AZspot

blue bits. red rocks.

santorum

You win by giving people a choice. You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who’s just going to be a little different than the person in there. If they’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk of what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate for the future. Rick Santorum

☼   ☼      ☼   ☼

The Santorum Strategy is not just about Santorum. It is about pounding the most radical conservative ideas into the public mind by constant repetition during the Republican presidential campaign, whether by Santorum himself, by Gingrich or Ron Paul, by an intimidated Romney, or by the Republican House majority. The Republican presidential campaign is about a lot more than the campaign for the presidency. It is about guaranteeing a radical conservative future for America. George Lakoff

Santorum seems to think that the president is our official bishop, rabbi, or imam, and that his election would amount to a secular ordination. Santorum and Madison on church and state

The news is all abuzz today over the fact that Santorum “lost” the Catholic vote in the primaries last night. It’s a construction that assumes that it was his to lose, and is based in one of the most pernecious myths of the Beltway media, which is that America is a sectarian society where “people of faith” not only vote according to religious guidelines, but according to those set by the loudest sectarians amongst them. Thus, you get claims that Obama is going to lose the “Jewish vote” because, I dunno, something about Israel, even though he really hasn’t done a damn thing to hurt Israel. And now there’s a growing adherence to the nonsensical belief that Catholics are a voting bloc, and one that votes primarily based on what a bunch of right wing celibates who spend all their time on TV denouncing vaginas think. The only group that doesn’t get this treatment is mainline Protestants, because as the mainstream media doesn’t tend to think of “white” as a race so much as a baseline, so it thinks of mainline Protestantism as the norm by which you measure others against. (On that basis alone, I enjoyed Santorum saying mainline Protestants aren’t real Christians, because it actually jolted the media into realizing that various Protestants are also religious groups, just like Jews, Catholics, evangelicals, and Mormons.) But really, this nonsense about the “Catholic vote” has got to stop. There’s literally no evidence for such a thing. Most Catholics are pro-choice and use birth control, and they do so in roughly the same numbers as non-Catholics. In fact, they’re indistinguishable from the public at large in their voting habits. There’s perhaps a slim chance that some of them were moved against Santorum by the JFK comment, but honestly, I’m skeptical. The reason is that we’re talking about a Repubilcan primary. I guarantee their identity as Republicans was a bigger factor for Catholic Republicans voting in the primary than their loyalty to the only Catholic President. There is no “Catholic vote”

☼   ☼      ☼   ☼

But Santorum doesn’t care about the facts, because attacking Obama on higher education is really just a pretext for pushing what is, for him, a more urgent message—namely that higher education should be viewed as a problem, not an opportunity. Although he currently frames this message in the Tea Party language of “liberal professors” and “indoctrination,” the roots of his stump-speech sallies against academia lie deeper than this, in a religious ideology of cosmic war. Santorum’s War on Satan… er, on Higher Education

☼   ☼      ☼   ☼

American leaders during the War of Independence were not all that different from their contemporaries in Britain. That was one of the causes of their grievances against Parliament and the Crown. They were Englishmen entitled to the same rights and liberties, they believed that these rights had been secured in the previous constitutional struggles against the monarchy, and they perceived that Parliament and the Crown were encroaching on those rights in a way that threatened self-government in the colonies. They were not all that different in their political views from their Loyalist opponents, except that the patriot leaders believed that their grievances merited the separation of the colonies from Britain. The Loyalists obviously regarded this as an excessive response to government policy. The Founding generation typically had very little confidence in “the people,” and they did not have appreciably more confidence in “the people” than their counterparts on the other side of the conflict. Early republican leaders did recognize that they didn’t “have all the answers,” but this is because they understood that everyone was fallible and no one person or institution should be entrusted with too much power, and not because they had an abundance of trust in “the people.” Santorum’s Bad Populist History

☼   ☼      ☼   ☼

For Santorum, as for Ratzinger, if your conscience says one thing, and the Pope says another, you obey the Pope, not your conscience. And for the Christianists, if your conscience or intelligence says one thing, and the Bible says another, you obey the Bible, not your conscience, and certainly not your intelligence. Because beneath Christianism is a deep fear of the human mind - as if they actually believe that reason is stronger than religion and therefore must be restrained. As if the human mind can will God out of existence. This is Santorum’s fear-laden vision. Which is why he is not a man of questioning, sincere faith and should not be flattered as such. He is a man of the kind of fear that leads to fundamentalist faith, a faith without doubt and in complete subservience to external authority. There is a reason he doesn’t want many kids to go to college. I mean: when we already know the truth, why bother to keep seeking it? And if we already know the truth, why are we not enforcing it as a matter of law in a country founded on Christian principles? It is not religious oppression if it is “the way things are supposed to be”, by natural law. In fact, a neutral public square, in his mind, is itself religious oppression. Andrew Sullivan

Watching Willard Romney and Rick Santorum lay clubs on each other over the past week, each attempting to out-Reaganite the other, as Reaganism is reckoned in today’s Republican party, has been a clarifying experience for the country. A party that dedicated itself long ago to the notion that government is the problem has finally run out of reasons why we should allow them to run the government they so insist they despise. A party that dedicated itself long ago to the politics of expedient division has finally run out of credible tactics through which they can pretend to unite us. A party that dedicated itself long ago to placating the social fears and paranoia of the people whose money they were relentlessly shipping upwards to the folks at the top of the food chain has finally run out of distraction and misdirection. (Willard Romney seems to have settled on a campaign theme of, “Yeah, I’m rich. Deal with it, proles.”) All they have left now, lying there on the track with the ambulance idling lowly off to one side, is each other, and, god knows, that’s all they really deserve. Charles P. Pierce

A GNT creation ©2007–2014