supporters are no less interested in \u201cthe social issues\u201d than are Parker or anyone else.\u00a0 The difference between the Pauls and the Parkers of the world lies in the positions that they take on these issues.\u00a0 But it isn\u2019t just over substance that they disagree.\u00a0 Ron Paul and his young supporters who Parker takes to task are both logically and <\/em>morally more consistent than is she and her ilk.\u00a0 To put it in Parker\u2019s own terms, it is from his commitment to \u201cindividual freedom\u201d and his \u201crespect for constitutional limitations on government\u201d that Paul assumes the issues on the social issues that he does.\u00a0<\/p>\n Parker can legitimately quibble with Paul over whether his reading of the Constitution and the requirements of liberty are correct.\u00a0 However, she has no <\/em>rational warrant for describing Paul\u2019s vision as a form of \u201cself-centered materialism,\u201d much less \u201cmoral relativism.\u201d\u00a0 Putting aside the ambiguity of these labels, one very simple, and simply decisive, consideration shows just how absurd it is to ascribe them to Paul.<\/p>\n While Paul\u2019s rivals deny the worth of his views, even they do not think to deny the passion, the conviction, and the consistency with which he defends them.\u00a0 How, we must ask, is Paul\u2019s renunciation of \u201cmilitarism\u201d and \u201cimperialism\u201d either \u201cmaterialistic\u201d or \u201crelativistic?\u201d\u00a0 What about his position that it is unconstitutional and immoral for the federal government to enact paternalistic laws?\u00a0 Is it \u201cmaterialism\u201d and \u201crelativism\u201d that lead Paul to argue against \u201cthe War on Drugs\u201d on the ground that it is \u201cracist?\u201d<\/p>\n Paul\u2019s positions on the issues may<\/em> be rationally and morally indefensible. Parker\u2019s analysis of them definitely <\/em>is.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0<\/em>\u00a0<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" There are some changes that do not sit well with nationally syndicated columnist Starr Parker. One of these is a change that she perceives has having taken place among college Republicans over the span of the last 20 years or so. \u00a0In her latest article, Parker writes that unlike the youth to whom she regularly…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":399,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-339","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n