Santorum Fights the Liberal Bulldozer

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.

You’re right. Newt is such a warrior, though. He’s thought about doing all those things and more for a very long time, it’s obvious. He shows passion and determination just speaking about it.

Rick has a couple of issues he’s big on, but all in all he speaks in platitudes and vague generalities. He’s just not strong enough, thoughtful enough or determined enough to do the bold, even drastic, things that must be done to make real changes. And Mittens doesn’t really care about undoing anything BHO’s done. The best that can be said about him is that he doesn’t want to destroy the country like BHO.

No one has even brought up Rick managing a national budget. We don't need a good father, we need a warrior to bust up things. In regards to his battle with Obama, billion dollars, will

be too hard for him to shelter. The media has built him up for nearly 2 weeks without any vetting. I mean vetting, not this stuff of his wife. His voting record and his K street business dealings. It is only fair to ask for him to be vetted, if you cannot see that, then you are falling into the media's trickery and are in for disappointment. We need to stop Mitt with the best person and one has not been vetted.

None of your arguments are based in fact. Santorum beat Obummer in a head to head Rasmussen poll. I will also say that your argument about the Primary being too nasty to come together for the general is not true. You need to look no further than the slug fest the Rats had last go round. George Bush gave them something to rally against. We have Obummer to rally against. Also the GOP primary in ‘80 was no box social either and Reagan trailed Carter up until the end. An incumbent can be beaten.

The polling shows overwhelmingly that the Independents and Conservative Rats have left Obummer. That is why his primary focus is on minorities and radical occupy types. A recent NY Times piece went into the Regime giving up on these voters because they know they are lost for good. Obummer hasn’t been above 50% all year if not longer in job approval. That’s bad for him.

I see absolutely nothing that says that Obummer has a good shot at reelection. The only President to turn things around from where he is today was Nixon and he had China going for him and a radical leftist as an opponent. See McGovern.

Sorry but Obama is beating Santorum head to head 49 to 41.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/210305-poll-both-trail-but-romney-better-than-santorum-against-obama

Santorum is a snooze.

Newt was DOA

Mitt is a fraud.

We need someone else. It’s pretty simple man. But we can still win the Senate.

I see Rick had to battle this very same agenda in his Pennsylvania senatorial run, and went down to defeat.

Not true. The only way the Rats could knock Rick out in '06 was to run a so called socially Conservative, Pro-Life candidate who was a legacy here in PA. Look up Bob Casey SR and Democrat Convention to see the coattails he used to get elected.

From this month...

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -14 (see trends). In a potential Election 2012 matchup, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is at 45% while President Obama earns 44%. This is the first time in any poll that Santorum has led the president. Several other GOP challengers have led the president a single time in the polls including Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich. Each man briefly held the lead while they were surging in the polls, only to fall quickly. It remains to be seen what will happen to Santorum’s support.

I remember hand wringing like this in '80 when Reagan was too Conservative and out of touch to win. It was BS then and it is BS now. If you don't like our Conservative choices, you should keep it to yourself. I have no time for whining n00bs rolling in here trashing our guys. Either choose one and help him get elected to get Obummer out of office or stay off threads like this in support of either Newt or Rick.

You seem to be one of a few brand new sign up dates that seem to constantly be claiming all is lost and just to forget about winning the General. For all I know, you are one in a long line of Romney supporters signing up lately to demoralize the Conservative base. Either way, I disagree with you 100%.

We have to think we did this before— a strong social conservative George W. Bush was and look what happened to him. He came from the outside and fell weak to the libs. We put people on a pedestal that no mortal can obtain, I am afraid. I still think a warrior is the best method to have a chance of any reform. Rick is a nice guy and not Obama warrior material. Once they get rid of Newt ( Super Tuesday, they hope) and Rick, (after that) smooth sailing for Mitt. Newt is the biggest threat. Rick, isn’t. I know people here get mad when that is posted. Newt has it to make it, if not, it’s Mitt’s. The ruling class thought this would be over by Florida. Now, they need to take out the last 2 like they rigged the CPAC poll and Maine wins for Romney. Yes, it was rigged when the CPAC spokesman (not an independent group) gave Romney the win. Duh My sister said, Newt had a lot of support and those low numbers for him were crazy. She said some of the boos came from Newt’s supporters and Rick’s. We need someone to fight the ruling power. I am waiting/hoping to see if that happens.

...I am looking at this-- If he could not stop nor defeat millions of dollars of negative ads in his own state, how can he manage billions of $$$ spent on negative ads — big alert! he has NOT been vetted to date...soon, the left will focus on one thing (his stern religious beliefs to which they will tie around his neck and no reforms nor governing plans will be discussed )I am only trying to help/we are on the same side. Rush has given Rick a bump. After the vetting, that will change. Don't you wonder why the media is not vetting him ...2 weeks, nothing....

After the vetting, that will change.

I live in PA and Rick has been run through the wringer more than anyone running right now in all the elections he went through. I keep hearing this argument from the Newt supporters about this so called vetting that Santorum will endure. What exactly is going to be the line of attack that you think is being over looked? You don't have to look any further than Ricks treatment by Gregory on Meet the Depressed Sunday to see the crap that he gets put through and how well he handles it. He does a great job handling these attacks.

