Posted on 01/12/2012 4:58:10 AM PST by IbJensen
"I believe what I've been presenting is the genuine conservatism our Founders envisioned. One that fosters the opportunity for all Americans to live as we are called to live, in selfless families that contribute to the general welfare, the common good."
Posted by Jeff Emanuel (Diary)
Despite strident opposition from supporters who maintain that Rick Santorum is a “true conservative” in the mold of – you guessed it – Ronald Reagan, the already huge mountain of evidence that he is, at heart, a ‘big-government conservative’ continues to grow. As Erick noted previously, in 2008 Santorum said:
This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone.
Now, consider these two quotes from Santorum’s 2005 book It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good, both of which are very telling:
What was my vision? I came to the uncomfortable realization that conservatives were not only reluctant to spend government dollars on the poor, they hadn’t even thought much about what might work better. I often describe my conservative colleagues during this time as simply ‘cheap liberals.’ My own economically modest personal background and my faith had taught me to care for those who are less fortunate, but I too had not yet given much thought to the proper role of government in this mission.
-Preface, p. IX; audio here
And:
I suspect some will dismiss my ideas as just an extended version of ‘compassionate conservatism.’ Some will reject what I have said as a kind of ‘Big Government Conservatism.’ Some will say that what I’ve tried to argue isn’t conservatism at all. But I believe what I’ve been presenting is the genuine conservatism our Founders envisioned. One that fosters the opportunity for all Americans to live as we are called to live, in selfless families that contribute to the general welfare, the common good.
-Conclusion, p. 421; audio here
Though the second quote is the “money shot,” as it were, the value of the first is that it sets the stage for Santorum’s exploration of the role of government in the book. As the second quote demonstrates, Santorum has not only concluded that it is the role of government to ensure that “all Americans…contribute to the general welfare, the common good” by acting as the chief arbiter of charitable resources and their distribution.
This is wrong on several levels. While there is absolutely a role for government in creating and maintaining a social safety net (Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, etc.) for the population that cannot take care of itself (whether that should take place at the federal, state, or local level, and in what measure each, is a different discussion), Santorum’s instinct appears to be to use government to expand that safety net to all who may be in need or want of charity. Further, he accuses conservatives in Congress who disagree with a significantly expanded role of government in enforcing redistributive charity and welfare of being “cheap liberals” who haven’t “though [enough] about” the issue of “the poor” to recognize that making decisions about charity is clearly government’s job to do.
Not only does Santorum argue for an expansion of the welfare state as the proper way to ensure that “all Americans…contribute to the general welfare,” and not only does he dismiss criticisms that his view represents “an extended version of compassionate conservatism” or “big government conservatism,” but he actually claims that increasing the size and scope of government, and its role in growing the welfare state, represents “the genuine conservatism our Founders envisioned.”
I’m not criticizing Rick Santorum for being concerned about his fellow man. However, instinctively turning to government to cure all that ails our society and individuals within it – and calling that a “conservative” instinct – shows a lack of understanding about the role of government itself within our society. Further, his belief that only government is able (and benevolent enough) to ensure that “all Americans…contribute to the general welfare” in an acceptable manner reveals a lack of faith in, and understanding of, conservatism and conservative Americans. Were he to step outside of his more-government-is-the-solution bubble, he would learn, for example, that conservative Americans voluntarily contribute to the “common good” by donating to private charities at a very high rate – much higher than liberals who, like Santorum, look to an ever-expanding government to take care of the poor using Americans’ tax dollars.
Santorum certainly isn’t unique within the community of current and former lawmakers in his faith that government has the answers and the moral requirement to make fiscal decisions (including where charitable contributions are to be made, and in what amounts) for the American people as a whole. However, denying that such a belief is “big government conservatism” (if it is conservatism at all) is only surpassed on the absurdity scale by the claim that such a belief truly represents “the genuine conservatism our Founders envisioned.”
Agree on the NRA and Reid. But where I would close the loop is that in the case of Santorum, the social ONLY conservatives are like the NRA and Santorum is like Reid in the analogy. Santorum is Huckabee. Very very outspoken on social conservatism but a rather poor conservative on almost all other domestic issues. Not who we need for 2012, where issues of big government and the economy and over all liberty is the crushing combo of issues.
Hence the Puritan belief that (in the image of the cross) We have a direct vertical connection to God himself but also a horizontal connection to the community. This however, is not based on the collective but on the individual. i.e. My connection to my community does not allow them to reach into my pocket to serve a need I must be inwardly directed by the vertical Godly influence to do so willingly otherwise, the taxing authority is in effect taking the role of God by forcing benevolence. That is the real compassionate Conservatism.
