Over at his blog, Rick Sincere has a perceptive takedown of former Sen. Rick Santorum’s recent lip service to Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Worth reading.
Santorum, you may recall, is a socially conservative Republican who representated Pennsylvania for two Senate terms before being defeated in 2006. More than that, though, he wrote one of the most articulate and thoroughgoing modern critiques of the very libertarianism that Goldwater and Reagan championed.
In his 2005 It Takes a Family—a good book, by the way, worth reading and taking seriously—Santorum argues that the family, not the individual, is the fundamental unit of society. Conservatism, consequently, should focus primarily on supporting families, not on shrinking government. And indeed, as I pointed out back then, Santorum found all kinds of ways to make government bigger. “With It Takes a Family, Rick Santorum has served notice. The bold new challenge to the Goldwater-Reagan tradition in American politics comes not from the Left, but from the Right.”
In 2010, Santorum’s felt need to pay homage to two politicians whose worldview he has opposed—while suggesting that in 1964 Goldwater was not a libertarian!—is another example of why social conservatives are feeling uncomfortable in this Year of the Tea Party.
35 Comments for “Santorum’s Straddle”
posted by Jorge on
In 2010, Santorum’s felt need to pay homage to two politicians whose worldview he has opposed—while suggesting that in 1964 Goldwater was not a libertarian!—is another example of why social conservatives are feeling uncomfortable in this Year of the Tea Party.
Tough. That’s what you get after exposing the country to two years of Obama care.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Jorge, do you mean to suggest that the soc cons staying home on E-Day 2008 and not voting for McCain was one of the reasons why Obama won? Of course, along with massive ACORN vote fraud and the usual vote fraud in most Democrat-controlled, corrupt and decayed urban areas?
TP’ers are definitely not controlled by the soc cons like former Sen Santorum or Allen… anymore than they are controlled by former Sen Kastenbaum or Jim Jeffords. Most of the TP rallies I’ve been at, the majority of people there don’t want the soc cons like Tom Delay back in power at the GOP… they want fiscal conservatives.
That most liberals are so illiberal to understand who the TP’ers and would prefer to label them racists or bigots or neanderthals says more about the mental deficiencies of the TP critics.
posted by Bobby on
“is another example of why social conservatives are feeling uncomfortable in this Year of the Tea Party.”
—That’s not true, the only uncomfortable people are the progressives and establishment republicans. Social conservatives understand that not everyone in the tea party is anti-abortion/anti-gay marriage but for the most part, they don’t care. If I were a social conservative I would support the tea party for the following reasons: 1. We must stop the endless spending and government waste. 2. We must stop catering to Islam. 3. We must stop apologizing for our “mistakes.” 4. We must stop with the class warfare, EVERYONE deserves a tax break.
Heck, I think those are good reasons for anyone but progressives. America needs to go back to the principles that made us the greatest country in the world in the first place. I don’t care if the Europeans, have free healthcare, I’m not interested in being a global citizen, I don’t need the government to pay the college loans of people that work for the government.
posted by BobN on
Dear Tea Partiers,
If you really, really want to stop catering to Islam, legalized same-sex marriage. They’ll hate it!
posted by Michigan-Matt on
BobN, is that why Obama doesn’t support gay marriage rights? Because it offends his inner-Muslim sensitivities? Wow.
posted by Jorge on
It is generally not a good idea to answer satire or sarcasm by making bold inferences on the word-for-word, Michigan-Matt.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Thanks for he advice, Jorge… I’ll let my comments stand as stated.
posted by Jorge on
Go one further. Force conservative Muslim teachers to instruct students on the equality of gay and straight marriages.
Bobby, I would submit that a social conservative grass roots movement would form a different alliance than the current small government/libertarian movement.
In many ways, Rick Santorum is exactly the type of Bush Republican who has lost power to the more libertarian right-of-center factions and rank-and-file. Extremely strong supporter of the build democracy in the Middle East worldview, for example. Very directive foreign policy when it comes to foreign aid as well–he was in the thick of the debate over just what our overseas AIDS/sex education funding policy should be. True, he is not linked to big government spending conservatism like Bush is (oops, I think I just provided that link). That’s why he has an outside shot of coming back.
posted by Clay on
I have only one thing to say on this issue. If homosexuality were normal, which is what the gay-rights crowd preaches, then it should be reasonable to assume that homosexuality would not be a harmful trait were it to apply to the majority, or even the entirety, of the general populace.
Yet consider: two people of the same gender cannot have children. No, they can’t – not without the assistance of a surrogate mother or a sperm donor, at least. If gays are not interested in heterosexuals, as the article states, then imagine what would happen if all of us turned gay – really, devoutly gay, without a hetero instinct in us. The birthrates would plummet to zero, and all of humanity would die off within a century.
