Or is it weak liberty in the sexual field? Peter Wehner has an interesting post over at Commentary saying the tendency of the current GOP field to say things “ranging from odd and exotic to downright weird” will risk alienating the American people from the eventual GOP nominee, and thus abetting the reelection of the current, failed president. A key example Wehner cites is a comment by Rick Santorum: “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, the sexual liberty idea and many in the Christian faith have said, you know contraception is OK. It’s not OK because it’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”
I suspect Obama is so weak, such a conspicuous failure as president, that even a candidate whose campaign consisted of typing out Santorum’s statement thousands upon thousands of times, à la Jack Nicholson in The Shining, and throwing fresh reams of the typed pages out of his campaign bunker’ s windows every day to the waiting press corps, would not be a sure loser in the general election. (I could be wrong; I often am.) But more generally, I think it’s important that we not discourage candidates with offbeat or eccentric ideas from using campaigns as a platform for airing them; it was, after all, the standardized, ultra-conventional politics of the last half-century that landed us in our current national mess. Perhaps a fear of alienating voters with unconventional thought is not, at this point, what we should fear the most?
And please, to those out there who fear theocracy, do not take what I am saying here as an endorsement of Santorum’s position. I could not disagree more with his view. I believe in sexual liberty, as just about everybody else in this free country does; and that sexual liberty, as far as I’m concerned, includes the liberty even of those who choose to practice their sexuality in accordance with the opinions of one Rick Santorum about “how things are supposed to be.” As it happens, we’ll never find out how much of a Santorum presidency would, in fact, be dedicated to exhorting Americans to conform their sexual opinions to those of the commander-in-chief; and as for the 2012 GOP nominee, he or she will not be calling for the hiring of millions of contraception cops as a solution to joblessness. (A measure I strongly oppose, not just in principle — because it would be an infringement on personal liberties — but because it would raise some tricky administrative questions: What if an applicant for one of the contraception-cop jobs said he favored contraception? Would there have to be a conscience clause protecting his right to be hired?)
In the meantime, not to worry. If Obama somehow manages to eke out reelection, it will not be because of minor instances of crankiness on the part of particular Republicans. It will be because the American people somehow became convinced that the GOP has even less of a clue about how to get us out of this catastrophe than the Democrats do. And if it comes to that, the foibles of quirky candidates will be the least of our problems.
What you lovingly call "sexual liberty", is really just sexual promiscuity. No, people should not be prevented from being promiscuous by the state, but it is a condition that leads to so many societal ills that we should, as a society, not a government, reconsider our unthinking appreciation of it..
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Peter Wehner has an interesting post over at Commentary ..."
If by interesting you mean the usual shilling for Mitt Romney and northeastern Republican elites and the usual pleading for GOP conservatives not to say anything that might embarrass at swanky Manhattan cocktail parties, then yes – it’s a real chin scratcher alright.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMike,
Do you really find the idea that there are dangers to contraception and sexual liberty to be "offbeat and eccentric"?
Or, just the idea that the President might talk about it?
If there are real dangers, then why shouldn't a President talk about it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMichael:
"And please, to those out there who fear theocracy, do not take what I am saying here as an endorsement of Santorum’s position. I could not disagree more with his view. I believe in sexual liberty, as just about everybody else in this free country does; and that sexual liberty, as far as I’m concerned, includes the liberty even of those who choose to practice their sexuality in accordance with the opinions of one Rick Santorum about 'how things are supposed to be.'"
Unless I grossly misread your comments from earlier this year, you not only disagree with the opinions of "one Rick Santorum" on contraception, you disagree with the opinions of one Jesus of Nazareth on why we were created male and female: while claiming to be a Christian, a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, you affirm a radical redefinition of marriage that would include a practice that the Bible consistently condemns.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, what Peter Wehner is essentially saying is that the official dogmatic teaching of the world's second largest (or are we bigger than Islam?) religion is odd or eccentric. Certainly it's outside the norm of today's sexualized society, but is that a condemnation of the Church or of society?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs there that much difference between "eccentric" and "outside the norm"?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"If Obama somehow manages to eke out reelection, it will not be because of minor instances of crankiness on the part of particular Republicans. It will be because the American people somehow became convinced that the GOP has even less of a clue about how to get us out of this catastrophe than the Democrats do."
I disagree. If Obama wins, I believe it will be because the media has succeeded in getting enough people to believe that Republicans are so SCARY, and EVIL (racist/homophobic/greedy/mean/nasty... etc) that Obama is the only possible option.
Now, I don't believe you fix that by offering up bland candidates, any more than you play nice with Iran just to keep peace. So I encourage quirky candidates so we can end up with a real choice. (i.e. not Romney)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am definately afraid of this candidate gaining office. I am a married woman with two children and I use contraception! If this person makes it illegal to use or purchase this I will be force to stop having relations with my Husband because at this time we simply can not afford another child! I am petrified that these people are going to tax me to death and force me to keep my husband at a distance. I am even more worried that you all seem to think that contraception is only used by promiscous unwed people. Therefore you believe stripping me of my ability to enjoy my family and be financially stable is the way to prevent this.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne thing we need to counter is the notion that somehow social conservatism "puts government in our bedroom". If we look at the positions of social conservatives vs. social liberals, we will find unsurprisingly that Social leftists favor more increase of state power. For example, a defender of more graphic NY sexual education, said that they were necesary for "public health" and was adamantly against opt-outs.
It's doubtful a President Santorum could outlaw or even tax contraceptive. He could encourage the FDA investigate contraceptive industry more aggressively. Contraceptive use has been linked to numerous health problems. Women have even died from their use. However, the same people who call for regulation at every health scare Have claimed that each new discovery is "safer than asprin" and tried to hush things up when the inevitable health problems occur.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse