“The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in ‘A,’ ‘B,’ ‘C’ and ‘D.’ Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of ‘conservatism.'”
– Barry Goldwater, as quoted by the blog, Unforeseen Contingencies. He is talking in relation to the absurd Rick Santorum. The Republican Party has, in my view, paid a high price for not heeding Goldwater on this issue. I sometimes wonder if a similar thing could ever happen in Britain with the Tories. I think it is, hopefully, unlikely, although the spirit of old puritanism does stalk the land in different guises, some of them not, on the face of it, remotely religious as traditionally understood.
The writer of the linked article seems to take it for granted that Santorum is a ‘religious extremist’, or that he is ‘trying to seize the state to force his theology on the rest of us’, while presenting no evidence to support that claim. But I’m sure he read it in the NYT and saw it on CNN, so it must be true. He quotes a lot of Goldwater (which is always nice), but, strangely enough, not one Santorum quote.
1. It’ll never happen to the Tories, because Britain is not a religious country, while the US is.
2. Barry Goldwater was being a bit whiny wasn’t he ? Anyone has a right to demand that a politician obey his wishes on pain of withholding votes or money or both. It’s entirely up to the politician whether he wishes to comply or not.
3. At present, the religious right are usually a useful ally for economically right of centre people. They are reliably anti-liberal (in the American sense.) Though it would be possible to get them to vote Democrat, or at least stay at home, if you tried really hard to insult them. This might create a warm glow of contentment in your heart, but it would also create an awful lot of elected liberals. The desire to tell the religious right to eff off is of course why libertarians never get elected. They are too “pure.” Or in plainer English “too childish.”
4. On any objective measure, the coercion that the religious right would like to apply to me (or my wife and daughters) is about a thousand times less coercive than the coercion that liberal Democrats would like to apply. Moreover, while the religious right coercion is entirely theoretical and would never actually get voted in, the liberal Democrat coercion is already there as a practical reality.
5. I agree that the GOP allying with (or being substantially composed of) the religious right can frighten off some middle of the road voters. But the Dems allying with mad greenies, frothing black power preachers and business hating academics also frightens off some middle of the road voters. If the GOP had a better press operation its embarrassing relatives would figure a lot smaller in people’s minds than the Dems embarrassing relatives.
6. It would be nice if 51% of the electorate agreed with me on everything. But seeing as they don’t, if I want to get elected, I’ll have to scrabble for allies where I can find them.
7. I do not under any circumstances want to get elected – I just wish to restore to greater prominence Churchill’s essential wisdom – “ If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons”
The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
Blah, blah.
Replace religious with any other adjective and you find the same thing.
Groups trying to get politicians to do what they want with threats of democratic retaliation via withholding of support?
Waily waily.
(“Who do those libertarians think they are, telling me I have to follow their principles to be really moral?”)
Sigivald, I think Goldwater’s point was not that people shouldn’t be free to petition their government in what they perceive as their best interests, or to vote as they see best, but rather that religious leaders and factions assert a nondisputable moral superiority to their claims. Anyone who disagrees with them is ipso facto immoral or, at best, is their moral inferior. It’s that attitude which infuriates me and, I suspect, Goldwater.
I don’t see what is so infuriating about that, Laird. This is exactly the way you and I feel about the likes of, say, Obama – and for that matter, this is probably how Obama feels about the likes of you and me. Different people have different moral codes, that’s a given. The problems begin when we try to legislate these moral codes, but I am still to be convinced that people like Santorum or his supporters actually want to do that.
Oh, and what Lee Moore said.
What Lee Moore said.
Losing IL, Santorum Renews Focus on Freedom
What’s really funny about this whole topic is that the truly powerful and most politicized religious affiliation is the statist alliance with what are called “mainstream denominations”, which are most of the traditional Protestant sects plus Catholics and Jews.
Back during the progressive ere at the turn of the century, the religious groups were at the front of those demanding more state programs, and they have remained stalwart allies to every statist and collectivist pol who has come down the pike for the last century and more.
