Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Rick Santorum is the Most Dangerous Player on the Republican Field

Rick Santorum is the Most Dangerous Player on the Republican Field

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Rick Santorum is not the sort of person I would want to be my neighbor, let alone my country’s chief executive. An outspoken adherent of the Roman Catholic Church’s fundamentalist wing, his total lack of interest in what the majority of voters care about is so obvious that one must wonder how he ever got elected to any office in the first place. Despite America’s ongoing meandering through the depths of one of its worst recessions in history, what is needed most, in his view, is a mass moral reformation centered around the “family.” Job creation, the national debt, and social security stabilization matter not a whit; he intends to use the power of the Oval Office for extensive social engineering.

Recently, Intellectual Conservative columnist Andrew Atkins noted that the former Pennsylvania senator, who was booted out of office by a spectacular 18 point margin during the 2006 midterms, is not really running as a Republican during this year’s presidential primaries. Instead, he has opted to base his candidacy around a platform inspired by his religion. In Atkins’s own words, [for] “Santorum, the family, not the individual or the state, is the most important unit of society….the constitutionality of morality laws is a mere abstraction for Santorum, and he sees little conflict in supporting government overreach if it achieves his desired outcome.”

This is exactly the sort of attitude and strategy that have been utilized by virtually every tyrant since the dawn of civilization. For Santorum, the United States government serves merely as the means to an end for legislating a rigid set of moral codes. Never mind that the codes in question are inherently unconstitutional, as the First Amendment affords us the separation of church and state. As far as I can tell, the founding documents of this nation matter very little to him. I think Santorum is one who truly believes that he is a messenger of the divine; a modern day prophet of sorts. For such a person, what do the laws of mere humans matter when a much higher authority is answered to?

Like Nietzsche’s Zarathustra, he is truly beyond the worldly notions of good and evil, though with a propensity for far more sinister activity. Why? Because at least Zarathustra was a figure whose motives and actions could be questioned and held accountable squarely within the realm of natural existence. Santorum, meanwhile, derives his ideology from personal interpretations of the supernatural. This renders said ideology closed to reason; he can say and do as he pleases without recourse as it is impossible to disprove him in a scientific fashion.

Anyone calling him or herself an advocate of limited government must also keep in mind one of Atkins’ key observations; through Santorum’s lens, the family, not the individual, is paramount. An argument like this is so easy to refute on a reasonable basis that it is almost comical. For starters, barring the individual, families could not exist, let alone thrive. Furthermore, what if a certain family is dysfunctional to the point of becoming abusive? If only a minority of members are victims, then who is the government to place a smash in that fix; after all, family rights come before individual rights, correct?

That the hardline pseudo-Christian right has warmly embraced a man like Santorum is a sad statement about how many Americans posses a desire for dictatorship. Perhaps many have blurred the line between preacher and president, or maybe certain hot-button social issues have destroyed their capacity for common sense. Either way, Santorum’s sudden surge in popularity should be a huge cause for concern amongst those of us who actually value our liberties. While Ron Paul might be the craziest player on the GOP field, Rick Santorum is by far the most dangerous.

About Joseph F. Cotto

  • Igor

    48-clavos is overreaching: “…the Keynesians, whose premises have been debunked by the economic history of the past 70 years.”

    What nonsense. Can you present one premise that has been debunked?

    Would that include Keynes’ 1923 theory of the “Tax flexibility curve”, which Arthur Laffer swiped as his own in 1980 at lunch with Rumsfeld and Cheney and built into an entire (unearned) career? Without the carefully prescribed boundary conditions that Keynes included in 1923.

    I suggest that you know NOTHING about such matters.

    Incidentally, had Bush followed Keynesian counter-cyclical principles in 2001 he would have banked the surplus and paid off the debt and we wouldn’t have these financial crises.

  • Arch Conservative

    OK zing so the notion that keynsian economics does not work has only been argued and is not fact?

    I guess it must irk you then whenever Obama or one of his cultists claims that were it not for the stimulus we would have, with all metaphysical certitude, slipped into another great depression.

  • zingzing

    well, archie, something had to be done. the stimulus may very well have prevented a far worse development. hard to say at this point. maybe you don’t think that was the best solution (however much of a solution it has been), but would you have done nothing? next time you see a ball rolling down a hill, do you think it will lose momentum in the middle of the hill or at the bottom?

    i think you can come up with a better example.

    but that wasn’t really the point. clavos accused glenn of spouting empty shit with a whole load of empty shit, where his side is absolutely right and the other is absolutely wrong, with no reason other than his say-so to back it up. that was the point.

    but yes, that kind of stuff does piss me off sometimes, especially when it comes with a healthy dose of hypocrisy. but i’ll admit i’m more willing to hear it from my side than the other. just as you are. clavos just should have left off that last sentence…

  • Arch Conservative

    You yourself just used the words “may very well have prevented a far worse development,” indicating that you do not believe it would be definitively possible to know what would have happened without the stimulus. Yet we’re told by Obama and his minions that there would have been, with absolute certainty, another great depression were it not for the stimulus.

    So why does it bother you that someone says the evidence has shown keynsian economics to be fatally flawed but ti does not bother you that our own president and his supporters are claiming to have an economic crystal ball when it comes to the stimulus. Sounds like a double standard to me

  • Zingzing

    I doubt “Obama and his minions” have been that definitive about it, and I think you’re purposefully misreading them. Plus I already admitted to a double standard so I don’t know what you think you’re accusing me of.

  • http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-fort-worth/becky-boydstun Becky Boydstun

    I could not agree with you more. Now it has even gotten worse. I know you wrote this is a while back but I was just linked to this from twitter. It is scary to me that now he is polling the way he is. Fortunately his numbers seem to be dropping.

    Like you, I would never want him as a neighbor. The 1st time I heard him say the things he said about public school was a direct hit on my children. I would have had to have a conversation with him about that, and his sanctimonious attitude. Who does he think he is? He has no qualifications for his opinions.

    If the voters would take note of his enormous loss the last time he ran for Senate, it should be obvious why he should never be given a chance to win a single state in the primary. Obviously Pennsylvania knows him best.

  • Marne B

    Wow would you look at that. What a great guy and I think I’ll vote for him cause I like what he has to say. Just a straight shooter all the way. Would ya look at that. I really mean it what a great guy and just a real pleasure to have over for company to meet the family.