The Two Faces of Rick Santorum
Today's David Brooks column makes a good point. While Rick Santorum is one of the very most odious Senators on "culture war" issues, he's also -- for a Republican -- something of a creative thinker and semi-serious thinker on questions related to the wretched of the earth, both at home and in the third world. Mark Schmitt actually did a fantastic column on this a ways back reviewing Santorum's book and came to this conclusion:
These innovative solutions may have caused liberals some discomfort decades ago, but a dozen years after the passage of federal empowerment zones and Bill Clinton's legislation to support community banks, “empowerment” is now very much the core strategy of modern liberalism. One might be tempted to say, as Santorum does of Senator Clinton, that behind Santorum’s rhetoric is a “left agenda,” but that wouldn't be fair.That’s because Santorum is prepared for this challenge. In his conclusion, he warns that “some will dismiss my ideas as an extended version of 'compassionate conservatism.'” But it is not, he insists, because of his insistence on “moral capital,” at least as defined by him. In other words, even if liberals advocate some of the same policy solutions, they are doomed simply because they are associated with the moral tolerance of liberals. And so, in the end, it is not as easy as I had hoped it would be to separate Santorum's interesting and laudable ideas on poverty and work-family balance from his mean-spirited and intolerant social views; they are wholly interdependent. Rather than compassionate conservatism, Santorum has fashioned something new: a mean-spirited, intolerant liberalism.
I think that's probably right. At any rate, Santorum will almost certainly lose his seat and that will almost certainly be a change for the better. I do think, however, that Santorum was gesturing in the direction of the future of the Republican Party. These days, most of the cool kids seem to be writing books (accurately) accusing Bush of abandonning much of what's traditionally been understood as "conservatism" and then arguing (much less persuasively) that this abandonmnet of small government orthodoxy has been the problem with Bush. Much more plausible, I think, is that Bush had the idea roughly correct -- the GOP needs something like "compassionate conservatism," an American Christian Democracy -- but ran a policy shop that was far too inept and corrupt to put much meat on the bones. Someday, though, someone will figure it out.
Comments
"At any rate, Santorum will almost certainly lose his seat"
"Almost" departed several weeks ago.
The problem (as if there were only 1) with Bush is gangsterism at the state level: crony capitalism. (The Bush family hasn't been shy about profiting from Dad and Jr's stay in the WH. Shit, GHWB retired to meet-and-greet for the Carlyle Group. He's a friggin' front man for arms dealers.)
Santorum's just a sideshow of a sideshow. Ideas about the future of the Republican Party? "Cui bono?"
There has been no Republican administration since WW2 that has actually pursued this small government stuff. They use it as code for gut the welfare state and deregulate business, but at the end of the administration the government spends more money and has more power because their military and law enforcement priorities (e.g., wars on drugs) override this. For the most part, they drop the state's rights stuff too, when they are the ones in the Fed. The sincere Libertarian types are being played for suckers just like the Christians.
Nothing says so much about current Republican senators than their voting record with this most despicable administration. Santorum is with Bush almot all of the time.
"Starve the beast" survives and prospers. The strategy has two fronts:a) bankrupt America with fiscal and monetary policy. and b)move the memes of SS privatization and HSA's etc into the public discourse. At the point Congress is looking at trillion dollar deficits during a recession all will fall into place.
Of course Henley will not be pleased. They certainly don't want to shrink all gov't. When the welfare state/safety net gets shredded they want a very strong military/police power to protect the privileged.
I agree with you on a rhetorical level MY, but on a policy as your commentators point out, Republicans always do that.
Anyway, a social-conservative with economic-leftism is really not necessarily a good thing. That sort of populism may be what the country actually wants (especially the South), but it's also an early forerunner into totalitarism and there's a reason we get scared when other countries start down that path.
In fact, it's notable that we get scared when other countries go down any path except left-libertarianism.
You could hardly characterize this as an endorsment of Santorum's politics, but in light of some less than critical remarks Ezra Klein had for Sam Brownback on his blog a few weeks ago, I'm beginning to wonder just exactly what it is about theocratic illiberal, moralistic autocrats who nonetheless concede that some portion of the offering plate should be reserved for the poor that gets certain liberals' hearts all a flurry.
This is similiar to Retardo of "Sadly, No!'s recent paen to Pat Buchanan & Lou Dobbs, arguing that even though their politics are racist, illiberal, & reactionary, they do oppose liberalized trade, and should be considered valuable allies of the progressive cause, unlike Neoliberals, Centrists and other impure vermin.
"I'm beginning to wonder just exactly what it is about theocratic illiberal, moralistic autocrats who nonetheless concede that some portion of the offering plate should be reserved for the poor that gets certain liberals' hearts all a flurry."
Well, we lefties are doing much better on the social front than on the helping-poor-people front (most notably on gay rights, less so elsewhere but we're still holding our own), so I suspect that plenty of liberals are willing to sacrifice some progress on the first front to advance on the other. And to a lesser degree, it's just refreshing to see a Republican who doesn't seem to actively dislike the poor.
Nine days before the election.
By all means, write a pro-Republican post...
The triumph of liberal moral views (e.g., that illegitimacy was okay and shouldn't prevent a mother from getting welfare) was an immediate disaster for the poor back in the 1960s. It's striking after all these decades to hear well-educated white liberals continue to publicly assume that the kind of social/cultural atmosphere that is in their best interests is also in the interests of the poor. It's just not true.
Take gay marriage. It sounds like a great idea to you guys. Who could be against it? Nobody you know, right? But once it gets going and gays are getting married in big florid weddings each weekend, the upshot will be that the next generation of poor and working class young men will decide that getting married is ... gay, and the last thing they want is to be accused by their buddies of doing anything gay, so they'll do even less of it. And society will be worse off.
mean-spirited and intolerant social views
I stop taking someone seriously when they use these words.
Nine days before the election. By all means, write a pro-Republican post...
Yes, Matthew's posts are likely to bring about three, four, maybe even five point swings in close elections.
Maybe "compassionate conservatism" sounds good to a rightwinger, but then, they'll believe anything.
Me, I just can't see how that is supposed to work. Call me old-fashioned, but I think governance dedicated to war and the enrichment of the richest one percent of the nation, at the expense of the poorest 60 percent, is inherently unstable.
Here in the US we've enjoyed life in a bubble. In the larger world the importance of Keynesian economics and the stabilization of living standards for the poorest has not gone unnoted.
By all indications we are entering what historians like to call "a period of crisis", or, in lay terms, a time when oil prices rise and availability falls, debts are called, new economies challenge old economies, and, in our case, we need to deal with the problems of global warming.
For the past thousand years of western society, rulers faced with these "periods of crisis" have been forced to cede power to legislative bodies representing those called upon to pay the costs. Like the weather, the variation you may see on a day-to-day basis is usually not an accurate way of figuring out the long-term trend.
"Compassionate conservatism" is just the Pope reminding the ruler that alms should be given. Been there, done that.
"The triumph of liberal moral views (e.g., that illegitimacy was okay and shouldn't prevent a mother from getting welfare) was an immediate disaster for the poor back in the 1960s."
If your post was intended as satire, Steve Sailer, it went right beyond me, so I'll have to take it at face value:
Yes! Don't you know, old bean, the sort of forward-thinking ideas "our set" is intellectually equipped to deal with would be simply *disastrous* if adopted by the lower classes. Unless they feel a heavy burden of guilt and shame associated with bearing children out-of-wedlock, they'll just start breeding like rabbits--and then where will we be?
I have been trying to alert MY to Marvin Olasky for years. He created the term "compassionate conservatism.
I don't think I linked him here today. Part of the problem I have with liberalism is that if it doesn't happen in DC and doesn't cost billions it is beneath notice.
Use the Wikpedia Link for Olasky's weekly columns:
Olasky on David Kuo:
"He's right. Christians clearly need to be discerning and to accentuate biblical ways of helping widows and orphans. But the irony of Kuo's call for Christians to "fast" from politics is that it would increase the power of anti-Christian politicians. If the saints go marching out, others will march in unimpeded."
Olasky on Compassionate Conservatism:
"This year, as Washington's spending spree has continued, several conservative pundits have sat in air-conditioned offices and written about the death of compassionate conservatism, which they say has become a euphemism for big government spending.
If that's true, it's a shame, because the concept originally captured the excitement of thousands of small groups dedicated to fighting material and spiritual poverty. Their faith-based initiatives began without governmental help and are likely to continue regardless of what happens inside the Beltway"
If your post was intended as satire, Steve Sailer, it went right beyond me, so I'll have to take it at face value:
Sadly, nothing about Steve Sailer in satire. He's another breed - the unabashed Klan-level racist... liberal. If you're not at work, check out his site, then you'll have a good understanding of his comments.
You could hardly characterize this as an endorsment of Santorum's politics, but in light of some less than critical remarks Ezra Klein had for Sam Brownback on his blog a few weeks ago, I'm beginning to wonder just exactly what it is about theocratic illiberal, moralistic autocrats who nonetheless concede that some portion of the offering plate should be reserved for the poor that gets certain liberals' hearts all a flurry.
I think the flurry comes from the effect of such a move on the national discourse. That is, right now, we have one party which is composed of theocratic, illiberal moralistic autocrats who would never concede that the offering plate is for anyone other than large corporations. Also, they support constant crazy wars.
If that party morphs into a party which likes to share the collection plate and opposes a good percentage of crazy wars, that will move the national debate in a positive direction.
On a lot of the big-traffic liberal blogs, John Dean and Goldwater has gotten a lot of positive press for supporting non-authoritarian government. (Say, the Andrew Sullivan position, but a step or two crazier.) The argument here and at Ezra's, as I understand it, is that Dean/Goldwater conservatism is both scarier than Santurumy Christian Democracy, and (more importantly) far less likely to gain any notable electoral support, and so less likely to move the debate our way.
Bob -
I gotta say, I think Olasky's a quack with very little electoral following. His "compassionate conservatism" seems like just the privatization of the welfare state, and that will always be an electoral (and moral) failure.
To me, Olasky reads more like hte foot in the door for Christian Democrats - a repackaging of their program in language that neolib Washington will appreciate. The real thing, though, involves huge social spending and a legitimate safety net (as well as lots of scary quasi-theocracy stuff, natch). That's where Santorum seemed to be headed, and it's a much stronger brew than Olasky's, and I would submit, far more electorally potent.
Yes, Matthew's posts are likely to bring about three, four, maybe even five point swings in close elections.
It all adds up, Mark.
I doubt you'll find many right-wing blogs talking about what a great candidate some Democrat is.
Plenty of time for stuff like this after the election...
"I think Olasky's a quack with very little electoral following."
I honestly don't know, and am not sure how to find out. I should try to do a study.
To me, Olasky might be like 2nd and 3rd century Christians in Rome. Or the various socialist movements in early 20th century Europe. Organizing soup kitchens, deliberately staying out of politics, building a constituency and grass roots social organization, and all of a sudden the Empire is crucifying pagans instead of Christians. Wow, dude, how did that happen?
>>Call me old-fashioned, but I think governance dedicated to war and the enrichment of the richest one percent of the nation, at the expense of the poorest 60 percent, is inherently unstable.
Three milennia and five continents' worth of essentially uninterrupted experience with just that sort of governance would seem to point in the other direction.
To me, Olasky might be like 2nd and 3rd century Christians in Rome. Or the various socialist movements in early 20th century Europe. Organizing soup kitchens, deliberately staying out of politics, building a constituency and grass roots social organization, and all of a sudden the Empire is crucifying pagans instead of Christians. Wow, dude, how did that happen?
Maybe. I read Olasky, and it seems like he has a specific and substantive policy that would play out in simple appropriations bills - he wants to dismantle large chunks of the welfare state. If all he was about was getting funding for soup kitchens and whatnot, then I could see the case, but Olasky wants to shift funding out of traditional social insurance programs, and that seems like a guaranteed loser to me, and the sort of idea that will win you the Broders but not hte people.
In regards to the early Christians, that's actually my area of study, and I disagree pretty strongly that they stayed out of politics. They couldn't run chunks of the empire due to explicit rules nad laws, but they were doing politics. The apologetic literature of the 2nd century is like 75% letters to emperors and other dignitaries - see Epistle to Diognetus, Justin's Apolologies, Athenagoras' Embassy. And that's not to mention popular texts like the martyr stories (Ignatius, Perpetua and Felicitas, the Martyrs of Lyon) which narratively offer very clear critiques of Roman rule in the triumph of the persecuted over their tormentors.
I just mailed in my absentee ballot for Pennsylvania. The joy of voting against that guy was so much, I just thought I'd share it with you.
And yeah, sure he's bright. Probably brighter than Casey. Unfortunately he's a bit of a fanatic, and certainly out of line with the more tolerant Christian traditions of Pennsylvania.
"but Olasky wants to shift funding out of traditional social insurance programs, and that seems like a guaranteed loser to me, and the sort of idea that will win you the Broders but not hte people."
Maybe. Honestly, maybe. There will come a point fairly soon when the choice will be stark between major tax increases and social insurance cuts (at least that is how it will be framed, and economists like Mankiw are discussing it already) and Olasky provides a justification for the cuts that has a sincerity and morality that a Goldberg or Frum or Mankiw lacks. I have seen Olasky speak, and he impressed me as the closest to crazy genius I have ever seen.
Sorry about the inaccuracy re Early Christians. I promise to read a book.
The goal of the Radicals is to return to the Gilded Age, pure and simple. Andrew Carnegie donated to poorhouses and handed out gold coins on the street; I am sure it made him feel good. That his policy of paying 5 cents/hour wages for backbreaking labor that was earning him 700% return on investment was a key reason people were in those poorhouses (after working their 16-hour days in the mills) in the first place didn't seem to bother him at all. Same with Santorum.
