Santorum and the Conservative Split
Virginia Postrel (the smartest woman in America) points us to this article by Jonathan Rauch which fortifies my earlier dismay at the anti-individual attitudes of our state senator, Rick Santorum. What Rauch gleans from Santorum's book, It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good, is a shift away from individual freedom that I would define as nothing short of frightening:
Freedom, for Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and others, was an end, not just a means. A government that allows individuals to pursue happiness in their own fashions, they believed, is most likely to produce a strong society and a virtuous citizenry; but the greatest benefit of freedom is freedom itself. Civic virtue ultimately serves individual freedom, rather than the other way around.
It was in this tradition that Goldwater wrote, "Every man, for his individual good and for the good of his society, is responsible for his own development." Note that first "and": Individual and social welfare go together -- they're not in conflict. All the government needs to do, Goldwater said, is get out of the way. "The conservative's first concern will always be: Are we maximizing freedom?" Reagan spoke in the same tradition when he declared that government was the problem, not the solution to our problems.
Goldwater and Reagan, and Madison and Jefferson, were saying that if you restrain government, you will strengthen society and foster virtue. Santorum is saying something more like the reverse: If you shore up the family, you will strengthen the social fabric and ultimately reduce dependence on government.
Where Goldwater denounced collectivism as the enemy of the individual, Santorum denounces individualism as the enemy of family. On page 426, Santorum says this: "In the conservative vision, people are first connected to and part of families: The family, not the individual, is the fundamental unit of society." Those words are not merely uncomfortable with the individual-rights tradition of modern conservatism. They are incompatible with it.
Santorum seems to sense as much. In an interview with National Public Radio last month, he acknowledged his quarrel with "what I refer to as more of a libertarianish Right" and "this whole idea of personal autonomy." In his book he comments, seemingly with a shrug, "Some will reject what I have to say as a kind of 'Big Government' conservatism."
They sure will. A list of the government interventions that Santorum endorses includes national service, promotion of prison ministries, "individual development accounts," publicly financed trust funds for children, community-investment incentives, strengthened obscenity enforcement, covenant marriage, assorted tax breaks, economic literacy programs in "every school in America" (his italics), and more. Lots more.
Though he is a populist critic of Big Government, Santorum shows no interest in defining principled limits on political power. His first priority is to make government pro-family, not to make it small. He has no use for a constitutional (or, as far as one can tell, moral) right to privacy, which he regards as a "constitutional wrecking ball" that has become inimical to the very principle of the common good. Ditto for the notions of government neutrality and free expression. He does not support a ban on contraception, but he thinks the government has every right to impose one.
Wow. No, really.... WOW!
Not that I was prone to thinking Santorum was true to "limited government" principles, but this is indeed a VERY frightening summary of his true agenda. It is said that at the far right and far left ideologies begin to converge. This is what we are seeing from Santorum. Given the keys to the kingdom, he would define every aspect of our lives in a manner no less than a Ted Kennedy or a Hilary Clinton would.
If Rauch is right, Santorum could prove to be more of a threat to Goldwater conservatism, libertarianism, or classical liberalism than anyone on the other side of the aisle. A reelection of Santorum which is perceived as an endorsement of his anti-individual agenda could complete a shift of the focus of the Republican Party from a party at least nominally supporting limited government to one whose intention of expanding and excercising government power is open and avowed - thus squashing any small voice that small "l" libertarians have in two party politics completely.
As of reading this column, I share with my collectivist friends a common goal - the defeat of Rick Santorum.
Freedom, for Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and others, was an end, not just a means. A government that allows individuals to pursue happiness in their own fashions, they believed, is most likely to produce a strong society and a virtuous citizenry; but the greatest benefit of freedom is freedom itself. Civic virtue ultimately serves individual freedom, rather than the other way around.
It was in this tradition that Goldwater wrote, "Every man, for his individual good and for the good of his society, is responsible for his own development." Note that first "and": Individual and social welfare go together -- they're not in conflict. All the government needs to do, Goldwater said, is get out of the way. "The conservative's first concern will always be: Are we maximizing freedom?" Reagan spoke in the same tradition when he declared that government was the problem, not the solution to our problems.
Goldwater and Reagan, and Madison and Jefferson, were saying that if you restrain government, you will strengthen society and foster virtue. Santorum is saying something more like the reverse: If you shore up the family, you will strengthen the social fabric and ultimately reduce dependence on government.
Where Goldwater denounced collectivism as the enemy of the individual, Santorum denounces individualism as the enemy of family. On page 426, Santorum says this: "In the conservative vision, people are first connected to and part of families: The family, not the individual, is the fundamental unit of society." Those words are not merely uncomfortable with the individual-rights tradition of modern conservatism. They are incompatible with it.
Santorum seems to sense as much. In an interview with National Public Radio last month, he acknowledged his quarrel with "what I refer to as more of a libertarianish Right" and "this whole idea of personal autonomy." In his book he comments, seemingly with a shrug, "Some will reject what I have to say as a kind of 'Big Government' conservatism."
They sure will. A list of the government interventions that Santorum endorses includes national service, promotion of prison ministries, "individual development accounts," publicly financed trust funds for children, community-investment incentives, strengthened obscenity enforcement, covenant marriage, assorted tax breaks, economic literacy programs in "every school in America" (his italics), and more. Lots more.
Though he is a populist critic of Big Government, Santorum shows no interest in defining principled limits on political power. His first priority is to make government pro-family, not to make it small. He has no use for a constitutional (or, as far as one can tell, moral) right to privacy, which he regards as a "constitutional wrecking ball" that has become inimical to the very principle of the common good. Ditto for the notions of government neutrality and free expression. He does not support a ban on contraception, but he thinks the government has every right to impose one.
Wow. No, really.... WOW!
Not that I was prone to thinking Santorum was true to "limited government" principles, but this is indeed a VERY frightening summary of his true agenda. It is said that at the far right and far left ideologies begin to converge. This is what we are seeing from Santorum. Given the keys to the kingdom, he would define every aspect of our lives in a manner no less than a Ted Kennedy or a Hilary Clinton would.
If Rauch is right, Santorum could prove to be more of a threat to Goldwater conservatism, libertarianism, or classical liberalism than anyone on the other side of the aisle. A reelection of Santorum which is perceived as an endorsement of his anti-individual agenda could complete a shift of the focus of the Republican Party from a party at least nominally supporting limited government to one whose intention of expanding and excercising government power is open and avowed - thus squashing any small voice that small "l" libertarians have in two party politics completely.
As of reading this column, I share with my collectivist friends a common goal - the defeat of Rick Santorum.
posted by soulpole66 at 8:39 PM
1 Comments:
I have this recurring nightmare that our choice in the next election will be Rick Santorum v. Hillary Clinton. . .
[loki]
Post a Comment
<< Home