Libertarian Explains Why We Need Santorum Now Less Than Ever

Via Instapundit comes this "Open Letter to GOP Primary Voters From a Libertarian," by Nate Nelson of United Liberty, about why former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) just ain't rocking in the free world when it comes to the Free Minds and Free Markets crowd.

Some snippets:

Santorum’s record in the U.S. Senate reveals consistent opposition to the principles of limited government, fiscal restraint, and individual liberty. That’s why libertarians can’t support him now or in the general election and why you shouldn’t either....

Rick Santorum was happy to vote in favor of Medicare Part D along with other big government establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate....[r]educing the role of the federal government in American children’s education wasn’t on Rick Santorum’s agenda in the U.S. Senate. Santorum voted for the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, described by the Associated Press as “a symbol to many of federal overreach and Congress’ inability to fix something that’s clearly flawed.” Nothing says big government GOP establishment like voting for an expansion of federal education policy backed by Bush and coauthored by the late Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.).

Santorum has also been a consistent opponent of individual liberty....In October 2011, Santorum went on the record about “the dangers of contraception in this country,” arguing that birth control is “a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” These far outside the mainstream views may be excusable if they were just his personal opinions, but they’re not. Santorum told ABC News’ Jake Tapper late last year that he opposed Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court decision that overturned state bans on discussing birth control with and providing it to married couples. President Santorum would favor letting states dictate what legally married heterosexual couples can and can’t do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. How’s that for big government?...

Santorum has made a litany of proposals that are questionable at best from a constitutionalist point of view. He wants to use taxpayer dollars to support adoptions; “to incentivize the states to promote parental choice and quality educational options”; to create a public-private partnership between the Department of Health and Human Services and private organizations “for the purpose of strengthening marriages, families, and fatherhood”; to reinstate “2008-level funding for the Community Based Abstinence Education Program”...

If Rick Santorum was in fact "Tea Party before there was a Tea Party" (as he likes to say), then let this cup pass the country's lips.

Read the whole letter.

Over at the Daily Caller, Cato's John Samples tucks his tongue in his cheek like Santo eating an ice cream and makes the libertarian case for a Santorum nomination. It would, suggests Sample, create such a massive electoral loss that it might "open the door for a different kind of GOP...a party of free markets, moral pluralism, and realism in foreign affairs."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • o3||

    what's that substance santorium's eati...never mind, too ez.

  • BoscoH||

    It looks like a frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex. This time, it has been churned into cream and cooled to a temperature where it could be passed through a soft-serve dispenser onto a cheap cone.

  • H man||

    Lunch is highly overated as a meal.

  • Konfounded Kristen||

    Was planning on eating that Breyers chocolate ice cream for dessert tonight. May have to rethink that.

  • the other John||

    One Boy One Cup

  • ||

    This is a picture begging to be photoshopped.

  • Sparky||

    I didn't think being able to deep throat various foods was a requirement until this GOP race.

  • cynical||

    They're a signal to other Visitors.

  • bmp1701||

    Now presenting: "1 Candidate, 1 Cone"

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    President Santorum would favor letting states dictate what legally married heterosexual couples can and can’t do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. How’s that for big government?...

    Kinda like the 10th Amendment says.

    Griswold v. Connecticut is deeply silly even if you approve of the outcome.

  • robc||

    Considering the 10th:

    Is birth control regulation a power reserved to the states or to the people?

    In light of the 9th amendment, Im going with the latter.

    Griswold v Connecticut is deeply silly. If, on the other hand, they had just said "9th amendment bitches", it wouldnt have been.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I think the 9th references rights retained as against the federal government and is not a limitation on the states, even apart from the issue of whether contraception was a "right" retained by the people.

  • robc||

    That argument is fine (maybe) but was voided by the 14th amendment.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    It was voided by incorporation bullshit.

  • robc||

    ...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property...

    I dont see how incorporation is bullshit. The states cannot deny any person of liberty...incorporation must follow from that.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    You left out the "... without due process of law" part. The states can most certainly deprive any person of liberty if it is done with due process of law.

    And unless you're going to get into the ultra-retarded world of substantive due process, a duly enacted state prohibition of contraception would be done with the due process of law.

