At the end of the day, one might be saddened, or perhaps entertained, by the silly, disturbed rantings of extremist conservative figures such as James Dobson, Maggie Gallagher, Pat Robertson and Phyllis Schafly. But for the most part, you don’t really worry about them — they proselytize to their drones while mainstream America sits back and observes — but does not wholeheartedly participate in — their respective freak shows.
But Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is different. He skillfully walks the line between mainstream and fringe while quietly rising up the ranks in the Republican Party (he is currently Number Three in the Senate Republican hierarchy, behind Majority Leader Bill Frist and Majority Whip Mitch McConnell).
And let’s face it, he looks and acts “presidential.”
So the question becomes increasingly urgent: Is Santorum a moderate or an extremist?
Perhaps his latest manifesto sheds some light:
Intellectual conservatism was once defined by two clear goals — the defeat of communism and the reduction in the size, scope and sweep of government.
So far, so good — conservatism used to be (but of course no longer is) fundamentally libertarian. No argument there.
While purpose, objective and hope have been the hallmarks of conservatism’s past, they also should be the defining characteristics of conservatism’s future. What I call “Compassionate Conservatism” has something unique to offer to the shaping of our future.
Of course, there is little if any evidence of “compassionate conservatism” in today’s Republican Party. Moreover, “compassion” is a transitive concept — it suggests action. For the government to be compassionate, it must actually do something. This contrasts with the libertarian worldview which prefers individual compassion over government compassion (which, try as you might, can never escape the very compassionless side effects that inevitably come with politics and power).
But it not new news that libertarianism has been almost completely purged from today’s Republican Party. Let’s focus on Santorum’s suggested replacement, “compassionate conservatism” –
There are four cornerstones to compassionate conservatism. First, compassionate conservatism is founded on the family because the family is the foundation of a healthy civil society.
This is, of course, utter nonsense. The cornerstone of society is by definition the individual, not the family. Without individuals there can be no families, without individual rights there can be no “family rights,” and without individual prosperity there can be no family prosperity.
And of course Santorum leaves out any specific definition of “family,” but we all know what he means (and does not mean) by “family.”
Second, Compassionate Conservatism believes in the transformative power of faith and the integral role of charities, houses of worship, and other civil institutions.
Welcome to Santorum’s conservatism — atheists need not apply (nor, in reality, need Jews or Muslims — but you won’t see that here; conservative Christian politicians know the important difference between “keeping God out of the public square” and “keeping Christ out of public speeches”).
Third, Compassionate Conservatism is founded on an inviolable belief in humanity’s inherent dignity.
Except for gays.
Fourth, Compassionate Conservatism targets the poor and hurting for help, whether they are across the street or across an ocean.
Funny, I didn’t think “charity” was a conservative versus liberal versus libertarian wedge issue. It’s one thing to say “conservatives can be compassionate too” but quite another to say “conservatives are better at compassion than everyone else.”
If “compassion” is to be the new strict scrutiny by which laws and policies are to be evaluated, then fine. Perhaps Santorum would like to explain how the “Bridge to Nowhere” is “compassionate”? Or condoning torture? Or McCain-Feingold? Or National Security Letters? Or cronyism in Supreme Court nominations? Or the Federal Marriage Amendment? Because they are today’s “conservatism.”
On the one hand, it looks like Santorum might not even win re-election to the Senate in 2006. On the other hand, would that necessarily preclude him from running for president in 2008?
So I ask again: Is Rick Santorum the most dangerous man in America?
15 responses so far ↓
Link Bombsoverbaghdad // Nov 17, 2005 at 1:04 pm
That was a good post. I'm not as anti-Santorum, but I understand and agree with some of your criticisms. I do agree with Santorum that the family is the basic unit of society. Of course, the family would not exist without individuals, but the society is held together through familial units. I saw a speech by Santorum regaring mothers who leave their kids too early in order to go back to work, and I couldn't have agreed more. I'm big on family values, I must admit.
Perhaps your status as a New Yorker makes you more individualistic? Everytime I go to NYC, all of the metrosexual investment bankers in pink ties that I know are always talking about "not being ready to get married" and they are like 40 years old.
[Kip replies: I may be many things, but I am not "metrosexual." LOL. In any case, which are the bigger problems in America today: people having children too late, or people having children too early? People having too few children, or people having too many children?]
