Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Santorum’s Big-Government Conservatism (a record that should give limited government voters pause)
National Review ^ | 01/04/2012 | Michael Tanner

Posted on 01/04/2012 6:49:13 AM PST by SeekAndFind

Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum’s surprisingly strong performance in last night’s Iowa caucus has thrust him into the spotlight as the latest potential conservative alternative to Mitt Romney.

But Santorum’s success has come largely under the radar — at least until the last few days — driven by his near monomaniacal focus on Iowa and the state’s network of social-conservative evangelical voters. Now, however, Santorum’s record will come under much more intensive scrutiny — and it is a record that should give supporters of limited government considerable pause.

In a general election, where the focus is almost certainly going to be on economic issues, it is questionable whether Santorum’s relentless focus on social issues will play well with independent voters, especially in the crucial suburbs. It was the loss of those suburbs, where voters tend to be socially moderate but economically conservative, in states such as Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia, that gave those states to Obama in 2008.

In the wake of the economic chaos, higher debt and taxes, and growth in government — not to mention a government takeover of health care — those voters have now turned against President Obama. The tea-party-inspired Republican victories of 2010 were a sign of that.

But there is reason to question whether Santorum is the candidate to build on that shift.

After all, the Tea Party and 2010 elections were largely about economic issues and the desire to limit the size, cost, and intrusiveness of government. And those issues are not Santorum’s strong suit.

There is no doubt that Santorum is deeply conservative on social issues. He is ardently anti-abortion, even in cases of rape and incest, and no one takes a stronger stand against gay rights. In fact, with his comparison of gay sex to “man on dog” relationships, Santorum seldom even makes a pretense of tolerance. While that sort of rhetoric may play well in Iowa pulpits, it will be far less well received elsewhere in the nation.

At the same time, on economic and size-of-government issues, Santorum’s record is much weaker. In fact, Eric Erickson of Red State refers to Santorum as a “pro-life statist.”

When Hillary Clinton was justly excoriated by conservatives for her book It Takes A Village, which advocated greater government involvement in our lives, Rick Santorum countered with his book, It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good, which advocated greater government involvement in our lives. Among the many government programs he supported: national service, publicly financed trust funds for children, community-investment incentives, and economic-literacy programs in “every school in America” (italics in original).

Santorum’s voting record shows that he embraced George Bush–style “big-government conservatism.” For example, he supported the Medicare prescription-drug benefit and No Child Left Behind.

He never met an earmark that he didn’t like. In fact, it wasn’t just earmarks for his own state that he favored, which might be forgiven as pure electoral pragmatism, but earmarks for everyone, including the notorious “Bridge to Nowhere.” The quintessential Washington insider, he worked closely with Tom DeLay to set up the “K Street Project,” linking lobbyists with the GOP leadership.

He voted against NAFTA and has long opposed free trade. He backed higher tariffs on everything from steel to honey. He still supports an industrial policy with the government tilting the playing field toward manufacturing industries and picking winners and losers.

In fact, Santorum might be viewed as the mirror image of Ron Paul. If Ron Paul’s campaign has been based on the concept of simply having government leave us alone, Santorum rejects that entire concept. True liberty, he writes, is not “the freedom to be left alone,” but “the freedom to attend to one’s duties to God, to family, and to neighbors.” And he seems fully prepared to use the power of government to support his interpretation of those duties.

Of course it is possible to read too much into Santorum’s performance. As well as he did, he underperformed Mike Huckabee’s 2008 totals. And Huckabee was unable to sell his brand of big-government social conservatism beyond Iowa. But if the Iowa Caucuses have shown us anything, it is that there still is a fight over what kind of party the GOP will be.

— Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: conservatism; santorum
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 last
To: SeekAndFind

41 posted on 01/04/2012 8:40:21 AM PST by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
We all have skeletons in our closets, the main question is — can they be salvaged and corrected? Can we LEARN from them?

Sounds noble, but seeing that its less than a year to the general election what is really happening is political kneecapping in hopes another primary candidate can benefit.

