{"id":32975,"date":"2012-01-08T09:28:55","date_gmt":"2012-01-08T16:28:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/?p=32975"},"modified":"2012-01-08T09:28:55","modified_gmt":"2012-01-08T16:28:55","slug":"is-santorums-social-conservatism-a-problem-or-is-it-a-step-in-the-right-direction-constitutionally-speaking","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/?p=32975","title":{"rendered":"Is Santorum’s social conservatism a problem? Or is it a step in the right direction, constitutionally speaking? Discuss"},"content":{"rendered":"

A couple interesting<\/a> comments<\/a> from “an erstwhile reader,” Rachel, who in an earlier thread<\/a> 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:<\/p>\n

Jeff, thanks for the well-reasoned reply.<\/p>\n

From what I\u2019ve read (admittedly not too much), I just don\u2019t 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 \u201cextreme\u201d. 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\u2019t think he\u2019ll be using the power of government to impose his personal religious values on the rest of us (beyond selecting judges for the Supreme Court)\u2026 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.<\/p>\n

Bachmann was great in her wholehearted, full-throated opposition to Obamacare; I\u2019ve no doubt that if she was president she\u2019d 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\u2019all 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\u2019d like a fighter, and someone ideologically principled\u2026 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. \u2018Cause if you\u2019re not, your noble principles & ideological purity will get you diddly-squat, even as POTUS.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s not that I only read blogs I completely agree with (and I don\u2019t 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\u2019s just that, at this point in time, a seriously pro-Bachmann\/ Santorum blog (where all the commenters seem to be on board too\u2026 perhaps I\u2019m mistaken about that) is just too different a ballpark from where I\u2019m at, playing a different game that I\u2019m not really interested in.<\/p>\n

But, I take your point. And so I may very well still check in. Negative critique is good, and essential, and you\u2019re great at it (even if your positive endorsements don\u2019t make sense to me at this time). Like I said, I\u2019ve been a long-time fan, and still am in way\u2013 hence, the disappointment. But that\u2019s not on you: you\u2019re great because (among other things) you don\u2019t pander to your readers (like me).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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:<\/p>\n

Rachel —<\/p>\n

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. <\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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. <\/p>\n

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<\/em>, 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Is my take. <\/p>\n

Discuss.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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\u2019ve read<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":9196393,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-32975","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32975","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/9196393"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=32975"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32975\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=32975"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=32975"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=32975"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}