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.

[Christie at the beach]

I have not attacked anyone religious belief. You need to look at my posts.

[Downinthedixie]

I am no puppet for any candidate, so don’t worry about that. I just want to beat Obama so damn badly. If my hamster could do it, then I’d want him.

I truly believe each candidate has major faults. Obviously, so does BO. But he’s an incumbent. We need someone coming out forceful.

I truly believe Sarah would be wonderful for us in a brokered convention. I doubt that will ever happen, unfortunately.

But honestly, I’d take Ryan, Rubio, Christie, hell even Jeb over these guys. They just seem to have the “it” factor. We’re gonna need that to beat Obama. As easy as it is for us on FR to see the Rez’s failures, many in this country can’t get enough of the guy. We have to neutralize that group. Maybe a Condi VP could do it...

I really don’t know, but I don’t think we’re in near as good shape as we should be.

[Downinthedixie]

Rick is a deeply flawed candidate. If you don’t see that, than I fear you have not done enough research.

Big govt. Loves the pork.

Thank you, but I’ll pass.

[JediJones]

I’m not saying you did. But you are saying that Rick’s religious views will be a negative in terms of him getting votes. I strongly dispute that.

Newt’s one real negative are his moral failings in his marriage. One of Mitt’s many negatives is his exotic Mormon religion. Rick does not have negatives on the religious/moral front, the other guys do.

I didn’t dispute that he is guilty of some of the spending problems under the Bush administration. But if spending and debt become the issue, Obama loses, because he is guilty of far more of it than the Republicans ever were and he has no plan for getting out of it.

I would like to hear the specific content you think Obama can put in ads against Rick that would be effective, and what issues they would cover that Rick would not be able to then turn around and make Obama look worse on.

[anglian]

“Santorum Fights the Liberal Bulldozer” WOW! Rick Santorum couldn’t handle a room of college kids in Concord NH. When it came time for questions from his audience of college kids, he allowed himself to get drawn into a raucous back and forth over views on gay marriage. By the end, Santorum was visibly seething and the crowd was shouting and unruly. “I’m out of time now,” he finally declared, leaving the stage to sustained boos.

Video of him getting Bulldozed by Liberals here http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/santorum-gets-into-testy-debate-on-gay-marriage/ Here http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/01/santorum-college-students-argue-gay-marriage/1

[Brad’s Gramma]

Hark!!

[dsc]

“Reagan trailed Carter up until the end”

The lesson to be learned from that is that polls cannot be trusted. They are trumped up and used to influence opinion, not to sample and report opinion.

[dsc]

“Rick’s negatives are his voting record”

Well, pardon me, but how the hecky-darn do you get around his voting record? What says more about the man?

If his voting record sucks, then he sucks. I certainly wouldn’t want to go into combat next to that wuss.

[Marguerite]

“Our selection process—already experiencing casualties through the Left’s death threats—is being torpedoed.”

You are absolutely right.
Besides the whole system of the primaries is corrupted by money and influence on opinion rich peddlers.

It is too late for changing it. The RINO GOP establishment has already chosen at your place, and they chose a loser.

For the voice of the people to have an impact in the nomination, the system must be fundamentally changed once and for all.

Only a two stage primary election on national scale can do it. Let me explain:

1) First step: after a series of debates between the Republican candidates, the primaries take place the SAME day in all the states. Only the top two contenders, obtaining the more number of votes nationally, qualify for the second Republican nominee step.

2) The two candidates participate in a series of debates, WITHOUT moderator. The second step of Republican nominee election take place one or two months later, allowing the two top candidates to make their case across the country.

The candidate who obtains more than 50% of votes is nominated as the Republican candidate in the national presidenial election.

[Marguerite]

Correction:

1) First step: after a series of debates between the Republican candidates, the primaries take place the SAME day in all the states. Only the top two contenders, obtaining the more number of votes nationally delegates, qualify for the second Republican nominee step.

[napscoordinator]

It’s a damn shame. And they’re all out to get the best hope for our republic, Newt. He doesn’t even have a fair shot, it seems, they’re so terrified of him and what they know he’d do if elected.

Newt needs to work harder. Newt needs to get votes. Newt has one job to do during the primary and that is to get people to vote for him. All of these negative stories and other stuff won’t affect Newt if he would counter the negativity. That is the one issue I have with Newt. When he is against the wall he cannot fight back. In Florida, Newt had millions of dollars against him, but instead of fighting back, he just complained about how unfair it was that Romney had more money then he did. That is not the way to fight back. Then when Romney told Newt that he had Fanny Mae stocks too in his mutual fund, Newt just looked at him with his mouth open. That does not win elections. Newt needs voters to vote for him. He needs to work harder to get this nomination.

[In Maryland]

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

With all due respect, a can of spam would win if the general public were as well-informed as most members of this site. But, unfortunately, they are not. The average person-in-the-street gets what little news they get from the MSM.

Here is just the start of a list of things the general population probably doesn't know about this President:

-He used the coercive power of the government to force Chrysler bondholders to forfeit their legal rights in favor of the UAW.

- He has bypassed the "advise and concent" provisions of the constitution by appointing dozens of unvetted "czars".

- He has channeled money to croneys under the guess of supporting "green" energy.

- Casualties in Afghanistan INCREASED under Obama (probably due to politically correct rules-of-engagement).

- Obama and his administration have used their power to cow the press into holding "the party line".

- Fast and Furious? What's that?

- He has abused executive orders to further his agenda without the scrutiny of legislative debate.

- Obama is widely viewed by other world leaders as weak and ineffective.

- Obama has prolonged and deepened the recession by hanging an unknown and unknowable burden on employers for future health care costs.

I'm sure the members of the forum can greatly extend this list. If the public were informed on these matters, Obama would be lucky to serve out the rest of his term. But they are not.

[napscoordinator]

People here so readily forget what he accomplished in ‘94 with the Contract With America.

Something that is NEVER brought up......Anybody born after 1965 (approximately), doesn’t remember any of that. I mean I was born in 1969 and remember it but was busy with getting my career at that time and although voted (always Republican) was not into politics like I am today. The problem with younger voters is, “What has he done recently?” 1994 is a lifetime ago. Some say 2 weeks is a lifetime ago. lol. Newt saying all this stuff that he did in the early 90’s when some voters were not even born is not enough. Newt needs to explain what he has done in 2011.

[llandres]

I totally agree with you on all counts. It’s obvious how effective Newt would be by how deeply the Left, media and RINO establishment hate him. An earlier posting made sense, about the large number of Dems who’re voting in these elections for Santorum.

Newt really needs our support to beat Mitt.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

[Based on what evidence?]

That one’s rather easy;.......You can bet that Santorum will lose, because he is technically, no different than George W. Bush, Social conservative, fiscal moderate/liberal. Although, santorum does not have one day of executive experience, he is even with Obama in that regard.

Santorum’s entire senate career is absolute proof that all he will do is roll with the flow, like all his RINO buddy's knew him for most. big spending, earmark loving moderate, who sided with the left on countless occasions.

[darrellmaurina]

53 posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:22:27 AM by napscoordinator: “People here so readily forget what he accomplished in ‘94 with the Contract With America. Something that is NEVER brought up......Anybody born after 1965 (approximately), doesn’t remember any of that. I mean I was born in 1969 and remember it but was busy with getting my career at that time and although voted (always Republican) was not into politics like I am today. The problem with younger voters is, “What has he done recently?” 1994 is a lifetime ago. Some say 2 weeks is a lifetime ago. lol. Newt saying all this stuff that he did in the early 90’s when some voters were not even born is not enough. Newt needs to explain what he has done in 2011.”

I'm older than you and I **DO** remember the 1994 election (to my deep regret, I had an out-of-state church commitment, didn't vote absentee, and can't say I helped the Republican takeover that year). I also remember the rise of C-Span as a force in educating the public, I remember when CompuServe first made a half-dozen newspapers available online in the early 1980s, and I'm fairly sure I remember hearing some of Newt Gingrich's late-night speeches on C-Span. I know I remember the uproar when the Democratic Speaker of the House (I think Tip O'Neill) had the cameras turned to show an empty chamber on C-Span.

But your point is well-taken. We live in a sound-bite world where people haven't been schooled on the importance of having a historical memory or thinking with sustained rational logic. That's even true for conservatives.

Newt Gingrich was a college professor. He's a very, very smart man. Maybe he can effectively reach the dumbed-down American electorate. If so, great, and I'll applaud that.

But I'm afraid the main thing people remember about him is not his victory in taking over the House of Representatives but rather his personal life. Same with Bill Clinton — his successes (from a Democrat perspective) have been overshadowed by his personal failings. Yeah, I know that one man lied under oath and the other didn't, but the general public who are neither lawyers nor college professors don't see the difference.

I really, really want to see President Barack Obama defeated. If Gingrich is the guy to do it, fine — but then we have some very hard work to do to get social conservative evangelicals to understand that the Reformation would not have happened without the help of people who make Newt Gingrich look like a choir boy, and for social conservative Roman Catholics to understand that if they believe what their church teaches, Gingrich's marriages have been **VERY** thoroughly investigated by the Catholic hierarchy, and they're convinced he's sincerely repentant.

I wish the people here who think that focusing on Christian values is somehow the kiss of death would understand that the opposite has been true for most of American history. From what I read of Newt Gingrich, he doesn't think that way. I wish more of Gingrich's supporters would realize their own candidate advocates views on some religious issues which are, if anything, farther right than Rick Santorum. Newt Gingrich believes America is in a cultural holy war with both secular liberalism and Islamofascism, and I agree with him, and that's part of why I can support him if he's the Republican nominee.

If we elect a President Santorum, we can expect a war on gay marriage and on abortion, and I'm fine with that. If we elect President Gingrich, I think we are going to find ourselves involved in a crusade against Islamofascist jihadists, and I'm also fine with that. Communism is dead, but secular liberalism and Islamofascism are the two key enemies conservative Christians need to fight today, and I think Gingrich and Santorum both “get it.”

[Sal]

We need to stop Mitt with the best person and one has not been vetted.

You have named my biggest worry about this sudden surge that doesn't seem to upset the press or the establishment at all while they were horrified when Newt surged.

Other than disagreeing with several of his votes, I don't know anything really nasty about Santorum and maybe there isn't anything to know which would be wonderful.**

However if there is something that is bad, it's a lot better if we know it now than in late October. It isn't that I'm suspicious of him necessarily, but why is no one attacking him--especially the one with the most to lose. Apparently Romney is planning to continue savaging Newt even while Santorum is his newest and (to hear the media tell) biggest threat. Why??? ________________

**Regarding an October surprise it doesn't matter if Santorum is pure and wonderful, the Regime will make something up.

I'm wondering if Mitt will hold out on his own vetting of Santorum until just before super Tuesday or until Rick threatens to take the needed amount of delegates and I wouldn't put it past him to make stuff up like he did and continues to do with Newt.

Let's see it now and see how Santorum handles it because if he can't handle Romney's attacks, he'll never handle ones from the left. I think Newt has figured it out and will be much more able to prevail. I just question whether Santorum is tough enough when the REAL arrows are coming his way.

[darrellmaurina]

I'm responding to several people on this thread, not just one, who are asking why Romney and/or Gingrich aren't vetting Santorum’s views adequately.

My guess is Mitt Romney knows that the most effective attacks against Santorum involve his personal faith and will backfire if made by Romney since they're both strongly committed to their respective churches and appear to have led a decent moral life. Mormons are not exactly known for being wild and crazy types.

Newt Gingrich also can't make the attack based on his own history.

That kind of attack has to be made either by Democrats or by libertarian-leaning Republicans who aren't officially connected with either Romney or Gingrich — in other words, by the sort of people who are making that attack right here on Free Republic.

I don't have a problem with the attack being made here and on other conservative websites because Santorum will face it in the general election from Democrats. I'm also not accusing either Gingrich or Romney of being behind those attacks; I know enough Republicans who don't care about moral values that I know lots of people really do believe that way and don't need to be prompted by a candidate to say it.

What I **AM** saying is the attack cannot be made openly in the Republican primary by a candidate or a group connected with a candidate. Who would do it? The Log Cabin Republicans can't do it openly or they'd get more people riled up and voting for Santorum. Will we see a group like “Republicans Promoting the Pill for Free Sex” show up and start buying ads as an independent PAC? Obviously not.

What we see instead is this informal and probably largely uncoordinated campaign on the web to discredit Santorum that isn't connected with candidates. Alright, fine. This is America and people can say such things. But don't expect those of us who are conservative Christians, whether Protestant evangelicals or conservative Roman Catholics, to like listening to it and quietly shut up.

America was founded mostly though not entirely on Judeo-Christian values. If you don't like that, fine, and you've got Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin on your side. But it's you, not the supporters of traditional moral values, who need to make the case for changing the moral foundations of America. And note very carefully that Newt Gingrich definitely does **NOT** agree with you, neither does Mitt Romney, and I don't think even Ron Paul believes that way.

You're really advocating a Democratic liberal agenda to tear apart American moral foundations. I'm not accusing people who think that way of being closet Democrats, but I **AM** saying their views would logically put them in a different political party — if not the Democrats, than at least the Libertarians.

[Sal]

Just a guess: Are you hoping for an open convention so that we can gag up another Bush?

Or are you planning for our candidate to lose to Obama but take and hold congress so that the establishments on both sides can continue to screw us over for another round?

[hinckley buzzard]

By the time The Left is through with him, they will make Santorum look like a crazed ayatollah who will try to outlaw contraception and probably turn back the clock on women's rights altogether. His supposed strength will become his glass jaw. Watch and see. The recent attack on freedom of conscience is just preparation of the battlefield.