Slick Rick or the Trouble with Pandering

(updated below)

Rick Santorum has gone out of his way to sever any connection between his platform and the Libertarian influences that were, at one point, central to the Old Right. A laissez faire approach to the market and a refusal to intervene abroad were once highly regarded as a means of ensuring personal liberty. On the subject of freedom, Santorum has said: “I fight very strongly against Libertarian influence within the republican party and the conservative movement.” In another statement he says something to the effect that historically, freedom doesn’t work and society cannot function without a strong paternal government.

In light of his insistence that people are naturally uncivilized and require feudal overlords to control them, the latest controversy over birth control should come as no surprise. Of course someone like Santorum, who holds such an obvious disdain for individual rights, would seek to control the populace in every minute detail. He tries to couch his authoritarian position as some sort of outsider’s take on politics – his quip that other candidates don’t want to talk about contraception is an obvious attempt – but it’s all about exercising control.

During an interview he stated that: “…many in the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay, because it’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be” (emphasis added). If this were only a personal statement explaining his choice not to use birth control, there’s nothing particularly controversial here. But this isn’t a personal statement; it’s a normative statement.

And, as if his Liberty-rejecting ideology weren’t bad enough on its own merits, he’s a hypocrite to boot. Just this past week Santorum was on TV boasting of his votes in support of Title X, which provides federal funding to organizations, including Planned Parenthood, for contraception. He told Greta Van Susteren: “The bottom line in my position is very clear. I’ve had a consistent record on this of supporting women’s right to have contraception. I’ve supported funding for it.”

So if he believes that contraception is “not okay” and runs “counter to how things are supposed to be,” how does he reconcile that with his votes for funding Planned Parenthood? More importantly, how do voters reconcile these two disparate positions? How does a person who is looking for a principled conservative rationalize such obvious attempts at pandering to two separate groups?

For the conservatives out there who somehow still haven’t seen the reality of his political philosophy, there is nothing conservative about it. There is nothing truly conservative about a candidate who wants to direct social policy as president. Especially since the progressive era of the early 20th Century, it has been the Left who has advocated for centrally planned social control.

“Conservative values,” “traditional values,” or “traditional conservative values” are not served by granting the federal government (or any government) dominion over them. That is surely the fastest way to destroy them and ensure perpetual conflict between interest groups. By making birth control a federal issue, or even a state or local issue, it places the issue in the hands of mindless bureaucrats and corrupt politicians (a redundancy, I know).

They have a record of ruining everything they touch – from schools, to healthcare – because they have no real incentive to improve or preserve these things. In fact, the more problems that persist with whatever issue they’re put in control of, the greater the authority and funding they’ll be given. Failure leads to expansion in this backwards world. If this weren’t the case, ask why schools never seem to quit asking for, and receiving, more money. Same with the healthcare/insurance lobby: the last three administrations have either attempted or been successful at passing sweeping new programs that inject more government into the industry. And on top of all of this, no improvement can be seen; it only gets worse.

Santorum talks about protecting religious institutions from having to violate their moral conscience or belief system through the forced provision of birth control. He said on the matter: “I can’t imagine any other organization with its roots as poisonous as the roots of Planned Parenthood getting federal funding of any kind….” But all his time in the Senate time voted in favor of a measure, repeatedly, that provided funding to an organization he described as “horrific.” As Charles Pearson noted: “I’ve given up trying to understand these people….”

Update: Perhaps this is why Santorum found it so easy to help fund Planned Parenthood all those years? “I was basically pro-choice all my life, until I ran for congress.” h/t Lew Rockwell’s Political Theatre.

Variations on a Theme by Thomas Woods

The list below was inspired by Tom Woods’ post 26 Things Non-Paul Voters Are Basically Saying. In it he acknowledges that persuading people to change their political views is best done through more loving ways, and that sarcasm is perhaps not the preferred tone.

You couldn’t get me to agree more, and I’ve made such appeals in the past. See here and here. Woods writes: “But once in a while you just can’t take it anymore, and you have to let loose.” Indeed. Some of what I consider to be my best writing was done while venting in front of a computer.

Here is my list, which covers many of the same topics, but with a slight variation or expansion on Woods’ original points.

(1)  I love free-market Capitalism! It’s the best economic system ever known to man. Regulations are killing small businesses. In order to turn this thing around we need politicians who will eliminate burdensome regulations, cut red tape, and make it easier to start rehiring. I believe we need a candidate who will require everyone to get a new, special document that allows them to get a job. Businesses who hire people who don’t have this new special document should be fined or shut down. A vast computer system to ensure compliance with the regulations should also be employed.

(2)  I reject the notion that government should be involved in medicine, or come between a doctor and his patient. Therefore, I’ve chosen to support a candidate who voted to greatly expand the Medicare program; or supports an individual mandate to buy health insurance; or as governor instituted the precursor to “Obamacare,” which I regard as the harbinger of full-blown Socialism in Amerika.

(3)  I promote the idea that America was founded on the principle of religious freedom and agree that government should not interfere with my freedom to worship my God. I believe the first amendment protects freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Nevertheless, I applaud the governments which prohibit Muslims from opening community centers and Mosques in cities I don’t even live.

(4)  Speaking of personal freedom, I stand with members of the early progressive movement in insisting that only those with government’s blessing should be allowed to marry. When forming my opinion on the matter I ignore the fact that marriage predates the state. Ironically, I reject that others should be allowed to hold views different from my own, but will lash out at the slightest hint of perceived bias against my positions.

(5)  I refuse to be manipulated by the left-wing, elite mainstream media. I’ll gladly be manipulated by the right-wing elite mainstream media, however. FOX News is ‘Fair and Balanced.’ I know this because that’s what they say.

(6)  Despite the renowned failures of alcohol prohibition and the widespread destruction resulting from that policy, I fully support the current attempts to control non-violent behavior through the drug war. In fact, I believe too much freedom exists, and tougher laws are in order.

(7)  I hold human life to be sacred and believe that children are a precious gift from the Lord. Accordingly, I will ignore the obstetrician in the race who has delivered over 4,000 babies and been a champion of the unborn since his earliest days in the medical practice. Instead, I will endorse the candidate who endorsed Arlen “Pro-Choice” Spectre (sic).

(8)  Regarding no. 7, when I said human life was sacred and that children are a gift from God, I really only meant American life or children born to American parents. The lives of foreigners are of little value to me and sometimes bad things happen in war. Oh well.

(9)  In my opinion, Israel is a key ally in the Middle East and the U.S. has an obligation to defend her. To that end I’ll vote for the politician who would continue providing billions of dollars in foreign aid to her neighbors, some of whom have been less than friendly. When Israel attempts to defend herself against perceived threats, it should be the policy of the United States to formally condemn such actions. I will brand the only congressman who voted in favor of Israeli sovereignty as the anti-Israel candidate.

(10) I find domestic intervention in the economy to be counterproductive and dangerous. I agree with Ronald Reagan who said that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” However, the same economic laws do not apply outside the arbitrary borders of the United States, where intervention, particularly by the U.S. military, is infallible.

(11) I am concerned about the spread of radical Islam around the world and therefore support the U.S. military intervening in the Muslim world to stop its proliferation. Never mind the U.S. military supported the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, Islamic rebels in the Balkans, and replaced a secular government in Iraq with one establishing Islamic law as the highest in the land.

(12) As a flag-waving, patriotic nephew of my Uncle Sam, I hold the troops on a pedestal; especially the veterans. Except the only veteran on the debate stage. And the ones who speak out in support of Ron Paul. And provide donations to his campaign at double the rate of all other “pro-troops” candidates, combined.

(13) I support the troops. But no one who believes they should be brought home from the unwinnable wars, removed from vulnerable positions abroad, is troubled by the tens of thousands of traumatic injuries, or has concern for the record number of military suicides will get my vote. Such a person obviously doesn’t support the troops.

Well, we know who they don’t want to win…

This afternoon I heard a report from SRN News on the radio announcing that Ron Paul had won the “non-binding” Values Voters straw poll. Paul took 37% of the vote, while Herman Cain placed second with 23%; Rick Santorum placed third, probably his best position yet, with 16%. In the report they played a clip from Mitt Romney boasting about his pro-life cred.

That’s right Warvangelicals, the poll’s not binding so you can relax. The peace candidate, the one who rejects the corrupt state as our moral compass, and who won’t pander to you by hosting prayer rallies wasn’t actually elected. Heaven help us if we ever get a guy in office who is pro-life both for children born and unborn, instead of someone who will fight to overturn Roe v. Wade while at the same time butchering children “exert[ing] our influence” in some foreign land.

And about Mitt “Plastic-Man” Romney waxing on about his belief in protecting life, I guess none of them have seen the videos of him saying exactly the opposite. It would have been more fitting to note Paul’s consistent position on the issue, considering he won by such a wide margin, and is, oh yeah, an OB/GYN. At least their web coverage was a little less slanted.