  • robc||

    "The words 'due process' have a precise technical import, and are only applicable to the process and proceedings of the courts of justice; they can never be referred to an act of legislature." -- Alexander Hamilton

  • robc||

    Following up on Mr. Hamilton's comment, if due process meant passing a law, then none of our rights are protected.

    "We passed a law requiring jews to report to the ovens." "Well, good thing you used due process, otherwise I would have a problem with that."

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    You forgot about the "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" bit.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    And if all it means is what Hamilton says then due process doesn't protect anything either -- without getting into substantive due process -- other than that the legal preceding will follow the rules.

  • Brandon||

    Yeah, I would expect someone as intelligent as you have appeared to be at times to understand that "due process" only applies to people suspected of committing crimes that violate another person's rights to life, liberty or property. Has nothing to do with legislation.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    So if the legal process is scrupulously followed, regardless of the law being applied, due process has been granted?

    If not, why not?

    If so, how does this protect the life, liberty, or property at stake if the underlying law doesn't do so?

    Doesn't the Hamiltonian view say only that you get a fair trial, not necessarily a valid or just law?

  • robc||

    Doesn't the Hamiltonian view say only that you get a fair trial, not necessarily a valid or just law?

    No, as the courts can also throw out invalid laws. The law cant overturn life, liberty or property.

    Courts have two purposes, judging people and judging the law. Usually these are done distinctly, with the latter being done at an appeals level.

    Of course, juries do both simultaneously.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    And, regardless, it doesn't create rights. Unless there was a right to contraception to be retained -- which can't be answered by reading the 9th -- the 9th doesn't apply.

  • robc||

    The 9th was meant to cover all rights not specifically mentioned elsewhere. They knew that without it, that some would limit to some list.

    EVERY right under natural law that wasnt mentioned elsewhere is covered by the 9th Amendment.

    Right to contraception is granted to us by our creator, see the DoI.

    This is made even more clear by the 14th, because the passage I quoted prevents the states from violating any of our liberties, even if they dont exist at the federal level.

  • Fluffy||

    The right to free association, the right to own property, the right to enter contracts.

    Put those three rights together and the states can't declare anything contraband - other than alcohol, since an amendment specifically lets them do that.

    The states don't have the power to tell me I can't buy and sell plutonium. How could they have the power to tell me I can't buy and sell estrogen?

  • robc||

    Isnt a contract a subset of free association?

  • Fluffy||

    Yes, but I think that a prohibition against making laws that impair contracts is specified in addition to the prohibition on assembly (which has been bootstrapped up into "association").

  • Brandon||

    How would "contraception" not fall under the "liberty" umbrella?

  • ||

    That's quite the picture, Nick. I'm assuming you got it when giving birth to your Santorum love child. My god, it makes my skin crawl just typing that. I don't know how you can live with yourself. What's wrong with you?

  • Old Mexican||

    Via Instapundit comes this "Open Letter to GOP Primary Voters From a Libertarian," by Nate Nelson of United Liberty, about why former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) just ain't rocking in the free world when it comes to the Free Minds and Free Markets crowd.


    Isn't this kind of old news? Ron and Rand Paul had already pointed out to Santorum's very flimsy "conservative" credentials just a couple of months ago.

  • sarcasmic||

    Santorum is a compassionate conservative.

    Which means he's a big government liberal statist who hates gays and abortion.

  • Doctor Whom||

    compassionate conservatism, n. phr. liberalism with the compassion squeezed out

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: sarcasmic,

    Indeed. However, the question comes from the tendentious headline: "Libertarian Explains Why We Need Santorum Now Less Than Ever."

    As far as I know, a libertarian already explained, just a couple of months ago, why "we" need Santorum like "we" need a meteor hitting the Earth.

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon||

    Hey, it's everyone's favorite troll, Trollexican! How's it going, shithead? Say anything stupid lately?

  • Old Mexican||

    ^^ Spoofy-spoof! ^^

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Thank you for recognizing that. Everybody know it's spelled "Trollxican". :)

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Troaxican, but pronounced Trwahican.

  • ||

    Plus you aren't beloved.