Cranky
Where was Santorum on the minimum wage hike a few months back? Oh, right. Some advocate for the poor.
Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
Türkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Turkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Türkçe mırc
Türkce mırc
Turkçe mırc
Turkce mırc
mirc
mirc
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar
perde
temizlik
stor perde
ip perde
jaluzi perde
dikey perde
ofis temizliği
ilaçlama
açılış organizasyon
perdeci
perde modelleri
organizasyon
thank you
sohbet
chat
sohbet
sohbet
sohbet
chat
hikaye
diziler
facebook
chat
kadın
forex
arkadaş
muhabbet
gebze
webtasarım
toplist
sinema
film
gebze
asansör
felsefe
reklam
webtasarım
face book
face turk
face turk
youtube
sinema
sohbet
muhabbet
chet
çet
arkadaş
palet
trkadin
hikayen
chat
sohbet
sohbet
marmara
gebze web tasarım
gebze webtasarım
sohbet
chat
moda
magazin
yemek tarifi
yemek tarifleri
kozmetik
diyet
Yakışıklı
Yakışıklılar
Anne Çocuk
Filmler
Filimler
Film
Dizi
sohbet
sohbet
chat
chat
diziler
asansör
hikaye
felsefe
reklam
facebook
face book
face turk
pagerank
masaj
masör
sohbet
sex
porno
kadın
youtube
sinema
sohbet
chat
gebze ticaret
kredi
borsa
sohbet
chat
sohbet
Arkadaş
sexshop
sex shop
erotik shop
penis büyütücü
Şişme Bebek
botanik
peyzaj
alçı dekorasyon
terlik
matbaa
çelik kapı
sexshop
sex shop
masaj
masor
masor
masöz
web hosting
Hosting
mobilya
mutfak dolabı
motor yenileme
polyester
lunapark
oyun parkı
sexshop
sex shop
erotik shop
penis büyütücü
Şişme Bebek
http://www.ekmekmusafcarpsin.com/
Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
mirctürk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırc turk
mircada
mircturkiye
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
türkçe mirc
turkce mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mırc
oper mirc
sohbet
forum
chat
online sinema
catlak
türk forum
turk forum
kafkas
kafkasya
ders
siyaset
izmir
karşiyaka
karsiyaka
forum
karsıyaka
sohbet
harbiarkadas.com
harbiarkadas.net
harbiarkadas.org
itirafet.org
ebedava.net
elektronikmarket.net
ameribress.com
clitoriacream.net
superspenisbuyutucu.com
megabress.com
rednightperformans.com
performansartirici.com
penisplus.tv
penispluspenisbuyutucu.com
penispluspenisbuyutucu.net
cinselmerkez.com
aseks.net
erotikcamasirlar.com
vajinatr.com
bakirevajina.com
cinselkozmetik.com
kozmetikmedikel.com
eturknet.com
tecavuz.net
yutuvideo.com
ponotubesex.com
laraperuk.com
sackanagimerkezi.com
peruksa.com
perukmarket.com
aseks.com
aloveshop.com
erotikgiyim.com
geciktiricispreyler.com
geciktiricihap.com
geciktiriciler.com
azdirici.com
bayanuyarici.com
fntazialemi.com
fantaziservisi.om
cinselmazemeler.com
cinselfantaziurunleri.com
erotikdakikalar.com
erotikmarketiniz.com
seksmarketiniz.com
sekshatlari.com
erotikdergiler.com
erotikderginiz.com
penisbuyutucuviprx.com
penisbuyutucuvigrx.com
penisbuyutuculer.com
vigrxpenisbuyutucu.com
sismebebekler.com
sismebebekshop.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
elektronikmarket.net
ebedava.net
kontortr.com
elaydin23.com
turkcellkontorcu.com
aveakontoral.com
vodafonekontoral.com
toptankontorcu.com
cinselkozmetik.com
bayanpartnerler.com
erkekpartnerler.com
kizarkadaslar.com
yonjaarkadas.com
siberalem-siberalem.com
sexpartnerler.com
sekspartnerler.com
erotikpartnerler.com
gencyuz.com
erkekarkadaslar.com
bayanarkadaslar.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
baskahaber.com
medikalkozmetik.net
kozmetikmedikal.com
zayiflamavediyet.net
zayiflamahapii.com
zayiflamabandii.com
kilovertr.com
zayiflamatr.net
diyettr.com
toksinbandi.net
botoxtr.com
botokstr.com
selulittedavii.com
selulitgiderici.net
selulitkremii.com
catlaktedavisii.com
catlakgiderici.net
catlakkremii.com
penis büyütücü
Post A Comment