Link Tony // Nov 17, 2005 at 1:29 pm
If the family is the foundation of a healthy civil society, how do I count? I'm not married and have no children. Am I to live with my mother until I marry? Does she get to "parent" my decisions, because I must put family strength above my individual choices? I'm sure that'll make my mother happy, since she could have me married tomorrow.
If not the most dangerous, he probably qualifies as the most insincere.
Link Mahndisa // Nov 17, 2005 at 1:32 pm
Good post. What really bothers me is when all of the rhetoric sounds cool and then ya juxtapose the rhetoric against action. The two are totally incongruous, which is why I am an independent green minded, free market, conservative. Yes a hodge podge of idealism (I know):) The so called compassionate conservatism is really just a smoke screen for Evangelical statists in the GOP. I see evangelical statists on one side, and libertarians on the other side of the GOP. Mr. Santorum screwed up when he invoked faith simply because he is applying a Judeo Christian philosophy in a diverse society which leads to exclusion (as you aptly pointed out). I despise the exclusionary behavior that some of these people exhibit because they say that conservatives all must come from the same mold. I recall one debate where someone said that to be a conservative and receive inalienable rights defined in the Constitution, one MUST believe in a Judeo Christian God. The narrowness is astounding!
Nevertheless, I do agree with BOB in that collectivism provides a moral basis for society and individual rights are the check and balance (in the legal realm), totally opposite of the Ayn Randian philosophy you espoused. But the definition of family is well…subjective.
Excellent post!
Link Bombsoverbaghdad // Nov 17, 2005 at 2:47 pm
Kip,
All NY I-bankers are "girlie men." Everytime I go to NY, all I see is guys wearing $500 sunglasses and pink ties. Yuck!!
I'm an attorney as well.
People can have as many children as they want. (I thought your were a libertarian?) Early pregancy is a HUGE problem. I agree. But one could also argue that having kids too late is a HUGE problem. That's why the number of white folks is in decline, no???
(Humor on a Thursday) Women are too damn worried about chasing dollars. (I'm not PC on that subject).
Tony, of course you're still part of society. When you have a wife and kids, however, you'll understand the difference. It's quite profound. Once the family bonds go awry, this society will fall. Human beings are social animals and not meant to live alone.
[Kip replies: I meant "too many / too few" and "too early / too late" from the conservative perspective, not the libertarian.]
Link J Philip // Nov 17, 2005 at 3:19 pm
An unfortunate aspect of Reagan's influence on the right was an alliance with fundamentalist Christians. Conservatives used to be a bunch of accountants and small business owners who were laissez faire both fiscally and socially. Unfortunately, conservatism has become cross polinated with fundamentalism, and, as they say, politics have made strange bed fellows. So Kip, who scares you more- Howard Dean or Rick Santorum?
Link KipEsquire // Nov 17, 2005 at 3:27 pm
Howard Dean is an unstable semi-maniac who goes around reminding people that he is an unstable semi-maniac. He doesn't scare me at all — the people who put him in charge of the Democratic Party scare me.
Santorum is the anti-Dean: he goes around being calm, soft-spoken and philosophical in an attempt to conceal his real agenda by cloaking it with labels like "compassionate."
Link Tony // Nov 17, 2005 at 4:33 pm
As to the Dean/Santorum question, it's always the quiet ones society has to worry more about.
That said, Bombsoverbaghdad, what about the individuals who don't wish to marry and have families? I understand the ability to say individuals are still part of society. It's just that forwarding the notion that the family is the foundation of society, as Santorum does, is silly. I think it gets to the idea that morals and "good citizenship" fall apart without the family structure. I don't like the underlying notion that left to their own free will, people will become selfish, uncaring, immoral, etc. It makes no sense.
I could accept a small portion of the family as foundation idea if it meant self-created family. I live with my girlfriend on the same street as my brother. We have a circle of friends large enough to balance our need for social interaction/intellectual stimulation. Absent marriage and kids, they're our family. I can accept the idea that my definition of family is valuable to a functioning society because humans are social creatures.
But that is not what Santorum is promoting and it's an important distinction. My definition accepts my choice of a non-marital relationship and same-sex marriage. Neither will cause the downfall of society, but Santorum believes it will. My "public policy" involves no government preference or involvement. Santorum's would be public policy (and legislation and Constitutional amendments).