Go to any mainline church on a few Sundays and you will hear the social justice sermons repeated ad nauseum, even if the catholics throw in something about abortion, or there is some other quibble now and then with this particular policy or that.
The symbiotic relationship between the established religions and the state dwarfs anything the evangelicals and the right can ever hope to achieve, and their most loved legislative programs are the very entitlement schemes that are driving the western world into mass bankruptcy.
Yeah, it’s the religious right that’s the danger, uh huh, uh huh. Oooooh scary….
I sometimes wonder if a similar thing could ever happen in Britain with the Tories.
It already has, only it didn’t start with the Tories.
While everyone was watching for the Religious Right, the Religious Left changed the name of its faith and called it something else.
Now, with Cameron, the Tories have fallen as well.
Athiests perhaps, but religious zealots nonetheless.
newsrouter: good, but too little and quite possibly too late.
As a life-long American and a voter in the upcoming election, I must tell you that your impressions of religion in America are absurd. While a large majority (>70%?) of Americans profess some form of Christianity, there is NO, as in NO, significant support for any sort of theocratic government. Quoting Santorum is simply asinine. Even he does not support the theocratic regime you seem to fear. Americans made their peace with religious diversity when they adopted the Constitution.
Today, the only possible way that a Western theocracy could develop is if the Muslims were able to consolidate political power in some Western country. In fact, the UK is the most likely victim. The French seem to be developing the resistance to Sharia that Brits lack.
So, don’t worry about the US. The problem is in your own backyard. And part of the problem is your own (as in you, yourself personally) blindness.
Moral centric people view, have wants, pursue, measure, donate by their moral yardstick.
Who’d a thunk?
Not a fair comparison, Alisa. I don’t feel a moral superiority to Obama, merely an intellectual one. And it’s the moral arrogance of religious types to which I object.
Laird : “Not a fair comparison, Alisa. I don’t feel a moral superiority to Obama, merely an intellectual one. And it’s the moral arrogance of religious types to which I object.”
I understood her merely to be saying that she didn’t find fundamentalist Christian moral arrogance any more irritating than Obama’s moral arrogance. Simply on the basis that progressives control most of the media, and so I am exposed to progressive moral arrogance more frequently than I am exposed to Christian moral arrogance, I tend to find the progressive / liberal version more irritating than the later. Besides which as bob sykes says, there is an awful lot of quiet non arrogant mind its own business religion in the US. But depressingly little quiet non arrogant mind its own business “liberalism.”
No disagreement from me about the moral arrogance of progressives, Lee, but that’s not what this the original quote was about and it’s also not what Alisa said. (“This is exactly the way you and I feel about . . . Obama.”)
“I don’t feel a moral superiority to Obama, merely an intellectual one. “
I cannot take that seriously even on reflection. Given that the intellectual difference is basically one pertaining to ethics, the one surely implies the other.
Lee interpreted my words exactly in the way I meant them, Laird.
Brian,
This sounds like a great bit of moral equivalence. As if Santorums’s moral principles are anywhere near the same as the ones relentlessly promoted and shoved down our throats by so-called progressives, leading to the destruction of our society. Which society has ever failed because of its Christian values and how many have failed because of the utter lack thereof?
Barry Goldwater never mentioned Rick Santorum at any time in his life.
Hardly surprising as their lives never crossed.
As for Rick Santorum…
He has never at any time called for the Federal government (or State or local governments come to that) to make illegal homosexual acts or make contraception illegal.
Indeed he has stated MANY TIMES that he does NOT approve of government (at any level) making either homosexual acts or contraception illegal.
Fact checking J.P.
Fact checking.
The only issue that you may have a point about is ABORTION
But if one has to be pro abortion then there will be Republican party – as virtually all Republican voters are prolife.
Are they all “absurd” J.P.?
About half the United States regards abortion as murder.
If they are not allowed to have a political party to represent their opinions, what are they to do?