    I keed, I keed.

  • sarcasmic||

    I would have expected him to have his other hand on the back of his head.

  • jacob||

    You mean there were libertarians out there that actually considered voting for Santorum??

    Oh, that's right, the "Tea Party" loves him.

    Pffft

  • ||

    How odd- some blathering dimwit was just on Bloomberg telling me "Santorum's The One!"

    (Santorum will, apparently, somehow magically swipe the Union Vote from the Ascended One and ride to victory on the shoulders of the Middle Class.)

  • ||

    He's not even on the ballot in some states right? How can someone possibly think that he or newt can win the nomination without those delegates?

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Dey lick da anoos like it ice cream n da poopoo come out n den DEY EAT DA POOPOO!

  • NotSure||

    Serious question, will there within the next 100 years ever be another political party, other than the usual two, that will win an election ?

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Yes. One hundred years is sufficient time for an already stale and unstable cultural dynamic to shift. Although the concepts of "party" and "election" could be structured very differently. The possibilities may be encouraging or frightening.

  • ||

    Yes, there will. Since neither of the current parties are willing to reduce the size and scope of the federal government, we will have a catastrophic fiscal event sometime in the foreseeable future (I'm guessing in no more than 10 years).

    That event will take down at least one, if not both, current parties.

  • robc||

    Yes, but the name may not change.

    I dont think the R and D parties would be recognizable to members of them from 1912.

  • ||

    I'm betting that in 50 years they drop the pretenses and we have just one party called Republicrats or Democlicans. The animal will have the head of a donkey and the body of an elephant. And maybe dragon wings.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yes. The Socialists.

    After the system completely breaks down, a new constitution will be written that contains something more like this than this, abandoning the concept of natural rights and embracing the State as the source of everything.

    At that point the American Experiment will be forever relegated to the dust heap of history.

  • Konfounded Kristen||

    You're presupposing that the United States will exist in its current form 100 years from now. I'm not so sure that will be the case.

  • ||

    Along with "All of the above" as opposed to "None of the above" LOL Santorum also wants to keep the 21st Century version of the Christian Crusades from a 1,000 years ago going.

    If King Richard were alive today Santorum would become Richard's PR man for the Crusades.

    Santorum is an evil person not just because of the above but just because he would IMO as POTUS eliminate anyone who stood in the way of Santorum achieving his Christian Crusade goals in the Holy Land,

    The guy is just bad news big time

  • Barney The Frank||

    "If King Richard were alive today Santorum would become Richard's PR man for the Crusades."
    From the looks of that picture of Ricky and his death grip on that cone....he could do plenty for King Dick.

  • Emperess McNastypants||

    It's Little Ricky's story, he can tell it how he wants. Facts? Truth? Who needs 'em?

  • DD Driver||

    Am I the only one secretly pulling for Santorum? As a Johnson supporter, what could possibly be better? Go Santorum!

  • Tonio||

    Well, I'd personally enjoy seeing Santorum in defeat. Yummy, yummy tears.

    However, that would mean four more years of Gitmo and torture and drones and TSA and being left without a shred of civil liberties.

    And I don't think that Team Red will learn from its defeat - they'll double down on the SoCon and keep losing elections till they implode.

  • D.D. Driver||

    I don't thinks it possible to "double down" on Santorum. How many candidates are more socially conservative than Santorum. He's is the social cons dream candidate.

    Its a forgone conclusion that we will have four more years of an overreaching executive.

    But I would love to see the GOP nominate Santorum and just get embarrassed in the general election. If that were to happen I could defintely Johnson pulling double digits.

  • D.D. Driver||

    I don't thinks it possible to "double down" on Santorum. How many candidates are more socially conservative than Santorum. He's is the social cons dream candidate.

    Its a forgone conclusion that we will have four more years of an overreaching executive.

    But I would love to see the GOP nominate Santorum and just get embarrassed in the general election. If that were to happen I could defintely Johnson pulling double digits.

  • ||

    Am I the only one secretly pulling for Santorum? As a Johnson supporter,

    Well played.