That, my friends, would be the result of universal homosexuality. And you’re calling that normal?! I’m not suggesting that we persecute gays or anything of that nature, but in my mind there’s no denying that homosexuality is not a normal sexual state – it’s deviant, it’s a disorder, like schizophrenia or retardation or autism or psychosis. Why is this a reasonable comparison? Because, just as the world would be badly off if all of us were psychotic or retarded, so would it suffer if everyone were gay. Because child-bearing is absolutely essential to human survival, and because that process can ONLY occur between and man and a woman, homosexuality cannot be considered a normal sexual state, because it fundamentally negates the very process that was required to bring us all into existence.
I rest my case.
posted by Alex on
If maleness were normal, then it should be reasonable to assume that it would not be a harmful trait were it to apply to the majority, or even the entirety, of the general populace.
Yet consider: two males cannot have children. No, they can’t – not without the assistance of a surrogate mother. Imagine what would happen if all of us turned male – really, biologically male, without any females amongst any of us. The birthrates would plummet to zero, and all of humanity would die off within a century.
That, my friends, would be the result of universal masculinity. And you’d call being male normal?! Just as the world would be badly off if all of us were psychotic or retarded, so would it suffer if everyone were male. Masculinity cannot be considered a normal sexual state, because it fundamentally negates the very process that was required to bring us all into existence.
I rest my case.
posted by Jimmy on
Conservatives need to make up their minds as to whether humans are mere animals, subject only the rules of the natural world; or, through our reasoning ability, understanding of ourselves in abstract terms, we transcend what it means to be just a mammal or primate. Is this not the essential nature of human-ness?
posted by Jimmy on
“That, my friends, would be the result of universal homosexuality. And you’re calling that normal?! I’m not suggesting that we persecute gays or anything of that nature, but in my mind there’s no denying that homosexuality is not a normal sexual state – it’s deviant, it’s a disorder, like schizophrenia or retardation or autism or psychosis”
In my mind, you show evidence of being paranoid delusional. What are your qualifications, Clay, to make such ridiculous statements? File this one in the “most absurd statements on IGF” folder.
I love how haters qualify their statements with things like, “I’m not suggesting that we should persecute gays..”, all the while, really believing just that.
posted by Houndentenor on
That’s just batshit crazy. No one has called for universal homosexuality. Some people are gay. It’s not really that many people. Probably about 3% of the total population. There are also a few people who enjoy a little same sex action every now and then but even that only adds another 6%. Gay people are cool with that. We aren’t out to “convert” anyway. That’s just a lie from the right, made up by people who know better to stir up fear and anger among people too stupid to think for themselves.
Also, plenty of couples have to use alternative methods, like adoption, artificial insemination or surrogacy, to have children. Is that bad? Wrong? Unnatural? Or only when it’s a same sex couple?
100 years from now people are going to look back and wonder what all this fuss was about. A small percentage of the population is a little different. It’s not contagious. It’s just a part of the humanity. It exists whether people “agree with it” or not. That’s not going away and it’s not going to change. Really, these arguments just get more and more outrageous and that’s why we are winning the debate. It’s not because people speaking on behalf of gay groups have done a good job. For the most part they do a lousy job. But because the opposition can’t hide their crazy any more.
posted by ditBoisphot on
the Federal-State Unemployment Insurance Program provides unemployment benefits to eligible workers . http://insuranceinstates.com/texas/Houston/State%20Farm%20Insurance%20Companies%3A%20Agents-Houston/77063/
posted by ditBoisphot on
http://insuranceinstates.com/washington/Bellevue/Chen%20Ann/98006/
posted by Jorge on
Jorge, do you mean to suggest that the soc cons staying home on E-Day 2008 and not voting for McCain was one of the reasons why Obama won?
I make no claims about the cause of Obama being elected president, except that elections matter and have consequences. One of the consequences of electing a committed big government, big spending liberal is that the backlash is against all big government ideologies, conservative and liberal.
Why is this a reasonable comparison? Because, just as the world would be badly off if all of us were psychotic or retarded, so would it suffer if everyone were gay.
We’d be pretty badly off if everyone were men, too. I DARE you to prove me wrong.
posted by Chris M on
Hi guys, sorry to distract from the discussion here, but I’ve been unable to get the RSS feeds on the site working for a number of weeks now. Unfortunately I’ve not been able to find any email addresses or forums that I can post the problem on. I was hoping that someone with IGF would see this message and be able to look into it.
posted by Carl on
More of the tea party candidates and their views on social issues…Joe Miller this time. Or someone he paid anyway.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/10/joe-miller-gay-rights-terry-moffitt
posted by Bobby on
“More of the tea party candidates and their views on social issues…Joe Miller this time. Or someone he paid anyway.”
