A handy reminder from the Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein:
Nobody expects the Republican presidential nominee to be a libertarian purist, but it helps if he or she at least has a libertarian streak. In Rick Santorum’s case, he’s actively hostile toward libertarianism, and that’s an obstacle not only to him winning the nomination, but also to having a chance in a general election against President Obama…
Santorum [has] explicitly declared, “I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement.” This is a stark departure from Ronald Reagan, who had this to say to the libertarian Reason magazine in a 1975 interview: “If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”
…Ever since [1975], Republicans have gotten into trouble when they have veered too far from libertarianism. If Santorum had a modicum of respect for libertarian philosophy, he would have been reluctant to embrace big government Republicanism during the Bush era. Instead, he cast votes that will make it harder for him to consolidate conservative support in the weeks and months ahead as his record undergoes more scrutiny. A libertarian streak would also make him a bit more skeptical about government’s ability to shape a more moral society. And by promising to lecture Americans on sex as a president as the GOP nominee, he’d ensure a Democratic rout in November.
And not just in the race for the White House.
I agree that Santorum is making a mistake to alienate libertarians, but I think he is reacting more to extreme statements of libertarian philosophy than to actual small-government principles. Say what you will -- point to individual votes among the thousands of times he voted -- but Santorum has always been overall a small-government guy, who has received excellent marks from conservative, small-government-encouraging organizations.
But he won't please Andrew Stuttaford, that is for sure.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would reply that "reacting to the extreme" can be a sign of failure to recognize the existence or validity of the principled mainstream.
Yes, he certainly is making a mistake in alienating moderate libertarians. Not to say this is something he could even undo at this point. I'm just pointing out to everyone the urgent need for all of us to stop clinging harder to our respective extremes than we do to the common ground.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would reply that "reacting to the extreme" can be a sign of failure to recognize the existence or validity of the principled mainstream.
Sure can. Or it can be reacting more to extreme statements of libertarian philosophy than to actual small-government principles.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBeen wondering when Andrew would pipe up about his bete noire (sorry for the French) Rick Santorum. Guess I don't have to wonder any more. The guy is everything Andrew loathes about the GOP.
It's the social issues, of course. Andrew just despises Santorum's stands on those issues. But he doesn't want to be too explicit and rouse the commenters. So he comes at Santorum through the "libertarian" angle. And he invokes St. Ronnie.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou know, it is possible to agree with Mr. Santorum on social issues and still oppose him because of his statism. On matters of morality, for example, Mr. Santorum and I are roughly 95% in agreement. I will not vote for him, however, because I see little to indicate that Mr. Santorum is interested in rolling back the administrative state in any way at all. The problem with the Republican party today is that they are the party of Boromir: they don't want to destroy the state, they want to use it for good. They mean well--as does Mr. Santorum--but that's because, like Boromir, they don't understand the problem. The only people in the primary who seemed to understand the problem were Rick Perry (who shot himself in the foot, and then went ahead and shot himself in the other foot for good measure) and Ron Paul (who gets some things very right, but gets other things horrifyingly wrong).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBachmann "understood the problem" very well, but was eliminated because of one remark about Gardasil -- a remark criticizing Perry for state involvement in families' lives, no less.
Santorum may not be a libertarian's dream, but all told he appears to be sufficiently small-government, a few forays into statism notwithstanding.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow is Santorum small-government? Being the best in the Senate isn't an accomplishment.
I love the Boromir reference because it's true.
If you vote for a $20 trillion unfunded liabilty you've sold your small-government credentials.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSomeone last night posted this informative Weekly Standard article, which answers your question.
External Link
By the way, I'm amused by your repeated "best in the Senate isn't good enough" argument. I guess Senators must never run in your view?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd here's the crushing retort.
External Link
Santorum is a managerial progressive "compassionate conservative."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I guess Senators must never run in your view?"
I don't know if they must never run, but I do know they're almost never successful. In the last 230-years, only thee (incumbent) Senators ran for and then won the White House: Harding (the first), Kennedy and Obama. We, of course, have had several men who were Senators and then went onto to do something else, like govern a state or territory, and then become president.
In the last 100-years, six former/incumbent Senators: McCain, Kerry, Dole, McGovern, Goldwater, Stevens (twice) all tried and failed. History has demonstrated, with the examples of Nixon and Truman, that the best way for a Senator to be elected president, is to be vice president first. Other than that, it's a tough road to hoe.
It not only appears to be tough for Senators to win the general election, It's even tough for Senators to win the nomination, . I don't know why that is for sure, but I'm guessing the contentious votes and the lack of executive experience don't help. The good news is at least as a Senator, you have a better chance than a sitting Representative. Much better, statistically.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think for a lot of people, the problem was her claim that Gardisil causes late-onset mental retardation--a claim that she apparently repeated without actually investigating. Horribly imprudent.
Honestly, I look at Santorum, Romney, and Gingrich and all I see is three people who want to send us over the cliff at 60 miles an hour rather than 90 miles an hour. That's not good enough. Looking at the 2012 election, I'm inclined to think that whoever wins, we lose. All a victory for the presumptive Republican nominee does is temporize. It kicks the can down the road a bit more.