Go live in some other country?
Socially liberal libertarians might be happy to see social conservatives leave…..
Till they looked around and understood who was left in the United States with them.
Clue – there would not be many Goldwater voters about.
Jonathan – you sometimes give the impression of wanting to express “golden mean” type opinions, if not for the sake of it, then as if you’re trying to attract the approval of “sensible people” to the centre-left or something. I can still remember (accurately I hope) you once referring to Andrew Sullivan as “one of the great voices of the internet” merely on the strength of you having agreed with him on some point pertaining to the Iraq invasion.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but if I am then I don’t understand why it is you write bad posts like this from time to time.
Take it as well-meant criticism.
Rick Santorum has many faults, and I have often pointed them out.
However, I have now read the article that J.P. links to.
The article calls Santorum an example of the American “Taliban”.
That is the sort of smear I would expect of the “mainstream” (i.e. Red) media – not a libertarian philosopher.
I do not care how wonderful a libertarian philosopher the author may be.
Someone who compares a fairly ordinary Catholic conservative (which is also Santorum is) to members of an organization that has killed thousands of Americans, is a shit.
In fact a total shit.
Santorum may no bugger all (no pun intended – well perhaps….) about economic policy – but I know which of the two men I would rather be in a dangerious situation with (Rick Santorum or the libertarian writer).
And the person I would rather have at my side in a dangerious situation is not the libertarian writer.
Rick Santorum is actually a rather decent man (as even Joe Klein of Time magazine admitted in his recent article upon him) and also a brave one (too brave actually – he should learn the virtue of prudence, and avoid answering questions about his religious beliefs when is replies will be presented, FALSELY, as his view of what the criminal law should be).
“It does not matter Paul – he is not going to be the nominee anyway”.
Of course he is not – I have known from day one that Mitt Romney is going to be the nominee (I have often said so).
But I will not sit idle while a good and decent man is smeared as “Taliban”, by some cowardly little shit.
Speaking of crazy theoctrats:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57393466/pat-robertson-marijuana-should-be-legal/%26feed_id=1%26videoid=37%26catid=57393466
I haven’t been very impressed by the comments here – a lot of excuse-making for Santorum.
First, let’s have a look at his credentials as a free marketeer. They are not great.(Link) (Of course, that puts him in good or bad company).
As for his pronouncements on libertarians(Link), the Constitution, etc, he seems to be blithely ignorant, or just disengenuous, about such issues as the separation of church and state.(Link) Again, that does not make him substantially worse than the other candidates (the bar is set very low in this campaign), but he is hardly someone I would want to vote for.
In summary, Santorum has a very uneven voting record on issues on spending, regulation and tax; he has scorned some of the fundamental principles on which the US was built. So he might not be “the Taliban” (that’s just silly), but I would be willing to wager that his kind of stance would appal the late Sen Barry Goldwater, which is why I quoted him and made the point I did.
I praised Sullivan at the time for many more reasons than Iraq (and just as I modified my views, so did he, although his subsequent shift in views on so many issues has been so dramatic and his behaviour so dishonerable in recent years (as over Palin) that I have written him off as a sad case of a good man gone bad).
I write in the way I do because these are the opinions I hold, not because I am trying to engage in some sort of shallow marketing tactic. For instance, I could have enjoyed a quieter life on this blog had I said what a great man Ron Paul was, but then I noticed certain things about him and his associates that gave me the creeps, and I said so, and got hammered for it by some here for my “disheartening” views, etc. I say things as I see them, no more or less.
As for my views on religion, I am an unbeliever, but first a foremost, a libertarian. I have no problem whatsover with those who want their beliefs to be an important part of their public life so long as certain boundaries are understood and respected.
I go back to Santorum. We are living at a time when the number one priority for the US is cutting back government and its debt. While he might find it useful to play some pro-market riffs in this stage of the political cycle, I find no clear sign that he has the willpower or indeed the inclination to bring about serious change or even make the attempt, as in the case of a Paul Ryan (whom I consider to be a serious political figure for the future).
