Rick Santorum: A Lesser Good for Conservatives.
The question of whether or not to support Rick Santorum's bid for reelection has been particularly vexing for some conservatives. A small minority site Rick's infidelity to the conservative cause on various issues, from his support for Arlen Spector against Pat Toomey, to his support of legislation which would have hiked the minimum wage as unforgiveable sins. Others claim that Santorum has done no wrong; all his actions have been perfectly calculated to achieve the greatest conservative good. Somewhere in the middle, there seems to be a fair number of conservatives on the fence about Santorum, or people who hold more moderate versions of these two extreme views.
Let me suggest an alternative view of this race, one which I think might provide a useful perspective. I believe that Senator Santorum is, on balance, a lesser good. Lesser because he is not the 100 percent conservative senator of whom we all dream. There are some areas in which he is far from ideal. Take protectionism. Senator Santorum has not been the senate's greatest champion of free trade, and politics has at times gotten the better of his economic sense. And of course, there was the unpleasantness surrounding Pat Toomey's senate campaign, probably motivated more by personal loyalty and political considerations than any thoughts of Goldwaterite conservative principal (though we should remember that even Goldwater himself backed the reelection campaign of liberal New York Republican Jacob Javitz, a sin for which even Bill Buckley forgave him). Despite all this, Santorum is more than the lesser of two evils which some conservatives might believe him to be. Were this the case, I could not urge fellow conservatives to support him. Indeed, you would not have seen me blogging for Spector. But Rick is not, and never will be Arlen Spector. He is a net lesser good because, despite his imperfections as a candidate, he is a positive force for conservatism, who moves the senate in our direction. We can see this in his tireless advocacy not just against abortion (Bob Casey is not pro-choice), but for the pro-life movement as a whole. Or in Rick's staunch support of conservative principal on foreign policy, arguably the most vitally important issue on the current political scene. We can see it in the way in which senator Santorum joins senator Brownback of Kansas and a few others in pleading the cause of persecuted Christians, a worldwide human rights abuse against which the left can muster very little of the intellectual outrage with which it blasts American use of rap music to soften up suspected terrorists. And we can see it in the way in which senator Santorum has sought to bring conservative principals to bear on issues like human rights generally and social justice, a process which will help transform conservatism from an intellectual orientation into a governing, electable platform. Have we forgotten Senator Santorum's defense of the pro-life and pro-family cause on, of all places, the Daily Show, a fact for which even my most liberal friends had to give him a little credit. Or the fact that he dared to question the Supreme Court's Lawrence V. Texas ruling, not necessarily out of support for sodomy laws, but rather because Lawrence set the bad precedent of making sex a constitutional right? Rick Santorum has not been perfect, but then, what politician ever was? Goldwater was pro-choice, and may have supported homosexual marriage near the end of his life. Reagan certainly allowed for abortion in California, failed to cut taxes or abolish the DEA and appointed both OConnor and Kennedy to the Supreme Court. Bush, well, let's not talk about government spending shall we? And while I'm not familiar with every vote he made, I'm sure that even Pat Toomey had his moments of dissent from conservative orthodoxy. Yet all of these men pushed conservatism forward; Goldwater made it a national presidential-race-level movement, Reagan made it the nation's governing philosophy and defeated international communism in the bargain, Bush has made great strides in fighting the war on terror and pushed the ball forward on a multiplicity of issues from the culture of life to free trade, and I doubt that I need to push Toomey's conservative credentials here. Does Rick Santorum rank with a Goldwater or Reagan? Some days I think he does, others I'm not so sure. However, I am certain that having him in the senate is a net positive for the conservative movement. Can the same really be said of his opponent?
Let me suggest an alternative view of this race, one which I think might provide a useful perspective. I believe that Senator Santorum is, on balance, a lesser good. Lesser because he is not the 100 percent conservative senator of whom we all dream. There are some areas in which he is far from ideal. Take protectionism. Senator Santorum has not been the senate's greatest champion of free trade, and politics has at times gotten the better of his economic sense. And of course, there was the unpleasantness surrounding Pat Toomey's senate campaign, probably motivated more by personal loyalty and political considerations than any thoughts of Goldwaterite conservative principal (though we should remember that even Goldwater himself backed the reelection campaign of liberal New York Republican Jacob Javitz, a sin for which even Bill Buckley forgave him). Despite all this, Santorum is more than the lesser of two evils which some conservatives might believe him to be. Were this the case, I could not urge fellow conservatives to support him. Indeed, you would not have seen me blogging for Spector. But Rick is not, and never will be Arlen Spector. He is a net lesser good because, despite his imperfections as a candidate, he is a positive force for conservatism, who moves the senate in our direction. We can see this in his tireless advocacy not just against abortion (Bob Casey is not pro-choice), but for the pro-life movement as a whole. Or in Rick's staunch support of conservative principal on foreign policy, arguably the most vitally important issue on the current political scene. We can see it in the way in which senator Santorum joins senator Brownback of Kansas and a few others in pleading the cause of persecuted Christians, a worldwide human rights abuse against which the left can muster very little of the intellectual outrage with which it blasts American use of rap music to soften up suspected terrorists. And we can see it in the way in which senator Santorum has sought to bring conservative principals to bear on issues like human rights generally and social justice, a process which will help transform conservatism from an intellectual orientation into a governing, electable platform. Have we forgotten Senator Santorum's defense of the pro-life and pro-family cause on, of all places, the Daily Show, a fact for which even my most liberal friends had to give him a little credit. Or the fact that he dared to question the Supreme Court's Lawrence V. Texas ruling, not necessarily out of support for sodomy laws, but rather because Lawrence set the bad precedent of making sex a constitutional right? Rick Santorum has not been perfect, but then, what politician ever was? Goldwater was pro-choice, and may have supported homosexual marriage near the end of his life. Reagan certainly allowed for abortion in California, failed to cut taxes or abolish the DEA and appointed both OConnor and Kennedy to the Supreme Court. Bush, well, let's not talk about government spending shall we? And while I'm not familiar with every vote he made, I'm sure that even Pat Toomey had his moments of dissent from conservative orthodoxy. Yet all of these men pushed conservatism forward; Goldwater made it a national presidential-race-level movement, Reagan made it the nation's governing philosophy and defeated international communism in the bargain, Bush has made great strides in fighting the war on terror and pushed the ball forward on a multiplicity of issues from the culture of life to free trade, and I doubt that I need to push Toomey's conservative credentials here. Does Rick Santorum rank with a Goldwater or Reagan? Some days I think he does, others I'm not so sure. However, I am certain that having him in the senate is a net positive for the conservative movement. Can the same really be said of his opponent?
Comments on "Rick Santorum: A Lesser Good for Conservatives."
post a comment