And you know it.

42 posted on 01/04/2012 8:41:51 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

43 posted on 01/04/2012 8:49:41 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Newt Gingrich is, also, considered a “Big Government Conservative”! Frustrating! Are conservative voters going to be forced to choose between a moderate and a “Big Government Conservative” as the two final choices for GOP POTUS, yet again?


44 posted on 01/04/2012 8:58:04 AM PST by johnthebaptistmoore (If leftist legislation that's already in place really can't be ended by non-leftists, then what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Rick Santorum Now has the backing of The Tea Party, here in Florida we begin Mobilizing for him in our Tea Party group, TODAY!

Join us in helping Rick Santorum take back America!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2828560/posts


45 posted on 01/04/2012 9:00:34 AM PST by OPS4 (Ops4 God Bless America!Jesus is Lord!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Rick Santorum

- Voted for Perscription Drug Benefit mandate.
- Endorsed Arlen Spector.
- Agreed with Newt on illegal immigration when Newt mentioned his limited amnesty.
- Voted for the Gun Manufacturers Liability Act of 1994 prohibiting the sale of hand guns with safety devices.
- Voted against Death Tax repeal in 2003.
- Voted for the federal regulation of farms requiring that large farms construct animal waste treatment facilities.
- Voted for Bushs' No Child Left Behind and other national testing initiatives.
- Voted for afirmative action (later voted against it).
- Voted for Minimum Wage increases (Flipped on this several times).
- Voted for federal funds for military operations in Bosnia.
- Voted to cut Trident II D-5 missles several times.
- Voted against the elimiation of the National Endowment for the Arts funding numerous times.
- Voted to seize private property to designate 7 million acres of Cal. desert as a wilderness area.
- Voted against the first amendment and for lobbying restrictions and regulations.
- Voted for the Motor Voter law several times.
- Voted to limit Striker Replacement of union thugs.
- Voted on the FY 94 Clinton budget, which contained at that time the largest tax increase in U.S. history.
- Voted against SDI several times.
- Voted against Hunter amendment that sought to require the Defense Department to ask individuals entering the armed forces if they are homosexuals. (He later switched to the more conservative position on this).
- Voted against school choice early in his career. (He later switched to the more conservative position on this).
- Voted against both the 1991, 1992 spending freeze and voted for numerous large Bush II Budgets.
- Voted for tabaco tax increases (1998).
- Voted against the exemption of banks with assets of less than $250 million from the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (1998).
- Voted for the Chemical Weapons Treaty of 1997 that the ACU said, "violated U.S. constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure, ceded U.S. national sovereignty to international agencies, and threatened U.S. defense forces".
- Voted for Kassenbaum amendment to the Ryan White Reauthorization which allowed for funds to be used to promote homosexuality or intravenous drug use.
- Voted for the 2005 highway bill that included thousands of wasteful earmarks, including the Bridge to Nowhere.
- Voted to continue funding the Bridge to Nowhere rather than send the money to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
- Sponsored a bill to extend milk subsidies in 2005, which he claimed he did to “save countless Pennsylvania dairy farmers.”

Some additional points from here:

- A prolific supporter of earmarks, having requested billions of dollars for pork projects in Pennsylvania while he was in Congress. Perhaps recognizing the sign of the times, Santorum finally reversed his position in 2010, saying that he was opposed to them , but one must remain skeptical about his sincerity. As recently as 2009, he said, “I’m not saying necessarily earmarks are bad. I have had a lot of earmarks. In fact, I’m very proud of all the earmarks I’ve put in bills. I’ll defend earmarks.”

- An examination of his scores in the NTU rating of Congress shows that Santorum compiled a very strong record on taxes and spending in the first four years of each of his two Senate terms, then a sharp swing to below the Senate Republican average in the Congress before his reelection campaign.

- In the 2003-2004 session of Congress, Santorum sponsored or cosponsored 51 bills to increase spending, and failed to sponsor or co-sponsor even one spending cut proposal. In his last Congress (2005-2006), he had one of the biggest spending agendas of any Republican -- sponsoring more spending increases than Republicans Lisa Murkowski, Lincoln Chafee and Thad Cochran or Democrats Herb Kohl, Evan Bayh and Ron Wyden.

- Santorum also supported raising congressional pay at least three times, in 2001, 2002, and 2003.

- He voted NO on raising the minimum wage in 1995 and 2005. But on the same day he voted NO in 2005, he sponsored an amendment that would increase the minimum wage, which he later boasted about to skeptical voters in a 2006 campaign brochure he released called “50 Things You Didn’t Know About Rick Santorum.”

- In the same “50 Things” campaign brochure, Santorum boasts about sponsoring a bill to regulate “price gouging and unfair pricing by the big oil companies.” This contradicts his opposition to a “windfall profits tax” that Democrats tried to impose on oil companies in 2005. He also voted YES on Sarbanes-Oxley, which was an overreaching bill that tried to tighten accounting regulations following the Enron scandal.

Also see: Rick Santorum the Pro-Life Statist
46 posted on 01/04/2012 9:20:13 AM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State | Gingrich 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty

Given that omnibus spending bills have been the rule of the day in Washington for decades now a list like this can be generated to smear ANY candidate currently serving.


47 posted on 01/04/2012 10:07:25 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Lou Budvis

[ Romney can’t win. See Romneybot Whitman v. Moonbeam Brown. ]

Seems that america wants a RINO not a conservative..
Which means thats is what they will get..

Zerodamus versus Willard “good friend of Teddy Kennedy”..
Tricking america to vote for a conservative is wrong..


48 posted on 01/04/2012 10:53:55 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Lib-Lickers 2

“Santorum is the kind of big spending Republican the Tea Party targets for defeat.”

And that is why the Dems had a filibuster-proof Senate majority.

Scott Brown is not great but he is much better than the Dem alternative.

Santorum did some things as Senator I did not like but he is from Pennsylvania and even with the concessions he made he was still voted out for a more liberal Dem.

As an example, prescription drug benefit. I hate it but the Dems won election after election promising a worse plan than the one the Repubs passed.

Or earmarks. Bad system but if the system is in place a politician must play the game or his state loses out on ‘its fair share’ and the politician is tossed out of office.


49 posted on 01/04/2012 11:56:29 AM PST by NeilGus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
After all, the Tea Party and 2010 elections were largely about economic issues and the desire to limit the size, cost, and intrusiveness of government. And those issues are not Santorum’s strong suit.

He would be better than the MORON in Chief or MITT!!

50 posted on 01/04/2012 12:47:02 PM PST by ExCTCitizen (If we stay home in November '12, don't blame 0 for tearing up the CONSTITUTION!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; 3D-JOY; abner; Abundy; AGreatPer; Albion Wilde; AliVeritas; alisasny; ...

PING!


51 posted on 01/05/2012 6:51:20 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Occupy DC General Assembly: We are Marxist tools. WE ARE MARXIST TOOLS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Tanner is with the Cato Institute. I think he would be more likely to support Ron Paul or Gary Johnson than he would Mitt Romney.


52 posted on 01/05/2012 7:09:21 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Occupy DC General Assembly: We are Marxist tools. WE ARE MARXIST TOOLS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Tanner is with the Cato Institute. I think he would be more likely to support Ron Paul or Gary Johnson than he would Mitt Romney.
Tanner isn't exactly that enthralled with Ron Paul. (I haven't seen him comment yet on Gary Johnson.)

By the way, if you want an excellent read, hunt down Mr. Tanner's 2007 book, Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution. That book should have been required reading for anyone going into the voting booths in the 2008 primaries.

53 posted on 01/05/2012 7:14:34 PM PST by BluesDuke (Another brief interlude from the small apartment halfway up in the middle of nowhere in particular)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Isn’t NR behind Romney? Talk about Big Government!


54 posted on 01/06/2012 10:50:11 AM PST by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson