Santorum Fights the Liberal Bulldozer

First Things ^ | 02/13/12 | R.R. Reno

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Santorum Fights the Liberal Bulldozer

Feb 13, 2012

R.R. Reno

Rick Santorum was impossible thirty years ago. If Rip van Winkle woke up today he would be dumbfounded. How could such an overtly religious and socially conservative politician have so much traction on the national scene?

The answer comes from the Left. Since the Sixties our liberal elites have become increasingly anti-religious, increasingly opposed to traditional moral norms, and increasingly aggressive. As a result they have made our national politics much more extreme.

To a great extent, post-sixties American politics has been shaped by liberal aggression. As Lyndon Johnson knew, the Civil Right Act of 1964 would trigger a fundamental shift in national politics. The South would no longer be in the hip pocket of the Democratic Party.

What he did not foresee was liberal overreach. Mandatory school busing—modern liberalism always tends toward coercion—as well as crudely imposed quotas in the 1970s led to a great deal of unhappiness among white ethnic and blue collar voters who had for decades been pillars of the Democratic Party. They weren’t (for the most part) in favor of Jim Crow, but they didn’t like being moved around like chess pieces by liberal elites. It was during those years that the term “limousine liberal” gained currency as a new and telling term of abuse in American political culture.

The Equal Rights Amendment would have encoded gender equality into the Constitution. It seemed a sure thing in the early 1970s. But opposition mounted and it failed to secure ratification. That’s not because most Americans were opposed to women’s liberation. Instead support for the Equal Rights Amendment dwindled because John Q. Voter was coming to see how modern liberals use rights—not as instruments of freedom but as new warrants for social control.

This basic dynamic is at work in the current controversy over the recently released regulations that require all health plans to pay for contraceptives and sterilization. Our present right to buy contraceptives, a right defined by the Supreme Court decades ago, is not enough for modern liberals. They must be free for everyone, which of course requires liberals to use the coercive power of the state.

We see the same pattern when it comes to religion. It’s not enough that the atheist or agnostic has a right to live without penalties and without being forced to pay taxes to support priests and preachers. Religion must be driven from the public square. And the pattern characterizes the gay-rights agenda. A capacious, tolerant culture is not enough. Civil unions are not enough. Marriage must be redefined, and with marriage the very nature of what it means to be a parent, child, and family.

And of course the same pattern holds true in economic affairs. Economic freedom is for liberals empty unless we level the playing field, which of course requires a very big and powerful bulldozer.

Elections aren’t decided in accord with neat ideological categories. The post-sixties liberal ambivalence about the threat of the Soviet Union stemmed in part from a latent and irrational anti-Americanism. This sentiment, which voters came to sense and resent, had a great deal to do with Ronald Reagan’s victory in 1980. Then, three decades later the muscular Americanism of the Bush administration became a political liability. Go figure.

Moreover, economic bad times tend to rain upon the just and the unjust. Rightly or wrongly (one can argue economic cause and effect until late into the night) stagflation of the 1970s came be seen as a failure of government, while the financial crisis of 2008 and subsequent recession is largely seen as a failure of free markets.

These factors notwithstanding, over the last fifty years a pattern has evolved that now defines American politics. What used to be called the “vital center” no longer holds. Liberalism faces increasingly militant conservative resistance. This has not come to pass because America suddenly became conservative. No counter-revolutionary fever has struck. It has happened because a once pragmatic and capacious liberalism became ideological and sectarian.

A penchant for aggressive and sanctimonious use of power is always a temptation in politics, though much more so for progressives than conservatives. Rick Santorum doesn’t need a bulldozer to sustain and reinforce marriage. He only needs to defend what is already in place.

The defending rather than invading character of conservatism is one reason why it is so much less likely to inflate the power of the state. Conservatism largely involves sustaining things and tending to them. This sometimes requires state intervention. One can’t maintain the integrity of private property without arresting thieves, and perhaps sustaining the family in our post-industrial society is best done with increased tax subsidies, as Santorum proposes. Or maybe not. In any event it will not require bulldozing what we presently have.

As the manic character of Republican primary race indicates, conservative voters are desperately searching for someone to protect them from the bulldozer of modern liberalism. That’s why Newt Gingrich briefly surged. He punched back at the liberal media, and he promised, in effect, to burn Washington to the ground. It was a rather improbable message given his role as a well-paid Washington insider, but it thrilled his followers.

And now Santorum. He’s less aggressive than Gingrich, which is a sign of his deeper and more serious conservatism. But he is animated by inflexible religious convictions and moral principles. That’s why he gets traction. Conservative voters trust him not to make a deal with the bulldozer of modern liberalism.

R.R. Reno is Editor of First Things. He is the general editor of the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible and author of the volume on Genesis. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.

[achilles2000]

The main problem with Santorum is that he probably is not any where hard enough to do the necessary. Every agency needs to be cleaned out; vast numbers of executive orders need to be rescinded; departments need to be shut down; Democrats need to be investigated and put in jail; the borders need to be sealed and the illegals told to get out, along with their anchor babies; Planned Parenthood needs to be investigated; and a great deal more. Instead, I’m afraid Santorum would say some comforting things, make a few good appointments, and propose some legislation that won’t do much even if it is passed...and that will simply not be enough.

I think he is a fine man, and I’ll vote for him if he is the nominee, but I think that the Rs, as a whole, are cowards. They certainly aren’t warriors.

[Downinthedixie]

Every single one of these maroons will lose to Obama. I’m sorry to say it but it seems incredibly obvious to me. Something drastic must be done or else we’ll have four more years of hell...

We need a miracle.

[Track9]

I don't like him skipping over the community reinvestment act and indicting the free market but other than that, it's a good article.

American politics has been shaped by liberal aggression.

That's very true.

[Inyo-Mono]

You nailed it.

[Christie at the beach]

I think we need a warrior. My liberal friends are very happy

and one even was nice to me today at work. The rinos will

win then fail to defeat. Media’s job to depress voters.

And pick team they want to fight against. Sorry, Rick will

lose. We are on the path to Obama second term.

[Downinthedixie]

Tis the truth. Quit worrying about beating 0. We gotta take the Senate.

[Lazlo in PA]

Santorum for President Ping List.

FReepmail “Antoninus” to be added or removed.

[Track9]

It's going to take more than one election. I don't know if you had a chance to hear Mark Levin interviewing Jeff Sessions tonight, they were addressing your very point. The need for conservative warriors.. and lots of them in leadership positions. Sessions was pointing out that 2010 gave us a good class. It just takes a little while for them to get in leadership positions. I would think, simply by observing what is going on that more are on the way, and like they were saying, it takes multiple elections.

The tendency to pile all the problems on one person to solve of course is not really how things work. Santorum would make an fine president. There are many more that would have to help him role all this terrible stuff back.

[Does so]

"How could such an overtly religious and socially conservative politician have so much traction on the national scene? The answer comes from the Left.

It really does, IMHO. A month ago, it was reported that the DemoRat Party had lost 40% of its membership in Washington state. Last night, I heard that Minnesotans will have 40% of DemoRats—plus "Independents"—voting in the Republican Primary!

Our selection process—already experiencing casualties through the Left's death threats—is being torpedoed. :(

[Lazlo in PA]

Every single one of these maroons will lose to Obama.

Based on what evidence?

[Christie at the beach]

Yes, on Huff. Post, they are calling for dems to vote in the Az and Michigan primaries for Rick. Operation Chaos, as they have the title. They are obsessed about his religious views. (before anyone flames me, go read it for yourselves)

[savagesusie]

It is because Christianity is the only thing which can transform our country back into the One Nation under God-——Virtue is needed in a Republic.

The left is transforming the values of children into a pagan/atheist/Marxist worldview through the secular humanism forced into the classrooms and the immorality normalized in media. They are erasing God.

If someone like Santorum gets in their whole agenda to de-Christianized Western Civilization will be halted for a bit-—and with his pick of judges-—maybe for a while.

We have to take back the minds of our children and grandkids and teach them the Truth and get rid of the TV and atheist public schools.

The Bible was a main part of public schools up until Dewey and the socialists took over. It is Constitutional to teach the Bible and the history of this greatest nation in the public schools-—it always was—until the progressive/atheists/communists got control in the 30’s and 40’s.

[OrangeHoof]

Conservative voters trust him not to make a deal with the bulldozer of modern liberalism.

IOW, they trust him not to get bamboozled into sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi touting the dangers of global warming.

[Christie at the beach]

I agree with you completely. I see Rick had to battle this very same agenda in his Pennsylvania senatorial run, and went down to defeat. History will repeat itself.

[Mogollon]

Every single one of these maroons will lose to Obama.

Actually, a can of spam can win against the big-eared idiot in the WH.

[Christie at the beach]

At that time, many of our very own conservatives had not made their own minds up about global warming so, I can overlook his direction. Some scientists were reporting it was so, others were disputing the data. There were so much confusion for 6/7 difficult years now, It has has been exposed (main victory)

[Downinthedixie]

The fact that 0 is playing to win 50% + 1 vote (EV speaking). All the polls support O.

He’s relaxing while we attack each other. These candidates cannot unite the base. Period.

Something better has to happen.

[Downinthedixie]

One would think. But half this country is only operating with half of a can of SpaghettiOs.

We’re in a good bit of trouble.

[American Constitutionalist]

Hope & Changey ain't going to work this time around... and lest people tend to forget the economy and the high unemployment.
Obama is losing support of most Independents and the Democrats are not happy with him either.