A candidate's strengths can also be his weaknesses. Take the case of Rick Santorum. Posted on 02/23/2012 4:34:09 AM PST by Kaslin
A candidate's strengths can also be his weaknesses. Take the case of Rick Santorum.
One of his strengths is perseverance. For more than a year, he made hundreds of appearances in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, with no visible result in the polls.
He persevered and ended up finishing first in the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3. Then, after poor showings in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida and Nevada, he finished first in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado on Feb. 7.
Now he's leading Mitt Romney in most polls nationally and in Romney's native state of Michigan.
Santorum's other strengths include spontaneity and authenticity. His speeches are unscripted, and he answers, often at considerable length, every question at campaign events.
And those answers are sometimes not what any competent political consultant would recommend. Which is where Santorum's strength becomes a weakness.
Example: In an interview last October with the evangelical blog Caffeinated Thoughts, Santorum said, "One of the things that I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country." Contraception, he went on, is "not OK."
"Maybe people don't want us to talk about those things," he added. And he has said later that he doesn't seek a ban on contraceptives -- a good thing, since that was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut 47 years ago.
But by bringing the subject up, he guaranteed that he would be peppered with questions about the issue by the likes of ABC's George Stephanopoulos and CBS's Bob Schieffer.
More recently Santorum opined that Barack Obama had a "phony theology." The context showed he was referring to Obama's environmental policies, and he later said he doesn't doubt the president's claim to be a Christian. But his ad libbed use of the word "theology" inevitably caused controversy.
No one can doubt that his opposition to contraception and his recent denunciations of prenatal testing and women in combat reflect his deep moral and religious beliefs.
But they also allow opponents to pigeonhole Santorum as a religious conservative despite his considerable record on and knowledge of economic and foreign policy issues.
It is political malpractice to give opponents such an opening in a year when voters are overwhelmingly focused on the economy and the Obama Democrats' vast expansion of the size and scope of government.
It's unfortunate also since Santorum sometimes make similar points in a less inflammatory manner. On the stump, he often cites a Brookings Institution study that shows that virtually all of those who graduate from high school, get a job and marry before having children escape from poverty.
It's a valid argument, one made some years ago by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Charles Murray and emphasized in his recently published book, "Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010."
As Murray shows, much of the income inequality that political liberals decry results from bad personal choices and behaviors rather than the operations of the market economy.
But it's unclear what presidents, much less presidential candidates, can do to influence these personal choices and behaviors, beyond setting a good example in their personal lives, as Obama, Santorum and Romney all do.
"I'm not running for preacher," Santorum said in his Caffeinated Thoughts interview. "I'm not running for pastor, but these are important public policy questions."
But contraceptive use is not a public policy question, and in bringing the subject up, Santorum sounded like he is running for preacher or pastor.
Mitt Romney took a different approach when George Stephanopoulos raised the subject in the Jan. 8 New Hampshire debate. "Contraception. It's working just fine," he said. "Leave it alone."
Voters often say they value authenticity and spontaneity in candidates, and Santorum gives them plenty of that. And they admire perseverance in the face of adversity.
But they also want a certain amount of self-discipline in their officeholders, and particularly in their presidents, and they want them to focus on public policy issues they consider important.
At his best moments in the campaign -- in his Iowa caucus night speech, in the second South Carolina debate -- Rick Santorum has shown such discipline and focus. He needs to do that again.
Drop out Rev. Santorum ... take it for the team !
What a president can do is have an honest conversation about it. And while 0Bama and Mitt may be living the life they're not very upfront about it.
Barone is a wise observer of our political landscape, but ultimately he too is a creature of his environment. What Santorum is doing, inadvertently no doubt, is changing the nature of the debate in a way no one else is.
I believe our problems at the root are morally generated and therefore can't be fixed unless we can openly discuss them.
Only Santorum, stupid though it may be, has the courage not to dodge a difficult question.
Drop out Doktor Paul ... take it for the team !
Hi Pietro-
A very thoughtful and well presented post!
I would; however, point out that courage w/o wisdom can be foolhardy; if not dangerous. I have no doubt that Rick is a good family man and has strong moral convictions that are based upon his deeply held Catholic faith. Where Rick gets off course is that he tends to “get sidetracked” in matters directly related to his core religious beliefs and thus fails to fully analyze the problem and its sources.
For example, Rick's statements about symptoms like abortion and the use of contraception outside of marriage are easily taken out of context and demagogued. When Rick does this he leaves himself open to dishonest attacks from the media and his political opponents. What is even more problematic is that these types of issues affect people at a very basic, emotional, “gut level” and they are extremely difficult to counter effectively or “put to bed. It would be far more effective for Rick to concentrate upon the root causes; such as our cultural moral decline and the related breakdown of the family unit.”
Rick needs to be more sensitive to the fact that most Americans tend to be wary of any ORGANIZED religion becoming too closely intertwined w/politics; as that can be a very dangerous combination. Such fears are reinforced by the current expansion of oppressive Muslim theocracies; as well as, the history of our colonial ancestors flight from religious oppression. These suspicions are inherent in the American psyche and our view of political candidates; regardless of our own personal religious convictions or lack thereof.
For those who may take my comments to be anti-religious; I assure you they are not. However, we should remember that throughout our nation's history there have been more than enough quasi-religious scoundrels and charlatans; Charles Manuel “Sweet Daddy” Grace, Jim Baker, Jeremiah Wright and Jim Jones; just to name a few ...deceptive men who demeaned and prostituted religion for their own aggrandizement or to disguise and promulgate dangerous political movements like Communism and Marxism.
Unfortunately, many Americans are extremely suspicious of anyone who publicly proclaims deep religious convictions. Those suspicions are intensified when strong religious beliefs are expressed by a political candidate.
They are also quite “generous” with the tax payers money, in the belief that they are endowed by God to decide how to distribute that money to the needy. And Santorum clearly, has demonstrated that fault through out his entire career.
I find the whole thing fascinating because it is a necessary discussion; I mean have you seen any network TV shows lately? They're absolutely sewer worthy.
But your point about "gut-level" is direct on target, as I found out the other night in a "discussion" w/ my wife.
I think if he can make the distinction that this is my faith but I don't think gov. should legislate morality he can turn this into a net positive and move on.
The longer it goes the more the charliesheen media will characature him as a nut.
I would definitely agree that charity should not be a function of government.
I sincerely hope that is Rick's point of view and that he can make his case to the voters. It will not be easy, though; as his own statements contain “buzzwords” that are alarming to many people; particularly women.
Rick will be slogging uphill w/the wind against him; given the money the Romney campaign will continue to pour into yet more negative ads; and the media will be rehashing and "nuancing" any controversial remarks Rick has made since he was in grade school.
That said, Rick is energetic, determined and willing to work extremely hard to accomplish his goals; so, I certainly wouldn't bet against him! ...and, as you may know; I'm a Newt supporter.
Take care,
-Geoff
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.