I don't think the country can afford that any longer.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo candidate is perfect. I support Romney, but I might point out that Romney has called himself "progressive" and signed a law mandating that people buy something. He can defend it on federalist grounds, but not on libertarian grounds. Romneycare is not part of the libertarian program. Santorum talks about 'social issues' and religion more than Romney, but he is not appreciably more 'conservative' on 'social issues' than Romney.
The idea that the GOP needs to be more libertarian is something you hear libertarians say all the time. It lacks evidence, as if legalizing pot -whatever its merits- was a winning political position.
Folks such as Andrew -atheists who live in Manhattan- are a very, very small part of the GOP. I can't say that fear of alienating them should justify voting decisions for anybody.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Folks such as Andrew -atheists who live in Manhattan- are a very, very small part of the GOP. I can't say that fear of alienating them should justify voting decisions for anybody."
Definitely agree that Andrew hardly represents any significant contingent of the GOP. I think that's one reason why he usually confines himself to low-voltage Euro posts. (Hey, what's up with Greece's bonds today? What's Angela Merkel having for lunch?) He doesn't want to get into constant slanging matches with other NROniks - especially the social cons like K-Lo and Maggie - and the commenters.
The real question is whether Andrew can be identified with the GOP at all. If it came down to a Santorum-Obama race, I bet Andrew would vote Libertarian...if he voted at all. I just can't see him voting for Rick under any circumstances.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe number of people identifying as non-theists in this country has doubled from 8% to 15% in the last 20 years, and they're young. Their kids (though they probably won't have as many kids as religious folks do, at least among the middle class) will be non-theists, and I see no reason for the general trend of secularization to slow down any time soon.
The future of America is a secular future. Right now, the Santorum wing may only be alienating a minority of the GOP, true. But you just don't understand the extent to which the growing ranks of secular professionals do not want to be associated with anything that's "too religious" or comes off as bizarre or fanatical. Many of those people could be won over by libertarian arguments about small government and individual rights, but the GOP is no longer socially acceptable in their circles because of the association with Christian conservatives. The MSM has done a very good job of making the Christian right practically synonymous with the GOP, and that leaves a shrinking pool every year for the GOP to draw votes from.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSantorum's a mistake, but that's the fault of Iowa and the silly debates, which were used by foolish neocons like NR to eliminate Perry. Now (given that Paul won't get it) he's the best alternative available. He's at least a different mistake than Romney and the Bushes, and has a decent shot in the industrial Midwest where Romney hasn't a hope. His overall record is quite conservative, and his extreme social views have no chance of getting through either Congress or the Washington bureaucracy, so I say: go for it!
Romney is truly intolerable -- like the Bushes, a centrist squish who would govern left in the hope of being popular with the Washington crowd (and on foreign policy is like Santorum a neocon.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGame. Set. Match.
Santorum's Republican philosophy gave us a prescription drug plan that is now a $20 trillion unfunded liability.
Santorum loathes libertarian views because he believes in the nanny state. You can be a Christian and be a social conservative and not lobby for the nanny state. Santorum doesn't believe in freedom. At least not the type of freedom the Founders created.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust not borne out by the numbers. Check out the review of the National Taxpayers Union numbers by Anderson and Wickersham on Weekly Standard on Wednesday this week. Puts Santorum at front of the class on spending issues.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBeing the first of the class in the Senate is like bragging about winning 3rd grade spelling bee.
If the "first of the class" is someone who rubber stamped every big GOP spending idea then you're just quietly telling yourself a lie to keep from seeing the truth.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou wrote, "Santorum loathes libertarian views because he believes in the nanny state." And, "Santorum doesn't believe in freedom." Do you really believe that? Who's telling themselves a lie to keep from seeing the truth in that case?
You then wrote, that Santorum "is someone who rubber stamped every big GOP spending idea ..." But, again, that is not borne out by the numbers detailed in the article. During even the reign of "Compassionate Conservatism" (a misnomer if ever there was one), Santorum maintained among the absolute best voting records of all Republicans in the Senate when almost every other GOP senator's grade took a big hit - including those supporting Rombo and criticizing Santorum on spending now.
I recommend going to read the article, it's about perspective. It's about context. Am I saying he's perfect? No, but I'm definitely not a utopian. Am I saying he can win against Obama? I don't know the answer to that, but I will say that Santorum would be better than Obama and I think more reliably conservative than Rombo. Am I saying that the social stances arent' a liability to him? I wish they weren't. Go ahead and make arguments on those points. Just don't tell me Santorum's a nanny-stater or a progressive, because that noise is just not borne out by reality.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am with Andrew.
To me, the essential strength of the Republican party -- and in something like the Tea Party movement -- is a call to limit government's encroachment on our liberties, both social and economic, and to instead create an environment that encourages the innovative and creative spirit of the individual.
Rick Santorum exudes a weird populism that seems counter to the libertarian spirit of the Republican party, and to the kind of freedom the nation requires to unlock us from these doldrums.
Given a choice in November between Santorum and Obama, I would prefer the devil I know to the devil I don't know.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse