Other Sorts of Froth
Irradiated by LabRat
So the latest video to go viral in the sorry slog that is the 2012 Republican presidential primaries is this old speech by Rick Santorum speaking to a Catholic university. Depending on who you ask and what their personal bugaboos are, it’s either Rick Telling It Like It Is, an alarming big-government authoritarian justifying any meddle he wants in people’s lives in the name of what they oughtta be doing, a dangerously crazy candidate expounding on his belief that Satan is destroying America, or Nothing To See Here, Move Along.
In the strain of comment coming from people who believe this is either unremarkable or unfair to Santorum, I see three primary arguments:
1) It doesn’t matter because he’s talking to Catholics so therefore it’s religious stuff irrelevant to his ambitions as President.
2) Rick’s being demonized for being religious.
3) It doesn’t matter because he won’t have the power to ban (abortion, contraceptions, sex outside of marriage, being gay, etc.)
I can only believe people who argue the first either haven’t watched the video, or share Santorum’s worldview so utterly they cannot see what’s remarkable about it. He’s talking very explicitly about government, about the history of American government, and what the founding principles and documents of American government mean, and he states very clearly that freedom is defined not by the freedom to do things, but by the “freedom” to act in accordance with God’s will. That essentially makes the idea of liberty meaningless, and redefines it as whatever the person in power believes to be God’s will. That’s a statement of his worldview and governing philosophy that has everything in the world to do with how he would act as the chief executive of the United States of America, not just Rick Santorum, Conservative Catholic. It’s not just Santorum expressing himself poorly, either; it’s a belief he has reiterated time and time again.
As for the second argument: Santorum’s not being picked on for being religious, Santorum’s being picked on because he believes he knows what God’s will is, he also believes the state should have the right to enforce God’s will, and he is running for not merely political office, but the highest political office in the land. Religious freedom means the freedom to believe and practice as you will- not to enforce it on others, even by majority vote.
As for the third- Santorum probably can’t actually get contraception or abortion banned, but that doesn’t make his bedrock belief both in his own divinely mandated rightness and the absolute right of government to legally enforce morality somehow irrelevant. He’s running on culture-war issues in an election where most voters care chiefly about whether they’ll be able to get a job or afford to run a business; it is something he cares deeply and passionately about and has for his entire political career. If he can’t shut up about contraception* and gay people for the campaign to win the primary, it’s fairly ludicrous to believe he’ll set all those issues aside once he’s got the veto pen, the power to push legislation, and the status as head of the military because of “political reality”. There are a hell of a lot of ways to chip away at individual rights without blanket bans or compulsions, and we’ve seen quite a few of them over the last fifteen years or so.
I really and truly do not care if a candidate is sincerely religious. Given what political poison even not being a mainstream Christian is in America, I’d be a hell of a lot angrier if I did. I do care when a politician conflates being religious with a calling to serve as National Pastor with a legislator’s pen rather than whatever civil position they were elected to.
Santorum’s taking a media beating because he richly deserves to, not because the media is just so unfair to religious people.
*I don’t believe this is or should be a huge issue in this election. I do believe it’s extremely telling of Santorum’s worldview that he seems to think the primary users of contraception are wild libertines and not, for example, married couples who do not want nor can even afford unlimited children. Or for that matter single, unpartnered women or girls who are getting hormone therapy as part of normal health care- as I was for many years before I even lost my virginity.
February 21st, 2012 at 5:37 pm
“he states very clearly that freedom is defined not by the freedom to do things, but by the “freedom” to act in accordance with God’s will.”
That, right there, is at the crux of the matter; and is why he spooks me. Speaking from the religious angle, as a high church Scottish Episcopalian*, I find that to be entirely objectionable because for me the whole point of the relationship of man and God (and/or man’s personal conscience which may or may not be a god, it can be pet rock for all I care) is that we have the freedom to disobey, to rebel, and to go our own merry way. perhaps we oughtn’t to, perhaps we’ll pay, but we Can. If we didn’t have free will, the whole thing becomes pointless or requires an astonishingly narcissistic god.
*and right there, how many schisms in is that? Who exactly decides what is God or if there is God? No one but the individual.
February 21st, 2012 at 7:22 pm
“…he states very clearly that freedom is defined not by the freedom to do things, but by the “freedom” to act in accordance with God’s will.”
The Hobbesian Commonwealth with God back in position as the Sovereign.
February 21st, 2012 at 9:58 pm
I’m Roman Catholic and went to a Roman Catholic grade school. The nuns (Sisters of the Sacred Heart) and priests (Society of Jesus) who taught us NEVER taught that freedom, and more importantly free will, was “freedom to act in accordance with God’s will”. Free choice was/is very, very important.
We were told that when we sinned we made God cry though……..
February 22nd, 2012 at 2:40 am
The entire set of candidates on offer is awful. Each one of them is awful in a different way, but none of them are suited for office. With that acknowledgement out of the way, Santorum does have two positive features:
First, he is clearly not the candidate that the “elite” want - they have pre-selected Romney for us, and expected the other candidates to do nothing more than put on a good show.
Second, and more imporant: Precisely because Santorum is sincerely religious, he is less likely to compromise his principles (frankly, engage in corrupt political behavior) than other candidates. This could make for some refreshing changes - or it could simply mean that he will be unable to accomplish anything. Both possibilities are a substantial improvement over the current situation of having a Chicago politician for president.
I still won’t vote for Santorum, but he is, just possible, one of the lesser evils…
February 22nd, 2012 at 6:44 am
a_random_guy, I’m glad you won’t vote for Santorum. Santorum is not one of the lesser evils. I would like to offer two quotes from my favorite theologian, C. S. Lewis:
“There! You see!” said the Ape. “It’s all arranged. And all for your own good. We’ll be able, with the money you earn, to make Narnia a country worth living in. There’ll be oranges and bananas pouring in-and roads and big cities and schools and offices and whips and muzzles and saddles and cages and kennels and prisons-Oh, everything.”
“But we don’t want all those things,” said an old Bear. “We want to be free. And we want to hear Aslan speak himself.”
“Now don’t you start arguing,” said the Ape, “for it’s a thing I won’t stand. I’m a Man; you’re only a fat, stupid old Bear. What do you know about freedom? You think freedom means doing what you like. Well, you’re wrong. That isn’t true freedom. True freedom means doing what I tell you.”
From The Last Battle, Chapter 3 (The Ape In Its Glory)
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
From God in the Dock (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans,2002), p. 292.
February 22nd, 2012 at 2:05 pm
“…he states very clearly that freedom is defined not by the freedom to do things, but by the “freedom” to act in accordance with God’s will.”
While this is precisely the kind of ideals that we need to keep out of the Whitehouse, I wonder, would another 4 years of Obama be preferable? If it comes down to a choice between Santorum and Obama, how does one weigh the evils against eachother to find which is the lesser?
I value liberty. Real liberty, not the dubious liberty to “Do what I say my imaginary friend tells you to do”, or the fake liberty of an impossible to achieve “fairness” (who forgot to tell little Barak Obama that life isn’t fair? This childish “fair” crap should have been nipped in the bud by the time he was 4).
s
February 22nd, 2012 at 2:19 pm
Lacking a crystal ball, I can’t tell who is better or worse. All I know is that I cannot in good or even highly questionable conscience vote for either of them. If Santorum is the nominee I will find out what it must have felt like to be a Perot voter in 1992 or a Nader voter in 2000.
February 23rd, 2012 at 12:22 pm
I’m having flashbacks to Pat Robertson’s proposal for a national “spirit filled” police force.
Google that one if you want some good times!
February 23rd, 2012 at 1:14 pm
Paging Nehemiah Scudder, Nehemiah Scudder line 1…