Perhaps Santorum confuses libertinism with libertarianism, but for him “cultural issues” go way beyond defending the life of the unborn or opposing gay marriage. Santorum believes that conservatives should recognize “that individuals can’t go it alone,” which sounds a lot like the straw-man justification for nearly every state expansion in memory. Why does Santorum, a conservative, believe that getting government out of our lives means a person must “go it alone,” anyway? Maybe it means that person can go to his local church or his family or his community or his local bar to seek help — or maybe he can figure things out himself.
Opposing Barack Obama’s presidency and lamenting Washington’s lurch left are not great acts of bravery. When it mattered, Santorum was nearly always there for the establishment — most (in)famously backing professional opportunist Arlen Specter over conservative favorite Pat Toomey in the 2004 Republican Pennsylvania primaries when an endorsement may have had some consequences.
Santorum also claims that “budgets began to explode” after he left Washington. I suppose that’s all relative. As Club for Growth pointed out, Santorum could be a fiscal conservative with the election far off, but “there is a troubling part of Santorum’s record on spending, which is found in the years sandwiched between these periods of fiscal restraint.”
Today, Santorum tells voters that Medicare is “crushing” the “entire health care system.” In 2003, Santorum voted for the Medicare drug entitlement that costs taxpayers more than $60 billion a year and almost $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Santorum voted for the 2005 “bridge to nowhere” bill and was an earmark enthusiast his entire career.
These days, Santorum regularly joins a chorus of voices claiming that he would greatly reduce the role of federal government in local education. When he had a say, he supported No Child Left Behind and expanded the federal control of school systems. In his book, in fact, Santorum advocates dictating a certain curriculum to all schools. The right kind. It’s not the authority of government that irks him, but rather the content of the material Washington is peddling today.
And yet? Still more conservative than Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich.
A sad state of affairs, isn’t it?
And we have only ourselves to blame, really. We’ve allowed the left to set the markers, then we run from the descriptions they decide to saddle us with. Santorum, for instance, is the kooky populist extremist (as opposed to the “avuncular kooky extremist,” Ron Paul), while Mitt Romney is the “sane” moderate — until he wins the nomination, at which time he becomes the extremist.
And on it goes.
Look: for reasons I’ve already explained, I know that libertarians like Harsanyi are not going to be comfortable with social conservatives like Rick Santorum. But what they need to understand is that Santorum, for whatever his beliefs, is nevertheless far more faithful to the Constitution, the idea of federalism, the separation of powers, and so on, than is Barack Obama, or Mitt Romney, or Newt Gingrich.
I’m saddened that Michele Bachmann fizzled out over something so trivial as Gardisil. And I’m even sad that Perry couldn’t overcome his horrific debate performances. But in the end, Santorum’s social engineering — which is essentially a call to firm up the family unit and to only provide welfare for the truly needy — may be just what this country needs right now. We’re near the tipping point: already nearly 50% of the population pays no federal income tax, and food stamp usage has exploded since 2007.
Santorum’s plan to energize the economy — he singles out the manufacturing base for special dispensations (which I don’t care for; I’d prefer a flat tax or fair tax scheme) — is likely to appeal to many blue collar Democrats. And let’s face it: the sneering urban hipster progressives are going to continue to vote for soft socialism until such time as they realize it will eventually impoverish them, too, so the fact that Santorum doesn’t appeal to them is moot.
What is clear right now — and the GOP establishment had better have a contingency plan not named Huntsman — is that the GOP base simply does not want Romney.
Could we as classical liberal / legal conservative / libertarian types do better than Santorum? Sure (though I think he’d be a fine president). But we could do far worse, too. And in the end, all we really need to believe is that Santorum will remain faithful to the Constitution and respect the separation of powers and the role of the states — and that he’ll push for conservative, non-federalized solutions to economic problems.
The rest will take care of itself.
******
update: Bachmann out. But Perry to stay in the race?
The best we can hope for from the next POTUS is that we drag the Overton Window back rightward. Same goes for Congress.
Perry must be a closet Romney fan
Perry is too coy by half. In or out, dude. Bachmann will break your heart when she endorses Romney.
I don’t think Perry is necessarily being coy, Pablo. He didn’t call off his campaign last night and he knew he was going nowhere fast in NH. South Carolina seems like a logical place to resume a-stumpin’ for the presidency after a little rest.
So will Palin.
Hell, Ann Coulter already did. John McCain? Not so much.
The “I’m going to Texas to pray on it” thing says one thing, and the “Look at me jogging to SC” thing says another, neither of them terribly clear. I’m pretty sure they’ll let a guy pray in SC.
agreed and agreed with everything you wrote Jeff.
Mitt Romney is the “sane” moderate — until he wins the nomination, at which time he becomes the extremist.
And when he loses, they’ll point and say that the Era of Reagan is over and conservatism is a sure loser for Republicans, even though Romney will not have run as a Reagan Republican in more than a token sense —and certainly won’t have run as a conservative.
Palin may do so if he gets the nomination, as she will with whoever gets the nod, but she’s not a fan and I haven’t seen her having anything particularly complimentary about him. Remember when she decided to step on his announcement?
I suspect Bachmann will be going the T-Paw route sooner rather than later.
I wish she’d have fared better as well, but I’m relieved she’s decided to suspend. Because the smartest play the Romney camp has right now is to dump a bunch of cash into her coffers and let her stalk Santorum.
Most of that stuff Harsanyi is griping about, like the prescription drug entitlement, No Child, and endorsing Specter over Toomey is also called being a good team player. And I think —I would hope anyway— that Santorum understands as well as or better than anyone just how and one sided that “teamwork” is, to say nothing about how damaging to both the conservative and Republican brands trying to coopt the center left turned out to be.
Assuming Santorum gets considerable wind in his polling sails, Perry might not make the cut for the SC debate.
Just out of curiousity, who does a libertarian like Harsanyi support in a field like this? Ron Paul?
Rush is right now attacking the “Santorum is a Big-Gubmint Conservative” meme. Wasn’t listening closely enough to know if he cited Harsanyi’s post.
But what they need to understand is that Santorum, for whatever his beliefs, is nevertheless far more faithful to the Constitution, the idea of federalism, the separation of powers
Unlike Huckabee, who was pretty comfortable with using the levers of gubmint to help us all lose weight and stuff. There are no doubt other social cons who would try to use the gubmint to bring souls to Jesus.
The gubmint being the best vehicle for that.
Perry’s hangin’ on: “Rick Perry to Stay in Race: ‘Here We Come South Carolina!!!”.
Rush’s point was that Santorum is what used to be known as “law and order conservative.”
And that the “Big Government” label is toxic; which has all sorts of implications.
As compared with His Highness and Her Excellency.
Here’s another go at it. Me, I’m uncertain as to the apparent conflation of religion or religiosity as such with the category Social Conservatives, i.e., is it necessary? Anyhow, taken seriously, these are difficult issues to tweeze apart.
I have no trouble supporting Santorum. I wish it were Cain or Bachmann who was doing well, but those are the breaks. I believe Santorum knows that government is the source of problems and not the solution to them. That separates him from Newt and Mittens.
The primary season is still ahead of us. If Perry comes back from the dying, I can support him, too. Newt and Mittens are right out.
Point of Clarification:
Huckabee is not a Social Conservative, he’s a paleo-progressive.
Perry’s decision to stay in is probably predicated on the calculus that Gingrich is about to do tremendous damage to Romney.
#8 Ernst: They’ve run that play so many times the paper is yellow. And then there are the ketchup stains Bill Clinton got on it.
It. Is. Ketchup.
You know what Santorum should say?
“Listen, you aren’t electing a dictator. You’re electing a president. You don’t like what I say on social issues? OK, let your Congressman know. I don’t — at least shouldn’t — have the power to wave a pen and make my desires the law of the land. You want someone with that power, go ahead and vote for Obama; he’s taken it onto himself despite the clear language of the Constitution. You want someone who will obey the Constitution and let you live your own life — even if I don’t approve of it? — then vote for me.”
Hell, every Republican should pound that message.
If Perry’s still in I guess he’s my candidate, <sigh>, since my wife would kill me if I voted for Santorum in a primary after he carried AccuWeather’s water while in the Senate.
Taxpayers would have still been paying for NWS to collect data, but only vendors like AW would have been allowed to provide it to the public. For money. Over and above what the public pays in taxes already.
Besides, voting for a Senator, even a former one, in a presidential primary is against my religion.
That’s a not unhealthy superstitio you got there McGehee.
#23 – that is beautiful. I think that catches what Jeff has been saying quite nicely.