—I doubt Miller hired him because he’s homophobic, that’s not how Tea Party people think. They think qualifications, previous experience, talent.
posted by BobN on
They think qualifications, previous experience, talent.
From what I gather they don’t ask, “Is your license current?”
posted by Carl on
“I doubt Miller hired him because he’s homophobic, that’s not how Tea Party people think. They think qualifications, previous experience, talent.”
Moffit seems to have a very extensive history in seeing homosexuality as something that can be cured and is a threat, so much so that his organization even criticized Glenn Beck for not taking the matter seriously enough. He may have other qualifications but it makes me even more doubtful that social issues are not a very important part of this movement.
posted by Bobby on
“Moffit seems to have a very extensive history in seeing homosexuality as something that can be cured and is a threat, so much so that his organization even criticized Glenn Beck for not taking the matter seriously enough. He may have other qualifications but it makes me even more doubtful that social issues are not a very important part of this movement.”
—Let’s say for the sake of argument that social issues were important. What is Miller gonna do? Ban abortion? Ban homosexuality? That’s never going to happen in Alaska where people have a libertarian mindset. The social issues crap is just shit you say to get elected, you need a majority to really change things, and when it comes to social issues the people are mostly split (except when it comes to the second amendment since almost 70% of Americans oppose gun control).
So what’s the alternative? An Obama-like candidate who reinstated DADT yet made an “It gets better” video? What is Dan Choi going to do now? He already enlisted to serve, is he going to be discharged again?
In the end Republicans do things better. They don’t play games, they don’t offer their support one moment and change their minds later. Obama and his cronies have been playing with us for too long, they are the epitomy of a man who beats his wife and then buys them flowers. Gays don’t need that crap, I’d rather vote for a “homophobe” that doesn’t lie to me than for one who claims to be gay friendly but isn’t.
posted by Carl on
“Let’s say for the sake of argument that social issues were important. What is Miller gonna do? Ban abortion? Ban homosexuality? That’s never going to happen in Alaska where people have a libertarian mindset.”
If someone sees homosexuality as a key issue and they have access to power then they’re going to focus on that issue regardless of the state’s climate. Look at Tim Pawlenty in Minnesota. It’s stereotyped as a liberal state, but he said he regretted voting for a gay rights measure, and he’s spent his 8 years in office battling against partnership rights, to the point of not even supporting a bill that would let you have the power to have funeral rights if your partner passes away.
“In the end Republicans do things better.”
That depends on the Republican. There are a lot of Republicans at the moment who run based on how much they oppose and how much they hate government, not on anything they’re going to do.
posted by Carl on
“It’s stereotyped as a liberal state, but he said he regretted voting for a gay rights measure”
I don’t say this because I believe anyone who opposes an anti-discrimination law is automatically against gays, but that he has a history of running on these issues, and yet Minnesota voters did not mind. So no matter the climate of the state, it’s surprisingly easy sometimes for a candidate to use gays as a political weapon.
posted by Bobby on
“That depends on the Republican. There are a lot of Republicans at the moment who run based on how much they oppose and how much they hate government, not on anything they’re going to do.”
—You know the old joke that government works best during holidays, because when they do nothing, nothing goes wrong.
Republicans do have ideas, you know, it’s just that the media doesn’t cover them. Almost every republican I’ve seen on TV supports tort reform, yet somehow the media isn’t interested in that.
“I don’t say this because I believe anyone who opposes an anti-discrimination law is automatically against gays, but that he has a history of running on these issues, and yet Minnesota voters did not mind”
—That’s because they care about the big issues such as jobs, the economy, crime, etc.
Have you noticed that Obama is a small issues guy? He cares about healthcare in a country where almost everyone with a job has healthcare, he cares about cap and trade in a land where people don’t want to pay more for gas, more for utilities, and more for hybrid cars.
posted by Carl on
“—That’s because they care about the big issues such as jobs, the economy, crime, etc. ”
Yes, but some Republicans in office still put a heavy priority on social issues, not on these matters.
posted by Jorge on
They may try to play up that Delaware candidate’s attack on the concept of separation of church and state, but they can’t help but cover the fact that this year’s elections are clearly about the economy. In most of the governor debates I’ve heard about, economy is front and center. “How do you create a job?” All these upstart Republican candidates like Meg Whitman and Christine O’Donnell are saying things like “I created jobs”, “I had debts, too”, “I’m a small businessman”. It makes my head hurt.
posted by Bobby on
“All these upstart Republican candidates like Meg Whitman and Christine O’Donnell are saying things like “I created jobs”, “I had debts, too”, “I’m a small businessman”. It makes my head hurt.”
