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. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.
Anyone who understands the core of our Founders know that to a man, our Founders would be appalled at the anti-individualism of such a statement. It's amplified because it was spoken by someone active in the political arena.
I can never imagine Reagan speaking in such terms. Rick has an authoritarian streak. I have no doubt that he would use the power of the State to ends that would be disturbing.
Rick voted for No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part-D and other laws that would make a real conservative cringe. Make no mistake none of the candidates running are Conservative as Reagan.
It is laughable that some people would push Rick as this stalwart Conservative. Rick's record is not one of someone who believes strongly in the Constitution and limited State Power. That said, he or Newt would be infinitely better than Mitt.
The very definition of society precludes personal autonomy. Without knowing the context of the answer, I have no idea what specifically Santorum was dealing with.
Being NPR, I can guess they took a rational small-government position, and asked some bizarre questions about how everybody should be left to fend for themselves.
We have government, at the local, state, and federal level, precisely because our founding fathers, and the history of humanity before them, understood that we need a society to thrive.
You don’t get to decide for yourself exactly how you will live your life. Your choices have boundaries, and those boundaries are the necessary and proper purview of the people as a whole, expressed through the elected representatives of the people.
This is how we keep one neighbor from ruining the lives of all the people in a community. This is how we ensure that property rights are maintained, that the weakest do not need to fear having their possessions taken by the strongest.
This is how we ensure that our children grow up in an environment that will make them productive members of society, by encouraging family units which are the building blocks of society. This is how we provide common resources that are beyond the reach of the individual, but which enhance all of our lives — like fire departments, roads, and police.
This is how we provide for the common defense, and secure our individual liberties.
I wish it would be that easy. It's almost surreal, that so many here think that whom ever is nominated will automatically become the next President. That could not be further from the truth. I do believe that Newt would have a chance against the MSM, but not Santorum. No way, no how!
It sounds not like a conservative view, but rather like a totalitarian one. "The government knows better than you how to make you happy. The government will control your life for the "good" of all". It's such a despicable attitude, as despicable as Obama's.
This is the man had no problem with big government if it helped his own campaign contributors in Big Pharma. Santorum supported Medicare Part D, a prescription drug plan for the elderly, which added hundreds of billions of dollars to the federal deficit. Santorum defeat in 2006 was considered "a big loss in Wa.DC" by the the drug giant GlaxoSmithKline.
Santorum is the guy who was soaking in lobbyist culture during his stay in Washington. He was the Senate's "point man" on the K Street Project and he met with Norquist to discuss how to make sure that lobbyists get well-paying jobs in firms that were seeking to then access and influence Republican Congressmen...
You don't think that they would be upset at all about the total lack of morality that you would have us pursue? You don't know anything about the Founders. Washington, Adams and yes Jefferson would not be content to have us swept into a immoral cesspool. Unless of course you have excepted the total rewrite of history that has been ongoing since Wilson.
Sounds hyperbolic to me. I can't think of one thing he would do with the power of the state that would be disturbing. Can you name some specifics?
Make no mistake none of the candidates running are Conservative as Reagan.
Sounds to me like Rick is just talking about stuff like Reagan's war on drugs. I would certainly hope Rick would revive the era of "just say no." I know that message worked on me and many other kids growing up in the '80s.
Was Reagan really a "small government" guy? I don't think so. He seemed to me like a man with big ideas who did big things. This whole libertarian streak trying to call itself "conservatism" is unwelcome in my opinion. We agree we don't want a welfare state. That's bad government. But there is good government too. For example, promotion of procreation is something other governments engage in and something that we absolutely should too. I want good government, not bad government and not no government.