Link Bombsoverbaghdad // Nov 17, 2005 at 5:59 pm
Tony,
Individuals who don't want to marry have every right not to. That's really all I can say.
A family is man, woman and child. You and your girlfriend are a "couple." Though you guys may be cool, you're not a family. You are a couple with friends. (Kinda like the show, "Friends.")
My definition of family does not accept same sex marriages. I have yet to find someone who can explain to me that men should be able to marry men just because they have a sexual preference for each other. I'm fine with civil unions. And don't reply that it's about "liberty." Should I have the liberty to take 10 wives??? If so, my wife's gonna be pissed, cuz it's about to get crowded in our bed! If not, why??
I don't say this in hatred at all either. I have gay couple friends. I just disagree that it's good for society.
Link J Philip // Nov 17, 2005 at 6:01 pm
Tony; I'd hardly call Rick Santorum "quiet." He may be softspoken, but he's outspoken. Kip's characterization of him as the anti-Dean is pretty astute — each panders to a moonbatty segment in their own way. My real question is who you'd view as the lesser of two evils running things.
Appearances -wise, I am Santorum's wet dream. I am conservative, catholic, pro-life, and married with three children. I am also self employed. But I think Tony's definition of family is quite valid. A society where everything is a sanitized, family friendly Chuckee Cheez may be what Santorum says he wants, but I think he's just appeasing the religious zealots.
Link J Philip // Nov 17, 2005 at 6:04 pm
Bombs-
You disagree that what is good for society? Gay marriage, an expanded interpretation of family, or both? Please clarify.
Link Bombsoverbaghdad // Nov 17, 2005 at 6:53 pm
Gay marriage.
Link Tony // Nov 17, 2005 at 7:49 pm
J Philip,
I didn't mean to imply that we haven't heard from Santorum. By quiet, I meant not visibly "off his rocker."
Link Tony // Nov 17, 2005 at 8:07 pm
Bombsoverbaghdad,
I don't mind that you don't agree with my definition of family, but what I'm aiming for is a support structure. That's where I think Santorum's definition (and yours) is lacking. If you disregard my understanding of family, that brings us back to my orginial statement. With man, woman, and child the only acceptable manner, I'm not part of the foundation of society. Where do I fit in?
What if I get married? Do I have to have a child before I become a family? What if one member of the family is unable to conceive? Do they not constitute a family? Should they be allowed to marry, since apparently they're not part of the foundation supporting America?
As you responded to J Philip, if only gay marriage is bad for society, but my definition is not a family, where does that leave us? Santorum ultimately wants his conservatism to dictate public policy. That leaves those of us who don't fit his mold where exactly? Wwhat are the public policy implicatioons? Specifically, how does individual liberty address that worse?
P.S. I'm not going to go into the same-sex marriage debate as to why it's reasonable for two men (or two women) to marry because Kip's done it much better than I could. That also applies to the "10 wives" argument.
Link Bombsoverbaghdad // Nov 18, 2005 at 12:46 pm
Tony,
I should start off by saying that I'm not a Santorum guy. I'm not advocating for public policy changes based upon my view of what a family is. I understand that other people feel differently. I don't "disregard" your definition of family; I just have a different view.
Basically, if you are an individual, you are part of society, but you are not a family. Families are stronger than individuals. Don't believe me? Wait 'til you get old. You'll see, when you need somebody to take care of you and wipe your ass!
If a couple does not have kids, they are a "couple without kids." "Family" involves children.
[Kip interjects: Does that mean I have a "duty" to wipe my parents' asses? How is that more reasonable than imposing a duty on my parents to adequately prepare for their own old age (e.g., having the resources to hire professionals to wipe their asses for them)?]
Link Tony // Nov 18, 2005 at 1:05 pm
Bombsoverbaghdad,
I'm fine with your explanation. If, as you say you're not a Santorum guy, there is more benefit than harm in your viewpoint. (To me, of course, in my subjective viewpoint.)
The struggle I have is that, politically, Santorum counts you as a win. He'll point to any number of useless polls showing that most Americans support the traditional family structure as best for America. No big deal, so far. He willfully ignores your follow-on that you're not interested in public policy changes. He then carries that forward to the FMA and his Christian God in government and so on.
His unwillingness to see such nuances is what makes Santorum dangerous.