I have not made “excuses” for Santorum.
I was attacking some of his economic actions (for example his pro union position) before you had even heard of the man.
What I have done is to attack the SMEARS against him.
This “theocrat” crap (and it is crap).
However, if you wish to side with dishonest cowardly shits who call Rick Santorum a member of the “American Taliban” (not even their own insult – it was created by the far left and they, the libertarians who use the term, are acting as “shit eaters” to use a Russian term) that is your mistake.
The facts are as follows…..
You read a article on the internet.
Perhaps because you are a busy man (and I accept that you are a busy man) you did not do the fact and background checking. And you got caught out.
Now you are upset.
Hence the “I am not impressed” and so on.
I have seen Rick Santorum since about 2006 – he used to go on Fox News often (desperatly trying to buck the anti Republican landslide of that year – he failed totally).
I mentally noted the man’s strengths and WEAKNESSES at that time (and he has not changed).
By the way – important point…….
Never judge a person by the internet alone.
Listen to him watch him (IN CONTEXT – especially important over LEGAL matters) over years.
“But I do not have time to do all that Paul”.
I never said you did.
Last point on Santorum.
He is one of the worst (most long winded) legal speakers I have ever listened to – the main point of his argument (on just about everything) is lost in the details.
This does not just mean he is very easy to quote out of context – it also raises the question of how he managed to practice as a lawyer at all.
I would have thought that a man who spoke like this in a court of law, would have starved to death (for want of clients).
Perhaps someone who knows more than me can tell me how Santorum made a success of his work in the law – as I do not see how he could function as a trial lawyer (I would never hire him to defend me – and would never advice anyone else to hire him).
Perhaps Rick Santorum worked in some other branch of the law?
By the way – to have Rick Santorum arguing the case of one’s company in a civil court would be a nightmare as well.
He would most likely launch into a detailed account of the opposing case (plus several completely unrelated matters) giving the impression he supported it – with his refutation lost somewhere in the middle of what he was saying.
Just thinking how about how much money this sort of defence (although sincerely meant) might cost a company, gives me a burning need to go to the toilet.
Which is what I will now do.
“I was attacking some of his economic actions (for example his pro union position) before you had even heard of the man. What I have done is to attack the SMEARS against him. This “theocrat” crap (and it is crap).”
I have heard about RS for about 6 years and seen him speak on TV about for or five times. There are also plenty of internet links.
I know you have attacked what you think are unfair charges against Santorum. My point is that on a number of issues, such as contraception, abortion, and so on, he appears to want to take the US significantly towards a more overtly Christian direction and do so with the force of law in cases that are, to say the least, controversial.
And although he has talked a bit about economic issues (which would be hard not to do given the mess the US is in), it is still clear that the sort of issues that float his boat are, frankly, peripheral, as in pornography. (Link)
And someone else on this board claims that the sort of social conservatism here does not pose anything like the sort of threat to the US as the socialism of Obama. That may be true, but why should we settle for the decidedly second or third-best option of Santorum just because the POTUS is such a disaster? Is the cupboard of political talent really so empty?
Jonathan, where has RS “appeared” to want to use the force of law with respect to contraception? If this is not simply you repeating the Left’s fabricated smear – on this specific charge – then you should have no problem providing quotes, should you?
I agree with Johnathan. Santorum is not merely not a libertarian, he is avowedly anti-libertarian. He thinks that the federal government has a legitimate role in deciding on our sexual practices and our private lives in general. “This idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues . . . that is not how traditional conservatives view the world.” And it is clearly not how he views the world, either. Santorum is a standard-issue big-government Republican, generally (but not reliably) conservative on economic issues and extremely (and reliably) conservative on social ones.
Santorum is a very nice person (I’ve met him), but he’s not someone I’d want to see in the White House. He would be an improvement over Obama, of course, but that’s a very low bar: nearly everyone else would be an improvement, too. I’m no fan of Romney, but between the two I think he’s the better choice, for a variety of reasons.
But yes, Johnathan, unfortunately at this point the cupboard of political talent really is that empty.
Oh, and Paul, as to his practising law, Santorum only practised for four years, as an associate in a large firm, then got himself elected to Congress at the ripe old age of 32. And as far as I know he was never a litigator. Verbosity isn’t a problem when you’re practising contract law. And what he’s been doing since losing his Senate seat in 2006 doesn’t really count as “practising law”.
Mike, ask and ye shall receive:
It seems there are conflicting reports about whether Santorum thinks that certain sexual freedoms should be restricted by law.
There is this item(Link), and this.(Link)
The last report seems pretty emphatic that he does think that states (if not the Federal govt) should ban contraception, etc. Now, that takes us into that whole “states rights or individual rights” argument that often gets different types of libertarian in a twist.
Oh and by the way, Mike, I responded to your point about Andrew Sullivan. To repeat, Sully was in my view a great writer once, but he got Bush Derangement Syndrome, shortly followed by an obsession with Sarah Palin’s child production qualities. A sad case all round. Shit happens.
JP : “The last report seems pretty emphatic that he does think that states (if not the Federal govt) should ban contraception, etc.”
Er, no. It seems pretty clear that he thinks that the federal constitution does not prevent states making laws banning contraception. He doesn’t offer us his views on whether states should actually make such laws.
He goes on to say that the proper control for states making dumb laws is the state electorate, not the federal courts. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence (in the report) one way or the other for whether he thinks anti-contraception laws are dumb. He seems to be making a straightforward states rights case.
I can’t believe I’ve been suckered into defending Santorum, but I think we need to see some better evidence before we conclude that he’s in favour of anti-contraception legislation.
(Though for those who aren’t fully up to speed with the redefinitions of words in this area, note that contraception these days is not limited to preventing conception, and so anti-abortion folk will have no qualms about anti post-conception contraception legislation.)
“Now, that takes us into that whole “states rights or individual rights” argument…”
No it doesn’t, Jonathan and this is why: you repeated the Left’s assertion that Santorum would want to ban contraception – for which you have no evidence (as Lee Moore says, that interview has Santorum making a bog-standard States-rights argument, and in any case that is not the context since he is running for President).
The point is not whether Santorum is a good or bad candidate, or whether individual rights trump States rights, the point is that you repeated the Left’s smear line on him. I think you should wash your hands of this.
If you had been running for office, and somebody ran a smear line on you, I’d call them out on their bullshit too.
Mike, you are now being downright dishonest and I have seriously lost respect for you on this. I put up two links (did you actually open them?), one of which makes it very clear that RS favours the idea of such bans. I am assuming those quotes were not just made up out of thin air.
Here is another item(Link), just to ram the point home for those who are so inclined.
And no, I am not “washing my hands” of this; as far as I can tell, this is a man who has tacked very clearly to the far fringes of the social conservative/Big Government right and his comments also suggest that he does not, to put it mildly, have the liberty of the individual, or the need for limited government, as a particularly strong concern. This is a libertarian-leaning blog, not some water carrier for the GOP.
And another gem from Santorum(Link). There is so much of this material to be found, it took me all of three minutes to find it.
Case closed.
JP : “Mike, you are now being downright dishonest and I have seriously lost respect for you on this. I put up two links (did you actually open them?), one of which makes it very clear that RS favours the idea of such bans.”
No, you are entirely wrong and you need to read your own links more carefully.
The first link makes it very clear that he does NOT favour such bans, as he is quoted saying :
“Birth control should be legal in the United States. The states should not ban it, and I would oppose any effort to ban it.’’
and
“I was asked if I believed in it, and I said, ‘No, I’m a Catholic, and I don’t.’ I don’t want the government to fund it through Planned Parenthood, but that’s different than wanting to ban it; the idea I’m coming after your birth control is absurd. I was making a statement about my moral beliefs, but I won’t impose them on anyone else in this case. I don’t think the government should be involved in that. People are free to make their own decisions.’’
And the second link has him saying that states have the right to ban contraception; and that in his opinion contraception is a bad thing. But he does not at any point say or even imply that he thinks states should ban contraception.
The second link is entirely consistent with the first. His views appear to be crystal clear – he thinks contraception is a bad thing, he thinks the federal constitution does not prevent states making laws against contraception, and he thinks states should not make such laws.
In this his views on contraception are almost exactly the same as mine on race discrimination laws, a hardy libertarian annual. IRace discrimination is a bad thing, Parliament has the right to outlaw it, but Parliament shouldn’t do so.
Lee, here is one of the items, just in case there is any reason for doubt:
So he says states have the right to pass whatever laws they want (unless explictly ruled out in the Constitution) including, presumably, the sort of laws I have mentioned. So I guess that voters who fall on the wrong side of whatever their localities decide will have to emigrate to another state, assuming they can easily do so. And he presumably is okay with that. He might say he disagrees with the decision, but he also says that the states have a right to act in this way and he approves, personally, of restrictions of certain activity. The dividing line is, in my view, very thin here.
It is a bit as if he said, “I don’t like drink, I think, the states should be within their rights to ban drink, but personally, I think they would be unwise, but I am not going to demand that they don’t use that right and such a ban is not prohibited by the constitution and if you want to get a drink, move to Alaska.”
Er, yes. It is generally called the tenth amendment of the Bill of Rights.
Mid is correct, Johnathan. The states have plenary authority; the federal government has only limited, enumerated powers. That’s how one can be a strict constitutionalist and also favor repressive government: the difference is which level of government is doing the oppressing. Which is why libertarians and constitutionalists don’t always get along.
And your statement about drink is a precisely correct description of the constitutional separation of political powers in the US.
And what would be the fate of states rights if the executive thought they could demand that states not exercise their rights? We are finding out as each successive president exerts more and more claims to the authority to ‘correct’ our ‘errors’ whether they be in our health care decisions or privacy and just about everything else. I want a president with the strength to have principles yet the wisdom to confine their acts to the Constitution.
For one example, Wisconsin has an utterly absurd law banning the sale of motor vehicles by businesses on Sundays. I believe this law harms businesses and inconveniences a great many people. And yet if any politician proposed to use the national power to correct this bad law, I would oppose and condemn them strongly.
Yes. That is precisely why we have strong checks on the national power and much looser ones on the state power. I can move to another state when ‘my’ state gets stupid enough. Just look at all of the people leaving California and Illinois. I cannot, however, move to another country without extreme inconvenience.
It is through the free market in governments that the United States gained its strength and liberty. If we are to retain them, we need to retain the autonomy of states to behave in substantially different ways.
As Mid and Laird say, Santorum is simply making a legal point in response to a reporter’s question about a Supreme Court case. Santorum disagrees with the Supreme Court’s view that the federal constitution bans states from making anti-contraception laws.
So, taking your drink example he is saying “I don’t like drink, I think, the states are [not should be] within their rights to ban drink, but personally, I think they would be unwise and I would oppose them doing so. And if you want to drink in a state that has banned drink, vote for legislators who will repeal the ban.”
This is not, IMHO, a particularly scary view.
It would be nice, I agree, if the US federal constitution banned both Congress and the states from making all sorts of illiberal laws. But it doesn’t, and in the meantime, if you live in a state you have to obey its laws. But if the federal constitution fails to ban all sorts of illiberal laws, it also fails to mandate all sorts of illiberal laws. And here is where your drink example comes into its own. Once upon a time the federal constitution DID mandate anti-drink laws. Then you couldn’t move to another state to escape the anti-drink law. You had to move out of the country.
In the absence of a perfectly libertarian federal constitution, states rights are a useful protection against the federal imposition of illiberal laws, and consequently Santorum’s views on states rights are in his favour.
His views on contraception do not accord with mine, but since it is abundantly clear that he does not support legislation banning it, I really couldn’t care less, and I remain mystified as to why you do.
JP.
I have already told you that Rick Santorum does NOT want to make contraception illegal.
Not at the Federal level OR at the State or local level.
As for your quotations.
Can you really not tell the difference between saying that the State governments have the power (if they are so stupid) to ban contraception, and saying that they should do so?
Mitt Romney believes that people really are so stupid that they can understand an honest answer.
So, when asked, “do States have the power to ban contraception?” or “was the 1962 Supreme Court case decided correctly?” (of course it was not – the legal reasoning was a bad joke), he always replies “contraception would be legal” and just repeats this reply (LOUDER) if asked the question again. It does not answer the question (indeed this nonreply shows utter contempt for people) – but it is the correct, political, reply.
Actually I agree with Mitt about how stupid most, media influenced, voters are – “no one ever lost money by underestimating the taste of the general public”.
Rick Santorum is totally uncynical – which is why he is useless at politics (and, I suspect, would be useless as a practicing lawyer – after all there is this thing called the “jury” which is likely made up of people too stupid to fill in a form, or to act up at the jury challenge level).
Rick Santorum should not be in politics – and I do not say that to insult him (in some ways I am paying him a complement).
But, it is just as well that Mitt Romney (a person who has a more realistic view of human beings) is going to be the nominee.
After all if most people hear States-have-the-constitutional-power-to-ban-contraception-but-should-not-do-so as “condoms should be banned” then most people are as thick as pigshit – and deserve a candidate (and a President) who thinks of them that way.
Ditto sodomy and so on.
Again if people really can not understand “States have the power to ban this – but should not do so” then one has to answer the question “of course homosexual acts should be legal”.
And if asked the same question again – one should simply repeat the answer LOUDER – and (perhaps) make a joke.
Mitt understands this – Rick (lost in his determination to treat people as they should be, not as they ACTUALLY ARE) does not understand it.
Because he refuses to understand it. As Ann Coulter says – Rick Santorum even falls for High School debating tricks, such as “here is an [unsourced] quotation, do you agree with it?” – because he refuses to accept the world as it is, i.e. refuses to accept that questions, most questions, are tricks not invitations to philosophical discussion. Ann Coulter despises Rick for this – and, from a political point of view, she is quite correct to do so.
One of the reasons I am an utter failure in life is that I understand the nature of human beings as well as Mitt does – but refuse to act on that the basis of that understanding.
Not out of morality (like Rick – although there is self deception in Rick as well, he really does see people as better than they actually are) – more out of lazyness in my case.
I can not be bothered to lie to people, or to cheat them.
I tell people the truth – even when it costs friendships.
And I do not bother to cheat them of their money – even when ways to do so occur to me (as they often do – many people being as thick as ……)
I repeat that, in my case, it is not morality – it is mostly just lazyness.
I really can not be bothered to lie to people, or to cheat them.
Of course the consequences will be terrible…..
Yawn – as if I did not already know I am going to die in the gutter.
Paul – I agree with your analysis of the respective political skills of Romney and Santorum. But I’m not sure it’s just a question of managing voter stupidity.
JP is obviously an intelligent chap who understands – intellectually – the difference between saying that states have the power to do X and advocating that they should do X.
But emotionally he’s having real difficulty acknowledging to himself that the difference is real. If Santorum really really does oppose anti-contraception laws, he should be marching with placards saying so, and shouldn’t be banging on about states rights to have such laws (even if he’s answering reporters asking him about it.)
I think it just shows that humans are not really very rational, and emotions bubble to the surface of clever and organised minds almost as often as with dimmer and more confused minds.
“Mike, you are now being downright dishonest and I have seriously lost respect for you on this.”
I was not being dishonest; I was acting in strict stipulation to the accusation and its relevant (i.e. Federal) context: Santorum is running for President and he has made no sign that he would seek to ban contraception at the Federal level – which is not “twisting” the terms of the charge, it is merely stipulating to the relevant context in which it was made. The links you gave actually have Santorum making a bog-standard States-rights argument – which actually is an obvious reason to account for his not favouring a Federal ban.
None of this has anything to do with whether Santorum is a good candidate or whether States-rights are justified or not or whatever the fuckinghell else you toga-wearing plonker. Here – you’re accusation of dishonesty on my part is a mistake, just as your repetition of the smear line on RS was a mistake.
Not having the humility to own up to your mistakes after they have been repeatedly pointed out and explained to you is rather bad form. Accusing people who alert you to your mistakes of dishonesty is… worse.
Lee:
Well, I am concerned about Santorum’s overall social conservative stance, of which his views on contraception are but a part, for several reasons, not least, that in practical terms, his brand of conservatism is absolute anathema to the sort of independent-minded voters (who have become an increasingly large part of the US voting pop.). Such folk are socially liberal (in the English use of the word liberal) and broadly in favour of free markets and limited government. Santorum, by his own derogatory remarks about libertarians and small government, plainly is out of kilter with this.
On the state/individual rights issue. I can see the distinction, yes, but also, bear in mind that when a man who has gone on the record as saying that he opposes the small government tradition in conservative politics, also says that states have a right to ban certain things, then that makes me very nervous. Maybe my nerves have got me more nervous than is warranted.
Mike, sorry if I wrote out of turn. I genuinely thought you were not playing straight here, so I apologise. But that second video I posted did have RS saying some pretty hairy stuff, IMHO, and this is a man who has shared a platform with a religious nut who seems to think that non-Christians should leave the US. Not a great moment.
And to repeat another point, the choice of GOP candidates this time around has been, in my view, pretty lousy. What Laird said.
I agree with your basic point J.P. – about the poor slate of candidates (although I am still rather upset that you went with “three minutes on the internet” rather than my SIX YEARS of observing the man – O.K. now I know why stuff I send here does not appear, even when I ask it as a special favour, I will dry my eyes and get on with life).
I was attacking Rick Santorum (on his lack of economic knowledge – not his social conservatism) years ago. He also does not know what the word “libertarian” means (he thinks it means atomistic individualist).
I am as annoyed with Rick Santorum for accepting the media sterotype of libertarians, as I am with the sterotype (equally false) about him.
Still he has not changed.
I remember seeing a interview with Glenn Beck (a close friend of Santorum – they have known each other for years).
Glenn asked his friend Rick about the Federal Reserve.
Look of total bafflement – desperate “Beam me up Scotty” look.
If Glenn Beck (who knows the man) can not educate him about economic policy, what am I (who only know him from watching him – I have not even exchanged e.mails with him as I have with some other American polticians) supposed to do about it?
There is bugger all I can do. Although (oddly enough) I still think his tax and spending policies are better than those of Romney – although that is not exactly a high standard to beat (I must stress I am pointing to Governor Romney’s present published plans – I have no idea whatever what he would actually do if elected President of the United States).
I agree with Ron Paul about economic policy – but he thinks the Islamists are fluffy (and I do not mean bearded) and that all the problems of the world are the fault of American Imperialism.
Was there a candidate who had a good understanding of economics and a clear view of the world?
Oddly enough there was – Michelle Bachmann.
But, of couse, it came no surprise to me when she came last in Iowa.
By the way – I wonder how many people know that the social conservatives opinions of Rick Santorum and RON PAUL are virtually identical?
I know because I am evil space alien social conservative Christian – just like both of them are.
But Ron Paul has the basic political sense to turn every social concervative media “gotcha” question into something else.
I have seen him take a question on sodomy and turn it into a anti Iraq war question.
RonPaul (like any good politician – and totally unlike Rick) answers the question he wants to answer, not the question that was actually asked.
He may be crazy – but he is not daft.