The Trouble With Santorum

Image from newsophile.com

At this point in the Republican primary, Rick Santorum is the only substantial “not Mitt” left in the running. With Gingrich falling behind Paul in the Illinois primary, it’s safe to say that Newt’s campaign has run it’s course. Delegate count being a factor, there’s no way Gingrich or Paul can feasibly win the nomination.

It’s been interesting to watch the migration of supporters from Palin (once she decided not to run), to Cain. Then from Cain to Gingrich, then from Gingrich to Santorum. Even more surprising is the Tea Party support of Santorum, particularly since Santorum, by his own admission, has qualms with the Tea Party movement as seen here (after his soliloquy on the virtues of government intervention):

We are a people that believes that government has a role to play: federal government has a role to play, state government has a role to play and local government has a role to play; and when there are clear wrongs in society, when there are injustices in society, sure you handle it at the local level if you can, but when the local and state level are in cahoots with the injustice, then the federal government has to step in and do something; … but as I’ve said before, I have some real concerns about this movement within the Republican Party and the Tea Party Movement to sort of refashion conservatism and I will vocally and publicly oppose it and do my best to correct the record.

And then there’s the issue of our friends, the Libertarians. Santorum said,

I am not a Libertarian and I fight very strongly against Libertarian influence within the Republican party and the conservative movement.  I don’t think the libertarians have it right when it comes to what the Constitution is all about. I don’t think they have it right as to what our history is and we are not a group of people that believes in no government.

And Santorum on smaller government? Goldwater Conservatism? Meh…

To our credit, Republicans have sort of morphed away from the Goldwater idea that government needs to be smaller, it needs to do less, it needs to be doing nothing except what it’s core functions are to a party by and large, and there are elements still left by the way, in the party like that, to a party that by and large says, look, we need to restructure the way we do programs or the way government functions to create the kind of incentives or create the kind of help and programs that give that power to folks closer to the people or to family or to the individual themselves.

And to disspel any concern that the above listed were merely isolated incidents, there’s also this - the big one, the queen mother of them all:

One of the criticisms I make to what I refer to as a more Libertarianish right.  They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do.  Government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low and that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional Conservatives view the world.  There is no society that I”m aware of where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.

Less government?? Individual freedom?? No government in the bedroom?? Pssh… that’s just crazy talk.  Limited government, individual freedom and the ability to make choices without government intervention are the cornerstones of conservatism.  Santorum, for whatever reason, chooses to characterize these “radical” ideals as libertarian, which is not inaccurate, but to act as though they are not conservative values is dishonest. Furthermore, it begs the question as to what conservatism means to Rick Santorum.  If your only solution to societal ails is more government – you’re doing it wrong. And it’s precisely this notion that makes Rick Santorum, well, troubling.

 

 

What we can learn about compromise from Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz, Candidate for U.S. Senate

“Compromise” has turned in to a dirty word for many Republicans. Following the last debt ceiling battle and the resultant negotiations, two distinct factions emerged within the GOP: those whose mantra was “hold the line” and those who took no issue in bargaining with their Democratic counterparts.  Those in camp “hold the line” tend to have an unrealistic expectation for what one half of one-third of the legislative branch can accomplish. Conversely, those who accept the negotiating skills that produced the failed Super Committee misunderstand the art of compromise.

In a recent interview Ted Cruz, Texan candidate for U.S. Senate, discussed his views on compromise:

“My view on compromise is the same as Ronald Reagan’s. Reagan used to say, “if they offer you half a loaf, what do you do?” And his answer was, “you take half a loaf and then you come back for more.” I’m interested in moving the cause of liberty forward. So if we are advancing in a positive way, if we are shrinking the size of the federal government, if we are moving towards fundamental tax reforms, simplifying the tax code, moving towards a low uniform rate towards everyone, then I’m willing to compromise and accept less than 100% if we are moving forward. Now I intend to come back and keeping getting it, but I want to affirmatively move the ball forward.  The problem is some of the Republicans in Washington compromise, moving backwards.

Let me give you an example, the last fight over the debt ceiling and the next fight that’s coming, I was one of the first proponents in the country to support Cut, Cap and Balance. Now in my view, Cut, Cap and Balance is a compromise. My ideal position is not to raise a penny of the debt limit, period – the end. It is a compromise to say, we can raise it if we make the serious structural changes it will take to fix the problem. Cut the budget, real cut, not phantom cuts that Washington people like. Cap, put in serious enforceable budget cuts, and most importantly, balance. Pass, not introduce, which is the Washington wiggle worm word, but actually pass a strong BBA that requires a balanced budget, requires a super majority to raise taxes and limits federal government spending to a percentage of GDP. That’s an example of a compromise. It is less than what I think the perfect outcome would be, but it is a significant enough move in the direction of liberty that I would be willing to accept that.

Part of the problem is you have so many people in Washington that are not focused on the goal of advancing of liberty that they don’t make any distinction between moving forward and moving backwards.  There is no virtue in compromise if you make things worse. An analogy I often use, if you agree that the threat to our nation, to our liberty is dire, the answer is not to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, the answer is to turn the ship around. So I’m not interested in compromise that doesn’t solve the problem, but I will accept less than 100% of everything I want if we are moving in a strong, positive direction in a way that advances liberty.”

Mr. Cruz’s stance on compromise is precisely the view that the Republican party ought to have. The GOP must continue to fight for the advancement of liberty and freedom and measures that shrink the scope of the federal government yet understand that not every battle can be won in a day.

_____

This article was first published at The Political Operative, January 23, 2012.