I seriously doubt that we can talk about that.
You’ve shown yourself in one sentence to be a tool of the left and grossly misinformed about Rick Perry.
You are confusing the in-state tuition thing with immigration law. Rick Perry is for closing the border and has a plan to do so.
I would explain in-state tuition to you, but if you wanted to know the truth it is readily available.
I believe Rick Perry is the candidate targeted by the left from the beginning because they fear him.
He is a consistent conservative, a steady and reliable leader (proven in Texas for 11 plus years)
He’s not volatile like Newt or wimpy like Santorum.
Hang on to your little prejudices all you want but the country will suffer for ignoring Rick Perry.
Our liberty is built upon our moral foundations and I’m pretty sure Santorum does not want the gub’mint to administer morality. In an age of moral collapse, simpy reducing gub’mint will not secure our freedoms either - it will only foster greed and crime. We need a moral regeneration in this country first - IMO.
Agreed 100%.
With due respect, we are talking elections - which means we are talking government. I agree with you on what is morally right and I’ll agree that we need moral under pinnings for our society to succeed.
BUT, the secular governmental role in that equation is to stay small and out of the way. It is not and CANNOT be the role of government to ram morality down the throats of those who do not agree.
Our Founders - who agreed with you on the moral, knew the sacred right was the right of property, because without the right to property, you can not possibly have liberty or pursuit of happiness.
Rick Santorum is not about keeping government small and out of our way nearly enough for me.
“Not only does Santorum argue for an expansion of the welfare state as the proper way to ensure that “all Americans…contribute to the general welfare,” and not only does he dismiss criticisms that his view represents “an extended version of compassionate conservatism” or “big government conservatism,” but he actually claims that increasing the size and scope of government, and its role in growing the welfare state, represents “the genuine conservatism our Founders envisioned.””
Yeah, Rickster, that’s why Madison, Jefferson, et al. insisted on federal government food stamps, mandated health insurance, WIC, Head Start, No Child Gets an Education, housing subsidies, etc., etc.
Be compassionate with your own money, Rickster. Keep your hands off mine and keep your big government nose out of my affairs.
Big government, compassionate “conservatism” barf alert.
bm
I’m more convinced than ever that there is only one true conservative in the race and that is Gov. Rick Perry and I’m not happy with his class envy of the past few days but he’s still the best there is.
OK, what kind of record did Santorum have in the senate? I understand he filibustered right-to-work. I always had a lot of respect for him but perhaps I accepted his pro-life commitment as evidence he is a conservative.
** A Massively Expanded Welfare State is ‘The Genuine Conservatism our Founders Envisioned’**
I can’t believe Santorum said this. Now I have to read the article.
It seems to me that candidates that blather about small government at this time (and do nothing at others) are as useless as tits on a bull. What we really need is a bull in the china shop because things are bound to get broken (need to) one way or another.
This is how I see the candidates:
Santorum: not nearly as conservative as most people think on issues of limited government - as people are fooled by how strident he is on social conservatism.
Newt: much more conservative as legislator than he has been in his books and his other wanderings. Has a very conservative platform.
Mitt: all of both, and all over the place.
Huntsman: more conservative than people think, but will run a puke “cant we all just get along” campaign and would never win.
Perry: not as conservative as we’d hoped on issues of limited government, but as a tenth amendment guy, might be in the Federal position.
Paul: way right fiscal, way left on some other stuff.
The key is someone who could beat Obama and work with what I think will be the most conservative congress we’ve had maybe in my lifetime.
As to social conservatism: Conservatives are generally not libertoonians. One simply CANNOT be conservative without being firmly committed to ending abortion and to resisting/ending sexual perversions posing as a basis for marriage (including tax subsidies for the perverts) and to protecting gun rights and to an aggressive and muscular foreign policy. Money is only money. It is on the ballot in every election and there are no permanent victories.
Those who take slings and arrows for social conservatism are the heroes of the conservative movement. Quislings like Mittwit are not evenly vaguely conservative. I can eagerly support Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry. I will NOT vote for Romney, Huntsman, or Ron Paul under ANY circumstances. I do not care if any of them effect claims of being "fiscal conservatives."
Without social conservatism, there is no such thing as a "fiscal conservative." On social issues, Barry Goldwater was a Jacobin social revolutionary posing as a "conservative" while wife #1 (Peggy) spent 35 years on the National Board of Planned Barrenhood. He supported gay everything and took his own daughter to an abortion mill to murder his grandchild, saying that anyone who objected could kiss his ass. He also was never reliable in supporting Ronaldus Maximus or his foreign policy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.