First.........kudos to you on a SUPERBLY written piece. Absolutely outstanding. You’ve distilled, into so few words, exactly what has taken us to this point (politically and culturally) in America.

Well done.

As for others’ comments here.....I’ll offer my two cents.

Romney - Not Satan incarnate. He’s a decent man. He also is not a true Conservative and his attempts to appear so have backfired so consistently, it amazes me that he has any of his senior campaign staff still on payroll. He will lose the primary.

Gingrich - Damned smart, a professor of history, a student of the Constitution; a street fighter. People here so readily forget what he accomplished in ‘94 with the Contract With America. People can prattle on all they wish about his “baggage” (something you NEVER hear when Democrats are discussed.....and omg, you want to talk about serious “baggage”.....wow). The man is a fighter, is sincere in his beliefs, and would make a fine President. I say he has a great shot at the nomination and would trounce Obama.

Santorum - Great guy; REALLY a nice guy. Also very sincere in what he says and believes. Almost...almost...impeccable Conservative credentials. He’s the guy in high school that you’d elect Class Treasurer because he’s smart, nice, non-threatening, reliable.....but never Class President. You wanted PERSONALITY in that position; charisma. Someone who could get others to see his way and act accordingly. Santorum doesn’t have that spark in him; it is not his nature. That trait, by the way, is called “natural leadership”. Only two people that I can think of right now, on the national stage in the Conservative political arena, have that....one is running, one is not.

Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin.

That was a really great article. Nailed it, IMO. The key point is how the libs have “Alinsky’ed” us by claiming that WE are the radical wingnuts trying to impose our views on everyone us while it has been THEM all along that are doing exactly that. This is the argument that needs to be brought to the American public. Enough of the public does not get how the Democrat party is trying to radically change America. Too much of the public thinks they’re offering “solutions” while we are the nuts trying to wreck the country.

At any rate, we can win this election, whether or not we are able to make the case on that kind of an intellectual level. Don’t tell me Newt can’t win after what he did in 1994 and don’t tell me Santorum can’t win after G.W. Bush won twice. Obama has given us an enormous amount of material to work with. Romney could win solely on people hating Obama, which is the weakest case to make, but either Newt or Rick offer a different enough approach that people could think they would improve the country EVEN IF they approve of Obama at the time.

The idea that running on CHRISTIANITY is a losing issue is just absurd. That’s what this country is other than the elite enclaves of a few states that are going to vote blue no matter what.

Not to mention the debt. We could win on that alone. Just mention over and over again how much money each individual person owes on the debt when it’s divided up and how much they’re paying in interest every single year. This is a country where people are increasingly trying to stay out of debt in their personal finances. The national debt issue needs to be PERSONALIZED that way.

The campaign against Obama hasn’t even begun. The polls mean absolutely nothing this far out. We’re looking at polls in the primary for one state and saying they could change radically 2 weeks out. So why in the world would anyone think the polls nationally can’t change in 9 months? Favorable/unfavorable ratings are also a very weak statistic to look at. People are favorable of the Pope, but wouldn’t want him to be president. And they weren’t too favorable of Dick Cheney, but had no doubts he was competent enough to be president in a time of crisis.

Those I speak to regularly in PA., are not happy about him.

Well we circulate in different crowds obviously. All of the people I know here have a high regard for him, and judging by the recent poll here that shows Rick with a polling lead over the other GOP candidates, it tells me you are not getting a full picture.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/state/s_780699.html

Like a lot of people outside of PA, you don’t seem to get why he lost in 2006. He ran against Bob Casey, Jr., the son of Bob Casey, Sr., a beloved pro-life “blue dog” Democrat governor who fought and criticized the Democrat party. And this was in a year that Republicans were absolutely destroyed at the polls and Nancy Pelosi destroyed the majority Newt built in Congress. What happened in 2006 has no bearing on this election. It was Nixon who lost a presidential election, then later came back and won one, right? Times change and circumstances change. Bottom line, it wasn’t anything Rick did that made him lose that election, it was external factors and a Democrat candidate that no moderate, independent, or liberal Pennsylvania voter would have dreamt of voting against. It would be a big difference if, like Romney in 1994, he lost the election in a year where Republicans won nationally in a landslide. The case was just the opposite in 2006.

Rick’s not a phony. He actually was the regular Friday host of Bill Bennett’s Morning in America show for some time before he started his run for presidency. He did a good job as a conservative radio talk show host. Can you imagine Romney trying to talk about issues from a conservative perspective off the cuff for 3 hours at a time? Finding a reliable conservative is the best way to win this election, because conservatism has a built-in 2-to-1 advantage over liberalism among the population in this country.

I don’t know how you could think Obama is going to win by going up there and attacking someone over their religious beliefs. This is a pro-life country. This is an anti-gay marriage country. This is a country that respects freedom of religion. And there is absolutely nothing unusual or radical about Rick’s religious views. Only a leftist could think that.

Rick’s negatives are his voting record, raising the debt ceiling, that sort of thing. He’s vulnerable there. But that kind of stuff does sound like inside baseball to people sometimes. For example, it’s easier to say Romney “fired people” then to explain how his private equity leveraged buyouts led to bankruptcies.

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.