A couple interesting comments from “an erstwhile reader,” Rachel, who in an earlier thread expresses her concern over my support for Bachmann and Santorum, the gist being that my site has evolved from a classical liberal venue to one in which I and many of the regulars here are somehow something else these days. She writes in her second comment:
Jeff, thanks for the well-reasoned reply.
From what I’ve read (admittedly not too much), I just don’t buy Santorum as much of a pro-free-market fiscal conservative. At least not enough of one to outweigh his extreme social conservatism, which is repellent to me. NB “extreme”. I happily voted for Bush, and had no problem at all with his religiosity. I have no problem with a social conservative as president, as long as I don’t think he’ll be using the power of government to impose his personal religious values on the rest of us (beyond selecting judges for the Supreme Court)… or taking up valuable time & rhetorical/ argumentative space talking about things that are irrelevant to the real crises our country is in. Crises which have nothing to do with abortion or contraception or sodomy or gay marriage or Jesus.
Bachmann was great in her wholehearted, full-throated opposition to Obamacare; I’ve no doubt that if she was president she’d do everything in her power to extirpate it, root and branch. So are you great & so would you do everything in your power to get rid of it, along with many of your commenters. And y’all are almost as qualified and likely to win the nomination and the presidency as she was. And probably would be much smarter about the complex tactical & strategic political moves that will probably be necessary to do such a thing. Yes, I’d like a fighter, and someone ideologically principled… but also an astute, experienced, skillful politician, who can navigate the murky shark-infested Bermuda Triangle of DC from the leaky boat of the White House. ‘Cause if you’re not, your noble principles & ideological purity will get you diddly-squat, even as POTUS.
It’s not that I only read blogs I completely agree with (and I don’t necessarily agree with myself from day to day or moment to moment). Among the blogs I read, there are partisans for Perry, Newt, Romney, no one (just ABO); and their commenters are all over the place (including some who argue for Santorum). It’s just that, at this point in time, a seriously pro-Bachmann/ Santorum blog (where all the commenters seem to be on board too… perhaps I’m mistaken about that) is just too different a ballpark from where I’m at, playing a different game that I’m not really interested in.
But, I take your point. And so I may very well still check in. Negative critique is good, and essential, and you’re great at it (even if your positive endorsements don’t make sense to me at this time). Like I said, I’ve been a long-time fan, and still am in way– hence, the disappointment. But that’s not on you: you’re great because (among other things) you don’t pander to your readers (like me).
My response, which I’m re-posting here because I think it opens up a venue for a front-page discussion on the concerns, from many in the right coalition, over supposedly problematic social conservative presumptuousness:
Rachel —
I like Santorum’s plan to cut corporate income tax to 17.5% for all but the manufacturing sector, which he’d cut to 0%. This beats Romney’s 25% across the board — while it falls short of Perry’s flat tax plan, which I’ve always favored. Still, Perry’s inability to appear competent under the microscope of a national audience concerns me — and conversely, Santorum, who I didn’t begin taking seriously until the second or third debate (when I was chided on Twitter for suggesting dispassionately that he may be worth a second look), has impressed me with his willingness to take questions, argue his positions, and defend them intellectually. His social conservatism, so far as I can tell (ironically, lots of putative conservatives who are now running from him were embracing him during the Schiavo affair, while I was disagreeing with him — though I was convinced the stance was genuine and the argument sincere), amounts, from a platform stance, to re-enforcing the family as an important civil unit by way of increased tax credits, credits on charitable giving, etc. — all of which is designed to weaken the Religion of State.
In other words, the real religiosity we need worry about is the State as Godhead, and I happen to see Santorum as a corrective, because his social conservatism — perhaps ironically, depending on your point of view — is likely to reduce the role of the state in people’s lives. And that’s a good thing.
I don’t fear a theocratic push, because we as a society are so far in the other direction with respect to the powers of the Church of Secularism that a candidate who is so committed to the rights of the self-professed religious might be a constitutional (pardon the glibness here) godsend: by re-finding and re-affirming the 9th and 10th amendments and taking on judicial oligarchies specifically in defense of real religious freedom (which INCLUDES the freedom to be religious), what Santorum might do — precisely BECAUSE he is concerned with social issues on a very real and personal level (and not just interested in using those issues to shore up his conservative markings) — is lead the fight against an expanding leftism that works by breaking down individual rights granted by a hypothetically posited higher power, and replacing them with rights granted by man through the State and through its attendant bureaucracies.
Too, because Santorum is a Reaganite, he respects the Constitution — and while as an advocate he may push for his own social beliefs, he will also respect the rights of states and localities to disagree with those beliefs, and legislate accordingly.
Meaning, of all the candidates (save maybe Gingrich, who unfortunately seems to HAVE ideas but doesn’t really luxuriate in always implementing them), I feel Santorum is likely to do the most to re-establish a balance of powers and checks and balances with respect to the courts, if only because he recognizes that it benefits the devout, and he is a real champion for the rights of the religious (remember, his advocacy re: Schiavo stemmed from her parents’ concern that, as a Catholic, she’d be relegated to purgatory). In truth, though, it benefits all of us who love freedom and individual liberty. And because the courts are the fallback position of progressives out of power, it is important that they be addressed if we’re to make any significant challenge to a viral leftism that’s insinuated itself into every aspect of our culture.
Santorum’s purported “anti-individual” stance has been overblown, as we’ve discussed here. He’s certainly not a collectivist because he replaces the individual with the family in his idea of the building block of a nation. All that means is, he’s reacting to the Objectivists’ idea of raw individualism and the dynamic it creates, and responding with a version of “compassionate conservatism” that looks nothing like Bush’s, because it’s reliance on the state is not one of creating state powers to protect family, but rather removing state burdens to promote them.
This, at least, is my take right now — and it’s the reason I am leaning toward Santorum just now. And, for the “electability” people out there, I suspect that his appeal to the manufacturing sector, both to blue collar Dems and to businesses looking to get government off their backs, makes him potentially formidable — and will suffice, at a time when we need to be concerned with the economy and growth, to beat back fears that he’ll try to rule like a Pope.
This has become an interesting topic — especially now that I see support among many of our conservative opinion leaders moving toward Romney — even as many of these same opinion leaders took Santorum’s side during the Schiavo debate. Suddenly, however, they seem to fear Santorum as a religious social engineer, so much so that they’re beginning to throw their weight behind a candidate who is both the architect of ObamaCare (and frankly, is unlikely to repeal it) and has ties to the Wall Street culture the left (and even some TEA Party types concerned with cronyism) has set-up as a caricature they will play a role in the 2012 elections.
I am not a social conservative — as Rachel herself seems to know. I am no less a classical liberal now than I’ve been all along. But from what I can tell, and I’ve been arguing this for a very long time now, dating back to my open disdain for the Trent Lotts of the GOP, the biggest danger to our foundational principles, outside of direct assault from the left, is a right that comes to power as the putative corrective, and then simply reinforces the ways of the establishment.
People are frustrated. And we simply cannot respond to the attempted coup of the Obama Administration with a status quo Republican and a weak, old-boy network leadership cadre.
Is my take.
Discuss.
Rachel writes
I have no problem with a social conservative as president, as long as I don’t think he’ll be using the power of government to impose his personal religious values on the rest of us (beyond selecting judges for the Supreme Court)…[..]
How does a president get to do that, in any event? One day we wake up and we’re all devout Catholics by Executive Order?
Another:
It’s not in my head. It’s in his.
Wonder if he realizes that?
For some reason, (I don’t know its origin, is the thing) the story of a fellow named Fr. Robert Drinan popped into my thoughts this morning. The Church has a say too. Well, that is, it has a say with its faithful adherents anyhow.
Also found myself wondering whether this Rachel is the badrachel Rachel, or is some other?
When I was working in the daily MSM, insead of just being in its constellation, I used to face much of what Rachel laid out on a frequent basis.
In my best, most non-defensive. easy-going manner, I’d reply: “Well I take your point about the overly religious who, if they are anything, are supremely boring and can indeed induce some light headaches. But take a look around mid-town. Do you think anything or anyone is shutting down these pubs? How about sex–everyone anybody knows is doing it…or trying to. Rubbers are everywhere and evry second girl is on the pill, so know one’s in the way of birth control. Gays? Gays are the new black, but they aren’t going anywear after Fashion Week. So, like honestly now, how is the conservative platform a threat to how you or anyone is living their life again?”
Exactly. Marriage Amendment? Abortion Amendment? What’s the POUTS’ role in amending the Constitution? He doesn’t have one, at all.
In related news, Santorum had a great line on Ron Paul in this morning’s debate: “Everything conservatives like about Ron Paul, he can’t accomplish. Everything they are worried about him, he can do on day one.”
Is Santorum’s social conservatism a problem?
Yes. It’s a problem. The question that follows is, in a sense, narrower. Are the problems besetting the nation such as to demand social conservatism in response, or, do those problems demand other more broadly political-philosophic answers? As a knee-jerk of my own, I’d look more to the latter than the former as more probable. But here’s the thing: I could well be wrong about that, not simply as a matter of policy prescription, but as a matter of the political-electoral possibilities of the nation as it stands. Or, in other words, the people, in my view, actually do choose.
Or, in other words, the people, in my view, actually do choose.
Yes, I agree sdferr, they may choose a socially conservative president by the democratic process, but the only way they’re going to get a socially conservative country is by trending that way personally. A Santorum can’t mandate it. I’d also look more to the latter, though, as while I’m socially conservative myself, I’ll thank others to keep the hell off my lawn.
Rick Santorum: Better than the rest of what’s left!
What Santorum proposes though SW, is to use the levers available in tax policy to favor what he understands as the building blocks toward a more socially conservative country, namely, the family.
Me? I lean against that sort of conscious lever pulling in tax policy in particular, though of course I understand that the counter-claim is that there’s simply no such thing as an utterly neutral tax policy: i.e., some aspect of public weal is favored, one way or the other, willy-nilly. But, to the extent that it’s possible, I’d look to less direct subsidy or subsidization (none! would be best), and to greater economic liberty (favoring growth, is my take) to square with the original concept of the nation’s principles.
To return for a moment to the people’s choice as fact: the people can choose badly (have already chosen badly, very badly, in my view), still. Their choice has to be reckoned with — either way, for good or ill — is all I intended there.
We need a new national poll thinger:
Which do you feel is more likely in the next four years:
1) Inadequate/inept foreign policy leads to a dramatic increase in global conflicts.
2) Increased debt and slumping economy leads to serious economic problems.
3) Rick Santorum leads a new inquisition.
I agree, sdferr, that social engineering through tax policy is undesirable; I also don’t believe it’s effective. At the same time, I find that Rachel’s view, while seemingly common, is largely unfounded.
This one: “taking up valuable time & rhetorical/ argumentative space talking about things that are irrelevant to the real crises our country is in”, SW? Or some other?
No, the one I highlighted above: “as long as I don’t think he’ll be using the power of government to impose his personal religious values on the rest of us”.
I feel the same (and have said I favor Perry’s flat tax proposal). Thing is, though, I still think Santorum’s weighted tax policy is better than the more neutral 25% across-the-board proposal by Romney (because yes, it privileges manufacturing, but it ALSO cuts more from EVERYONE ELSE than does Romney’s more “neutral” plan). And inasmuch as it revives manufacturing here and gets private industry moving — and pulls people off government welfare rolls — I think it’s a good thing.
Which is why I see the philosophical objections — it does matter how we get there — but I guess I’m willing to look at a significantly simplified tax structure that would favor families and manufacturing as a positive step toward limited government, if only because it aims to empower the private sector and to free families up from government entanglement. From there, if the economy is once-again growing with vigor, the next move would be to flatten the tax rates even more.
That should be the goal.
And I do think the social conservatism that has been so abused by increasingly secularized courts (ruling outside of any intent of the Founders and Framers) will be a powerful actor in the intellectual push to re-stabilize and re-balance a separation of powers.
I wonder though SW, whether there isn’t a salient nexus betwixt and between the two (of Rachel’s arguments you and I have put)?
That is, that even though any attempt to “impose” personal religious view (still don’t like to use “values” here, since religions don’t do values) wouldn’t succeed, that nevertheless the energy and time, not to mention potential distraction from (possibly) more pertinent difficulties is, or at least could be, a great problem in itself? As a shorthand of that waste, I only look to the leftist questioners having free play at distortion of Sen. Santorum’s own stances in the debate this morning (or, for that matter, every debate these chumps have allowed themselves to be caught up in under leftists auspices).
That’s probably more my lack of perception, sdferr; I’m dismissive of the idea that he would as president impose his values on the nation, so I don’t see the distraction. Maybe I underestimate the extent of the debate. I’d make a lousy Betazoid.
I don’t disagree with this, so far as the comparative judgment goes. It’s right. But as you note later, I’m still trying to get my arms around Santorum’s own conclusions by comparison with my take on where I’d arrive from the principles themselves, in turn as a measure of my understanding of his understanding of where we’ve come from in the Declaration and Constitution, if not more particularly at Montesquieu or Locke, say. Where does Santorum’s grasp of natural right take him, is my wonder? Or, more directly to my own idiosyncrasy, why does his grasp take him to a different conclusion from mine? Now, his may be better and more faithful than mine. But the alternative is equally possible.
Where does Santorum’s grasp of natural right take him, is my wonder?
Wouldn’t that be a good question to ask all candidates in those “debates”?
And too, I think I should say, the principles the nation was built upon — and luxuriated in for scores and scores of years — are principles reaching to every aspect of human life, so, very broad, indeed. And insofar as very broad, will necessarily embrace Santorum’s attention to particulars differing from my attention to particulars — all the while the full range of human life and those principles we held are under attack from the left, from progressivism, from socialism, from positivism, from historicism — from every direction and in every respect. Nor he, nor I, can rightly let slip any aspect of our political lives while making our defense of them.
“I’m dismissive of the idea that he would as president impose his values on the nation, so I don’t see the distraction”
It could be too that I place too much emphasis on the general condition of want in earthy living. Scarcity, in other terms, being the thing, always and everywhere. This, as to public debate, the time and energy, the attention devoted to it, as to any other good or commodity.
Heck, I’m so devoted to the notion, that I often finding myself wondering why football coaches aren’t stressing it to their players: “hey, guys, don’t waste energy celebrating your silly per-play victories, like a sack or a pass knock-down, or a first down gain, while the game’s in progress. Save that energy for the next play, and the next after that. Then, when we come out on top, is the time to devote what energy you have left to your extraneous personal celebrations. Morons.”
The biggest — and really the only — problem with Santorum’s social conservatism is the stick it gives the left to beat him with. ‘He’ll repeal Row V. Wade! He’ll put the gays back in the closet! Contraceptives will be outlawed, church will be mandatory!’ Nevermind that he can’t do those things and has no intention of trying. Everywhere except Lake Wobegone half the population is below average and it’s that half that form the Progs base.
The problem is compounded by the fact that the folks on whom these fear tactics work aren’t amenable to reasoned arguments about Constitutional issues, separation of powers, etc. The people who fervently believed that Obie would pay their mortgages and fill their cars with gas can be easily convinced that Santorum will reinstitute debtor’s prisons, put a pillory in every town square, and start passing out scarlet letters.
there’s nothing at all to say Santorum’s tax hijinks would revive manufacturing here – he makes it to where if you have a dollar to invest, you now have to contend with an equation whereby the State wants you to invest it here not there, and plus also his plan just redistributes investment into your more heavily-unionized industries, so whatever tax break results will most likely be pocketed by piggy piggy union whores
awful awful idea
To take a step back here, I feel that Daniels’ earlier foray into the race was instructive. For that to make sense, I have to lay out a couple things. First, I think he was in the race. He gave speeches, his merits and liabilities were discussed; as many opinion leaders (I’m tempted to scare quote that) liked him and he was the classic candidate (two term popular governor with substantial achievements), he was given a look. Second, I don’t feel he officially stayed out of the race because of his wife or any of that. I think he saw the reaction to his candidacy, saw he couldn’t win and then resorted to standard politician speak to bow out. Further, I think I agree with that judgement based on all the discussions I observed about his candidacy.
So, what did we learn? His notion of a strong prioritization towards the fiscal was rejected. Some of this we can place on his choice of terms and his manner of presenting his ideas. He didn’t seem to have a feel for the moment even if he had a feel for the enormity of one of the problems of the moment. But, we can also see two arguments that arose.
1) We can do more than one thing. Plenty of time in the day and plenty of days in a legislative session. So, prioritization is another way of saying, “I really don’t much care about the things lower on this list.”
2) In some instances, prioritization is not possible. The progressives won’t ever stop moving the ball so the fight must be joined everywhere at all times. Also, the connection between social and fiscal issues is too strong so while it may be artificially separated by speech or abstraction it can’t be severed in reality.
Now, I don’t necessarily agree with those arguments or fully agree with them in any case. However, I think he posed one side fairly well and the stubborn fact is that he did not carry the day. He was rejected. And relatively quickly. There was no Mitch Daniels boom even though he had some clear positives and a fairly large group of influential supporters (scare quote temptation again).
So, for myself, I think the matter is resolved in the electoral sense. Social issues are to be an active part of our argument put before the populace.
Everywhere except Lake Wobegone half the population is below average and it’s that half that form the Progs base.
While it’s accurate that half the population is indeed below average, it doesn’t follow that that half is solidly D. We have our share of morons, as well.
Mitch Daniels was explaining why a Santorum-like presidency would fail fail fail. Because he won’t be able to marshal enough support to do what the moment requires.
Wall Street Romney will have the same problem of course, but that’s because he’s already decided not to try.
I don’t mean that as a dodge, btw. I know it doesn’t resolve or even deal with the “ought” or “should” questions.
But, representatives represent. As they “ought” and “should” if they can’t sway opinion in their direction through their rhetoric.
That summary is damned fine, I think bh. One addendum: Daniels does approach what I might loosely term social conservative issues, and he does that whole-heartedly and well, I think, but he does it at a level that he believes actually effective: he founded a school in Indianapolis. That’s where he thinks it is done, done effectively, done best, is my read.
Except for the 17.5% for everyone else that gives lie to the whole argument. Oh, plus, that union whore appeal? Gets some Dems on board.
Electability!
Good addendum.
You know, when you directed my attention that way earlier I did wonder why he didn’t direct more attention that way himself.
“why he didn’t direct more attention that way himself.”
I too wonder why. I only know my skin crawled with goosebumps when I watched that walk-through visit to the school. Who else would be effected that way? Maybe a bunch of people.
So do we surrender, or keep putting up Romneys and McCains and getting nowhere?
I agree that the left will have that stick. I think Santorum’s rejoinder is to win back Reagan Dems; if that means saying fuck you to the “moderates” and “independents” who supposedly run from religiosity (and toward, say, the state ban on shower heads and toilets and salt and sodas), that’s a fair trade off.
We’ve been held (artificially, and dubiously) hostage by such mythical voters for too long. They are a GOP ploy to keep feeding us big government Republicans and maintain the status quo, regardless of which party is in power.
As Pelosi all but admitted, with her now infamous complaint about the TEA Party.
That should have been the clarion call for the rank and file GOP voter. Instead, their opinion leaders are once again massaging them toward accepting the next McCain or Dole or Bush.
I just don’t get how people can separate our declining moral fabric from our increasing national problems.
It’s like a gambling addict saying don’t bother me with my ill behavior, just help me get the loan sharks off my back.
Also, what Madison said- But I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom. Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks — no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.
Daniels dealing only with social issues he thinks he can do something about is elitist. It’s a notice to those who care about issues Daniels doesn’t believe things could be done about should just shut up and not rock the boat — that, in effect, we need, as conservatives, to hide our principles.
I didn’t like that approach much. Or rather, I didn’t like the way he sold whatever it is his actual position happened to be.
The questions reaching to virtue, at least so far as I can see them, reach directly to education Lee. Which, in part at least, is why I for one keep focused there, and why, for another, I’d sooner education parted altogether from the grasp of governments. It’s too damned important to leave to such dreadful controls.
the whole point of differential taxation is to make one a better investment than the other, no?
notwithstanding how GM has already extorted many many moons of corporate-tax-free operations and it’s a scary place to put your money, santorum’s approach is akin to an attempt to turn all the other sectors of our pitiful economy into Harrison Bergerons
It’s a very strange idea coming from what’s supposed to be a conservative.
I don’t doubt the connection, I just think trying to deal with it legislatively opens too many doors for abuse.
Morality needs served from the pulpit, not the government.
Okay, think I’ve recorded long enough to skip through the commercials. Football time.
Later, guys.
We’re a tad busy with the important issues like whether states have the right to ban condoms.
If you’re thinking about building a factory, are you going to build it where the union whores reign or in a right to work state? Duh.
Yes, and in this case it’s in order to revive a dead sector that would gainfully employ great numbers of relatively unskilled people. While it wouldn’t be my plan, it’s a hell of a lot better than what we’re doing now.
Yes. Unless you make them ALL significantly better, then favor one that has been regulated nearly out of existence in this country, at least temporarily, to undo regulatory (that is, STATE) harm.
Except that it halves the corporate tax rate for everyone. That being inclusive of, you know, everyone. Except the manufacturing sector, which has been regulated out of existence in this country.
Says the “illegal immigrants aren’t a burden, you xenophobic homophobes. Now stop talking about religion in public, you’re embarrassing me” fellow.
it’s that sort of picking of winners and losers that never works
Hey, but if we put the tax rate at 178.5% for manufacturers, think of all the money we’d collect…from a sector that barely exists.
Me, I love the stuff our Chinese overlords sell us.
It works for the winners.
speaking of manufacturing here is the catchy Tom Felton song, who brought the Draco Malfoy character to brilliantly malevolent life in those movies I never seen
— he said, again ignoring the fact that everyone is a winner to the tune of a 50% reduction in corporate rates, except the manufacturing sector, which gets a temporary 0% rate to recover from regulatory burdens and gets a chance at a do-over.
Which is what I mean by a do-over.
The unions can set up shop again where they can, but when they fail this time, we’ll have the manufacturing sector in right-to-work states thriving — a shining beacon on a hill, if you will, to all those who wish to choose a path forward.
It’s deviously conservative.
I want to reframe this as a series of questions. I thought this after reading the thread last night and wanted to throw it out this morning but had a busy Church day what with a potluck after the services. I haven’t formulated my own answers completely yet but this is my path to deciding who to support though all my best choices are not in the race now.
What do you consider to be the most important issues, and actions that the government needs to take that will help the nation in regards to each issue, over the next 4 years? What issues/actions do you see as harmful to the nation over the same period?
For each issue/action, what will having each candidate as nominee do, to help or hinder what you believe must be done, by their nomination and campaign for the Presidency?
For each issue/action what do you believe each will and can do as President to help or hinder what you see as needing to be done?
but the losers have to compete against the state-blessed winners for capital
it’s not the same as economic freedom Mr. Jeff, this tilting of the board towards manufacturing
rather comma it’s deeply capricious
Except for all the new capital available for diversification because everyone, which is inclusive of everyone, gets their corporate tax rate halved.
None of which matters, given the Google problem Santorum has.
eww I’m breakfasting
Geoff, I’ve had similar thoughts ever since this field presented itself. The first on the list would be what the state of the Republic was.
Bullshit. Santorum’s plan — while I like Perry’s better — simplifies the tax code, reduces the tax and regulatory burden on all industry, and seeks a corrective to a sector that has been all but put out of business by its very own government and their punitive agencies.
Would you like it better if he just goes with a flat 17.5% on all industry? Would that make you feel better? Write him and tell him. But don’t pretend his desire to re-invigorate a dead or dying sector by taking the state totally out of it for a spell is somehow dangerous.
Picking winners and losers is not the role of the government, I grant. Which is why Santorum’s plan calls for everyone to be winners first. Part two redounds to a kind of corrective, which you can agree with or not. But it doesn’t make him a Statist, that’s for sure.
“A robust manufacturing sector would produce more _________”
A. Profit
B. Money
C. Capital
D. All of the Above
“The questions reaching to virtue, at least so far as I can see them, reach directly to education”
Yes, and I’m pretty sure that’s what Madison was getting at too.
” I don’t doubt the connection, I just think trying to deal with it legislatively opens too many doors for abuse.
Morality needs served from the pulpit, not the government.”
Can’t disagree with this either, but government needs to better avoid undermining the pulpit to empower itself. It’s come to the point where a man is considered unfit for the presidency purely by virtue of his sincere faith in his religion.
Would you like it better if he just goes with a flat 17.5% on all industry?
yes I would but I should prefer it lower, almost notional
but it’s just not a good idea to make one industry more beholden to the state than others
Picking winners and losers is when you pick winners like solar panel manufacturers or Government Motors auto manufacturers or ethanol producers through things like bailouts and subsidies and grants and whatnot.
Getting the boot off the necks of the manufacturing sector so that it can breathe and live and grow makes everyone a winner, because then everyone has more money. And those people that have jobs are going to put some of their pay into retirement funds, which will then be used as, yep, investment capital.
It’s hard to see who loses here.
that’s not necessarily true Pablo if you contrive your robustitude by tilting investment away from what would have been even more productive endeavors
I know it feels like affirmative action in a way. But it would be like offering affirmative action to, say, Hispanics, after having first double the number of colleges and universities, to make sure that no one is kept out simply because a favored group is being given a leg up.
I think. Maybe the analogy works, maybe it doesn’t.
Either way, it’s quite a big step in the right direction. Plus, if China and others are active in currency manipulation that could tear down world economies, it pays to have a strong energy sector and a strong manufacturing sector (and lots of land to farm) does it not?
He’s another thing to think about. Santorum’s plan is an opening offer. It demonstrates a willingness to make significant tax cuts for the right reasons. It will not survive in its present form if he becomes president. Something closer to Ryan’s plan, or Perry’s plan, will likely be what we get. There will be significant tinkering.
Also, I don’t think Santorum’s social conservatism is an issue, because we aren’t electing a dictator. The country would have to move pretty far to get to where he is, even if he wanted to legislate on it. However, the fact that he wants to strengthen the family, as opposed to progressives and other statists who are doing their best to weaken it, is a good thing in my book. Like Jeff said, the most likely result would be Santorum pushing back on infringements to the bill of rights.
As far as who is doing well now, he’s the best choice. If Perry arises again, I might feel different.
You seem to be positing a finite amount of available investment funds, which is just silly.
Understood Lee. I have noticed at the social gatherings I usually attend now the fashionably obligatory Bush bashing has now been replaced by the fashionably obligatory Christian bashing. When I point out that this behavior would be considered the height of intolerant bigotry were it aimed at any other religion I am looked at like I were suddenly speaking Klingon.
True. But happy is staunch. He’d like to see everyone get the boot of their neck equally
‘Cept the godbotherers who should shut up and go to church and not get their Jesus cooties into the public drinking water.
Which the griefer will keep pretending is what’s happening when Santorum’s evil godbothering Jesusy gay-hating ass cuts everyone’s tax burden by 50% right off the bat: he’s hurting the market dynamic.
I think expecting a neutral tax policy is a bit like expecting a neutral press, it isn’t going to happen. You just have to be aware of the bias and try to work them in the best interest of the economy as a whole.
Our tax policy over the past few decades have been helping to drive industry out of the US. Swinging it back the other way until we can balance it out wouldn’t be a bad thing.
honestly I don’t think it would ever pass cause of there are states what are manufacturing states and there are states what really aren’t so much
but what it says about Santorum is he’s a tweaker just like Wall Street Romney
we’ll just tweak it just so, is how they approach the governings
Newt’s a tweaker too, but much much more grandiose about it.
Perry’s the only not-tweaker left. Bless his heart.
I also don’t think this will affect investment all that much, it will just make it more profitable for corporations to move manufacturing facilities back stateside.
BTW, the tilting of the playing field you’d be doing is away from China and toward the good old USA.
And there are states that used to be but aren’t anymore.
You know, I’ll bet there’s all sorts of awesome Chinese synth-pop we just haven’t heard yet.
BH — ” Plenty of time in the day and plenty of days in a legislative session.” That’s the scariest thing I’ve heard all week.
Silver Whistle, you’re going to a whole different level than I was thinking of when I wrote that. Let me try one.
Issue/action, repeal of Obamacare. This is urgent as it is going into effect in 2014 unless repealed.
Nominee can help by winning election and having coattails which take back the Senate and increase the margin in the House. Making repeal a campaign issue and winning would give a mandate to use to repeal it. At a minimum the candidate must not say they would veto a repeal bill.
As President they should push for the repeal using their mandate and bully pulpit to influence Congress to pass a repeal bill and they should sign one if/when passed.
From there I go down through the list of those running and see how they fare according to what they have said and if I believe they are being truthful.
I think regulation is still the biggest stumbling block to getting manufacturing working better in this country. That needs to be addressed. It’s insane how much time and money even small businesses must spend doing compliance work.
I know, Geoff, but I want to know who is going to go to the mattresses to drag the Republic back from the edge. Anyone who thinks the Republic is hunky dory gets chucked in the skip before any other questions are entertained.
Obamacare, sovereign debt, the deficit and foreign policy are those next questions.
it just doesn’t make sense why should a yo-yo maker not pay any taxes but a nursing home corporation has to
we need affordable nursing homes way way way more than we need affordable yo-yos, probably
I like yo-yos though I saw one in Bunraku the other day
If Santorum really wanted to get all religousy, he’d do a 10% flat tax.
Heh.
Liar.
“it just doesn’t make sense why should a yo-yo maker not pay any taxes but a nursing home corporation has to”
It’s ‘cuz the people in nursing homes will always be there, but they’d have a more
harsh experience without yo-yo’s…
If the yo yos are being made in China they aren’t paying any US corporate tax. They also aren’t building any factories over here that hire construction workers who pay income and sales tax and they aren’t hiring workers in those factories that pay income and sales tax and spend money in stores that then hire more salespeople that pay taxes.
Under Santorum’s plan, the company will still not be paying any corporate tax, but they can build a factory over here and all those other good things will happen.
Kind of like drill, baby, drill. You remember that don’t you?
I don’t think the santorum tax amnesty applies to the extractive industries
link
It also doesn’t make any sense that Medicare doesn’t pay yo-yo manufacturers to make yo-yo’s.
Oh wait! Yes it does!
I think this tax thing with happyfeet is making the perfect the enemy of the good. As a tactic to tear down the good for, er…
Romney? Hard to know.
You guys always start the party without me. Either that or you break out the good hooch after I leave. (That’s okay though. I mean, it’s not like I don’t know that I’m a Tuetonic boor. It’s your failure to feign respect for diversity that saddens).
On the off chance nobody’s asked yet (and apologies if it’s already asked and answered):
Remind me again, who‘s the free-market candidate in this race?
like I said I think there’s little likelihood of this passing, it’s just a lot revealing about how old school santorum’s thinkings are I think
that’s mostly Perry Mr. Ernst, with a dash of Newt, when the mood strikes him
Isn’t there a logical end-point to the building of manufacturing facilities? The rust-belt states are full of abandoned factories, knitting mills and tanneries–at least there are in PA. Many of the knitting mills and tanneries had been repurposed as loft space for either living or offices. That or had a meeting with the wrecking ball. I’m not so familiar with the fate of the steel mills. Are they still rusting away? Would they have to be destroyed and rebuilt because of the asbestos and other health hazards contained therein? Or could they be refitted?
The cities that make a stab at gentrification seem to meet head-on with the preservationists who would rather have the crumbling, abandoned old Theatre, for example, stay in place as an “attractive nuisance” as they are called in the insurance business, than have them razed for new office space, homes, green-space or schools.
What is it Santorum is proposing that we manufacture? Automobiles? Aircraft? Munitions? We build all of those already.
Finally, where is he on energy production? Is he all-in for nuclear power? Three Mile Island is still closed after 30 years.
Perry’s mostly free market huh? Must mean he’s a bit un-free market then. Hmmm.
(Still wading my way through comments)
more space shuttles please President Rick
chop chop
Funny. I was thinking the same thing about your thinkings…
I like those and add the regulatory state and taxation which shorten to getting our economy growing again and go to the other discussion in the thread. Cut tax rates, cut government size, cut regulation. Get the economy growing again which is the main or a main solution to the deficit and debt.
i just don’t think America’s future is necessarily as a manufacturing country… but maybe it is… better to let the market decide than attempt it by decree though
and what you’re not doing is maximizing economic freedom if manufacturers are beholden to a renewing of their special tax dispensation every x number of years
but Rick Santorum isn’t about freedom and he happily says so
Agreed, Geoff. Why the hell didn’t you run?
Damn, I was really hoping the Falcons would win so the Packers didn’t have to play the Giants again.
Anyway, people have given a few answers to Rachel’s question here. In no particular order:
1) Santorum seems to have a healthy respect for the Constitution and the rule of law. Hence, he’s not running for dictator and he’s properly constrained regardless of any particular personal view he has.
2) Where he might appear over-active in a libertarian sense his policies seem to reflect a Burkean reformative spirit rather than a “who knows what might happen” revolutionary spirit. Families have thousands of years of success on their side. Industrialization has hundreds of years of success on its side. Those are not improperly radical goals nor are they statist.
3) Where he might be seen to deviate from idealogy, he does so in a way that is representative of his party’s base. (Perhaps there’s a Russell Kirk argument here as to conservatism being more of a bias rather than an idealogy.)
4) Where we’d possibly prefer something else (tax policy perhaps) his proposals are still much better than the status quo.
link
This is mostly directed towads sdferr:
Santorum’s social conservatism is focused on the family (at least that’s my impressionistic impression), and, as such, is rooted in his Catholicism, which is to say Thomism, which is to say Aristotlianism. So he’s got that going for him, at any rate.
The above is from newrouter’s link.
Not to diminish the rewards of hard work, but grain elevators are very dangerous. Three men were killed in a neighboring town last summer when the grain elevator they were working in exploded from the dust.
Anyway, it seems to me the real crux of Rachel’s complaint lies, not in Santorum’s social conservatism, but this:
Bachmann was great in her wholehearted, full-throated opposition to Obamacare; I’ve no doubt that if she was president she’d do everything in her power to extirpate it, root and branch. So are you great & so would you do everything in your power to get rid of it, along with many of your commenters. And y’all are almost as qualified and likely to win the nomination and the presidency as she was. And probably would be much smarter about the complex tactical & strategic political moves that will probably be necessary to do such a thing. Yes, I’d like a fighter, and someone ideologically principled… but also an astute, experienced, skillful politician, who can navigate the murky shark-infested Bermuda Triangle of DC from the leaky boat of the White House. ‘Cause if you’re not, your noble principles & ideological purity will get you diddly-squat, even as POTUS.
It comes down to electability. Or losing more slowly. Which is how we’ve got to where we are, so, no thanks.
so did the readings drop after the grain elevator shut down? if they didn’t drop then the elevators weren’t the problem.
I’m just spitballin’ here, but I wonder if Bush ’43 would have been re-elected in ’04 absent 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq and the GWoT.
Which is another way of saying winning with Romney is still losing in my book.
“The real cost is the investment not made, the risk not taken.” (from #99)
What I was alluding to in #82.
Who knows? The author never says. He also never says if he is talking about grain dust or regular old dirt/dust. Too much grain dust can lead to deadly results as in my other post.
“He also never says if he is talking about grain dust or regular old dirt/dust.”
epa monitors ambient air readings. so its all the dust. we don’t know where the monitors are.
Too much grain dust can lead to deadly results as in my other post.
As to that, since when did the EPA start doing OSHA’s job?
Not to dismiss your point, which is a valid one, but I don’t think EPA had exlosive dust levels on it’s mind.
but Rick Santorum isn’t about freedom and he happily says so
That’s because he’s about liberty, and he happily says that as well.
You’re the one who keeps pretending not to understand the difference.
its like pittsburgh link having “dirty” air when it is the result of an ambient air monitoring station next to a coke plant. just like climategate where you take a reading impacts the data.
The truth is, any tax policy is going to have an effect on the economy, and affect free enterprise.
The difference between conservative and progg is one of perspective. Conservatives view taxes as a necessary evil(as it is only meant to fund the minimal necessary government) to be minimized, leaving as small a foot print on free enterprise as possible.
Proggs view tax policy to be a tool of power. Meant to manipulate capitol for the greater good through an omnipresent government.
Pretending Santorum’s tax policy is not conservative is no way to get a grip on the spendings, I assert…
nr, but the author of the linked article is making the assumption that the reader knows that information about the EPA. I agree with both you and Ernst that the EPA is playing fast and loose here.
Heh. I had had that same thought. I’m not sold on RS, though.
The Tax Foundation has some perfectly reasonable criticisms of Santorum’s tax plan. #2 puzzles me. I’d like to see the data on that.
Ernst, while I may have some small concern whether Sen Santorum’s priorities are best, I’ve little to no concern that he would govern well if elected. In addition, as to the question whether his social conservative views divert attention even in a small way from other matters, that is nothing like the diversion that Ron Paul makes upon the polity every day he is on the dais with the attention of the nation. They might as well invite Barack Obama to share the stage for all the whining about malevolent American foreign policy ambitions.
The collision of perspective.
More Madison:
A government that does not trust it’s law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is itself unworthy of trust
I was just trying to nudge the conversation in the direction of considering why Santorum gives preference to the family over the individual. That necessarily involves Aristotle.
“why Santorum gives preference to the family over the individual.”
the anti ayn rand?
Yes, I think that’s most likely so. Now I’ve got an itch to go looking where family may be found in the elucidation of the founders views (that is, in their terms, whether in contradistinction to the individual or not: rather, merely as to whatever they may be). Such references don’t immediately jump to mind, I must confess.
Brian Teixeira passed away, guys.
why Santorum gives preference to the family over the individual. That necessarily involves Aristotle.
Without family there can be no individual.
At least yet. but give the proggs a bit more time and we’ll really all just be brains in vats.
Aristotle’s view can perhaps be summed up that the polis is more important than the family, and the family more important than the individual.
Oh fuck, bh. That’s terrible.
that’s just such awful sadness he was such an unfailingly nice person
I suddenly don’t feel like hashing over politics.
Prayers for Brian, his family, and all the rest of you.
JD heard from his daughter and emailed. He’ll let us know about the details and arrangements.
It’s also that the family is the basic building block of society. You can’t build —or maintain for that matter— a society consisting solely or even predominantly of autonomous (atomized or atomizing might be more appropriate) individuals.
the huntsman, romney, sulzberger, bush, kennedy et al “family” suxs what then? if the “ruling” class suxs so do you.
Rachel: “At least not enough of one to outweigh his extreme social conservatism, which is repellent to me.”
I guess I’ll just have to set aside the idea that views that were considered normal as recently as, say, 25 years ago are now (supposedly) “extreme” suddenly; because I guess I may be in the minority on that. However….
Repellent? Not ‘disagree with’ or ‘have some problems with’, but “repellent”.
That’s the part I have a problem with; and I think the Rachels of this country can not be open-minded enough for us to bother trying to convince.
link
That’s pretty silly. Archie and his pals are in high school.
“That’s pretty silly. Archie and his pals are in high school.”
luv your pithy commentary. too bad you’re an idiot.
we need more from the idiot faction/ romney peeps. you go leigh.
oh sorry leigh’s a progg. still an idiot.
for the diversity: leigh you’re an effin’ dim witted idiot.
You know, newrouter, just because we lack a thor doesn’t mean you need to invent one.
Andrew, we just eliminated one contender for the title, and another shows up… sigh I guess Nature does abhor it some vacuum.
[…] worries about social conservatives generally, and Rick Santorum specifically, from what might seem an unlikely place: I like Santorum’s plan to cut corporate income tax to 17.5% for all but the manufacturing […]
An excellent & thought-provoking discussion; glad my comments could serve as a catalyst.
Still don’t like Santorum as candidate (more for using up valuable rhetorical/argumentative time & space on social conservative issues– which the MSM will enthusiastically exploit– than concerned he’ll somehow impose his religious views through government); ultimately it comes down to the fact that I just don’t see him as electable. I just don’t. But I do commend him for not following Newt/ Perry/ Huntsman on the idiotic leftist Obama-style, OWS-style attack on Romney re Bain. Attack Romney, by all means, but don’t endorse stupid pernicious anti-capitalist, anti-free-enterprise memes. So kudos to Santorum for gracefully steering clear of that. He seems decent & intelligent, and he’s not taking pratfalls all over the place, unlike the other not-Romneys. He inspires much more confidence, evinces much more competence, than Bachmann did (IMO).
But I can’t help it, I just see his overemphatic, constantly announced & foregrounded social conservatism as toxic in the general election– even to many religious people. I might be wrong, blind a la Kael, but that’s what I feel in my gut. In my (admittedly biased) mind, he harks back to the days Pat Robertson spoke at the Republican Convention. A throwback, concerned with things that are irrelevant to the moment we’re living in now. Or he reminds me of the Catholic social conservative NRO girls, Lopez & Gallagher, who actually looove Santorum (can’t say the “the establishment” dislikes Santorum, at least not National Review)– their overriding preoccupation with social conservative topics makes the Corner unreadable to me, even though there are others writing there that I like. It’s just not my bag.
Remember all those red flags Obama sent up during the 2008 campaign, which (alas) a minority of us spotted, enabling us to foresee the awful kind of president he’d be– even as others (& O himself) reassured us on this point, oh of course Obama isn’t a radical socialist Chicago thug, silly billies. Throughout his political career, Santorum has said tons of things which also look like red flags, to people with other fears and concerns and antipathies. I actually don’t believe Santorum would be an awful president, he’d probably be OK, who knows maybe even good– I think you’ve convinced me of that; you’re probably right that his social conservatism inclines him more towards constraining government (so as not to infringe on religious freedom & practice) than imposing government. But then there’s stuff like his appearing to look sympathetically on the idea of internet regulation a la SOPA. I don’t think it’s completely crazy for people to look at a candidate who’s frequently dwelled on & pronounced upon the topics of e.g. contraception & sodomy (as important subjects for national political discussion) and to recoil. And the MSM will be sure to glut us with things to recoil from (as opposed to glossing over & photoshopping away for Obama).
Honestly, I’ve come to accept that Romney will be our nominee. Here’s my slim hope (or illusory dream). If, as they say, it took Nixon to go to China, maybe only an apparent squishy moderate RINO (semi-palatable to the MSM) will be able, politically, to do some of the difficult things that need to be done to save our country, with enough of the country & congress behind him (or pushing him). After all, good intentions don’t count for shit– look how far W got with SS reform. I know, I’m deluding myself! Still, even in the most pessimistic light, Romney still seems light years better than a second term of O.
Anyway. Funny that I’ve posted more since I popped up to say farewell than in all the time I’ve lurked here. Just when I think I’m out, you pull me back in! Y’all do good stuff here, even when I don’t grok where you’re at. So I’ll probably still be reading… I’ll just be glad to get these primaries over with, and get on with the main event.
correction to penultimate paragraph: “After all, good intentions alone don’t count for shit.”
Yes, that. I can’t believe we’ve got the Republican field attacking capitalism. Rick Perry is especially disappointing in that regard. There’s plenty to attack Romney with, but not this.
It’s short-sighted, first order thinking, but it’s the most obvious, easily attacked vulnerability and that’s why Gingrich went after him there. The bigger problem is that the attack is relies on lazy libtard tropes, and thus constitutes an attack from the Left.
What should have happened is Romney’s record at Bain should have been used to attack his so-called strengths, i.e. his ability to attract moderates and independents and his electability. How’s he going to hold the mushy middle when the Left comes after him on this issue, especially when his other vulnerabilities, Romneycare, flip-flopping, etc. (and now the way he’s gone about running for the nomination) leave the base distrustful, dispirited and disinterested?
If Rachel’s still lurking, thanks for the thoughtful and discuss promoting comments. I hope you’ll continue to weigh in, as and when you wish.
It’s just occured to me that the killer retort to the “like to fire people who provided services to me” comment is to say “I prefer not to be told by government what services I need to pay for in the first place.”
[…] Let’s take a quick look at Santorum and not the Prog’s cartoon of Santorum (jeff at protein wisdom lays it out very well), and I’ll try to expand on the issues in upcoming […]