—How come? Don’t you want a candidate you can relate to? Do we really need another elitist Harvard-Law asshole? Do we need someone like the writer of “Nudge?” He thinks people can be nudged into certain behaviors, you want power players like that?
People are tired of “safe” politicians, even John McCain had to pretend he wasn’t with the establishment to get re-elected. You’re right, this election is all about the economy, and the choice is between tax and spend democrats, lower taxes and keep spending republicans, or lower taxes and spend less newbies. At this point, I’d rather take a newbie with good ideas over an expert crook and liar.
posted by Doug on
Bobby, in case you didn’t know Whitman went to Princeton and Harvard. but I guess it’s only elitist if Democrats go to fancy universities.
posted by Debrah on
Well, I see that debates are progressing nicely and unmolested.
It’s a busy season with this coming week presenting a nightmare list of things to do…..
…….however, I could not let the end of October go by without making note that it was last year about this time when I jumped into the fray at IGF (much to the dismay and chagrin of Mr. Link, I’m sure!) LOL!
And even though many of us disagree on a number of issues, and perhaps always will, I want to send a cyber kiss to people like Throbert (a brilliant and humorous internet bon vivant!); Bobby (one of the most fearlessly candid ones with a big heart behind the take-no-prisoners, fact-filled commentary); Jimmy (whose creative expression is seldom eclipsed by his need to be a meanie!); and last but not least, BobN (a most sensitive and intelligent man whom I know I would get on with so well……if he were not such a damned Far Left Liberal!!!).
It’s been fun and I have enjoyed learning a few things from you guys and arguing endlessly on aspects of this country’s culture war issues.
Don’t forget to vote. You can go early as I’ve already done if you can’t make it to the polls next week.
BTW…..for Bobby, ND30, and others who might be interested, GWB’s book will be coming out and he’s done a YouTube introduction which I have embedded on my blog or you can find by searching YouTube.
Quite honestly, after what this country has been through the last two years, I think GWB has already begun to be viewed through a much more objective prism.
Why did any of us vote for Obama in 2008?
posted by Bobby on
Thanks Debrah, I’ve enjoyed your comments throughout the yeat. You’re like a centrist Ann Coulter, a vixen of common sense, mistress of reason and challenger of the status quo and conformity. All the best. Bobby.
P.S. You remind me of the “Debrah” character Jeff’s brunnette assistant makes sometimes in the TV show, Flipping Out.
posted by Debrah on
That’s so funny, Bobby.
I had never seen “Flipping Out”.
From Googling, it looks like a blend of HGTV and Seinfeld.
The cable package I have now doesn’t include Bravo for some reason. I had it until I changed my subscription to the high definition cable which seems to have everything else but Bravo.
By the way, a few more tips:
Don’t miss “Boardwalk Empire” on HBO, the new original series directed by Martin Scorsese with Mark Wahlberg as a producer.
Right now it’s progressed to about the fourth episode, but as you know, they always repeat them.
I love it. It’s so provocative, gritty, sexual, crime-filled, and kind of a loose history rolled into one.
Lastly, a suggestion for the fall/winter season.
IMO, the most captivating fragrance in men’s cologne currently on the market is Bleu De Chanel.
A sensual, woody aromatic scent that’s really quite something.
It’s for the man who “defies convention”.
This one is so profoundly sensual that I might be compelled to thoroughly ravish the next man I encounter wearing it!
posted by Bobby on
Debrah, I LOVE Boardwalk Empire, I can’t wait to read the book that inspired the series. I think it’s a great show. I wish they gave more detail, like yesterday I didn’t know that Lysol was a form of birth control. But I guess they can’t show everything, although they did show quick male nudity, that was nice.
Here’s a clip from the Flipping Out show.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Avim2r0rG0
I love Jeff, he’s a real piece of work.
posted by Jorge on
How come? Don’t you want a candidate you can relate to?
Um, yeah.
And the last time I checked, I don’t care about the economy.
posted by Carl on
As the race winds down it seems like fewer and fewer of the Senate seats involve economic battles. Many of them are very personal grudge matches, or tend to involve topics that have little to do with fixing the economy, whether it’s lasers in the sky, Aqua Buddha, violence at a campaign rally, controversy over ads about immigration, or the ongoing Alaska fiasco. Or Colorado, where Ken Buck’s campaign has been involved with all kinds of fascinating topics like homosexuality/alcoholism, rape, separation of church and state, and abortion.
More and more I wonder if this year’s election have much to do with the economy at all and if those who are elected this year will care about fixing the economy.