  • Thom||

    I am kind of pulling for Santorum, if only because America would have its first gay President. That's a milestone worth celebrating. A gay man would not have had this kind of chance even twenty years ago.

  • Barney The Frank||

    "Am I the only one secretly pulling for Santorum?"
    It looks like little Ricky can pull his own!

  • Tman||

    As much as I despise Santorum's social conservative agenda, I want him to beat up Romney as much as possible because Romney will probably win the GOP nod and I want Obama to lose. The more Romney gets his shit together to face the inevitable media full court press come July, the better chance he will have to beat Obama.

    I'm of the opinion that even though Romney isn't a friend to libertarians any more than Santorum is, Obama is a fucking disaster and needs to go. I don't even think Romney will be that much of an improvement over Obama, but a second term for Obama will have long term consequences that I simply cannot bear to imagine.

  • Fluffy||

    I'm hoping - and this is just a hope, mind you, as likely to be dashed as any other political hope - that if Mitt gets into office, he'll be too sensitive about being the first Mormon President to do anything too aggressive on the so-con front.

  • ||

    That's what a lot of people thought about our first African-American president.

  • Fluffy||

    Yeah, but I lived under Mitt's governance once before.

    And Romneycare is BS, but he wasn't exactly out there burning witches otherwise.

    With Santorum I actually wonder if he might bring back the auto-da-fe.

    Nobody ever expects the Santorum Inquisition.

  • robc||

    Are there any more debates?

    Santorum (and Gingrich, but less so) should be asked an auto-da-fe question.

  • Trespassers W||

    With Santorum I actually wonder if he might bring back the auto-da-fe.

    Nobody ever expects the Santorum Inquisition.

    Apparently you do.

    LOGIC PWNED

  • Brandon||

    Romney has, at one time or another, agreed with every single thing Obama has done. EVERY. SINGLE. THING. Why the hell, other than TEAM RED!!!!!, would you think Romney would be any better than Obama?

  • Tman||

    This is probably true, but the difference is that what Romney is proposing to do now as president, as opposed to what he did as Republican governor of Taxachusetts, are going to be different.

    And what Obama is doing NOW and proposes to do in the future is worse IMO than anything that Romney is currently proposing.

    I don't believe there is much difference overall, but I do believe that Romney at least has some experience at doing something besides working at taxpayers expense. Obama is turning us in to a Euro-socialist nightmare and I think getting him out of office so the GOP has more power to push back against big government is paramount, regardless of the nominee.

  • ||

    the difference is that what Romney is proposing to do now as president, as opposed to what he did as Republican governor of Taxachusetts, are going to be different.

    When I have to pick between what a politician promises, and what he's done, guess which way I go?

  • Tman||

    I agree, but again, I'm sticking to my premise that letting Obama get another four would be worse than letting Mittens win.

    There are a variety of reasons- potential SCOTUS judges, foreign policy/free trade negotiations, taxation in general- at which Obama has done about everything wrong one could possibly imagine.

    I'm not defending Mittens, I'm saying that the alternative is far FAR worse.

  • Gray Ghost||

    On the flip side, at least The One will have to contend with a hostile Congress. I look at Romney, and I see W all over again. The only thing that will change is that Romney will support different cronies than Obama. Whether that outweighs four more years of O's shitty judicial nominations, I don't know.

    Which case---Obama or Romney---will bring about the Fiscopalypse quicker? I really don't know.

  • Gojira||

    Eh, I'm sympathetic, but I think you're losing historical perspective. Republicans said the exact same thing about Jimmy Carter in 1980, and about Clinton over a decade later.

    Every dem president is hysterically proclaimed to be the "worst" and most "radically left-wing" ever, and that's how republicans sucker you, time and time again, into voting for their guy, because hey, at least he's not TEAM BLUE! And so nothing ever changes, and that is how we fail.

  • Tman||

    Republicans said the exact same thing about Jimmy Carter in 1980

    Carter was pretty terrible. Gas lines? Inflation? At the time one could argue that another four years of Jimmy would not have been an improvement.

    Every dem president is hysterically proclaimed to be the "worst" and most "radically left-wing" ever

    So what? Both sides can scream for the fences I don't care.

    that's how republicans sucker you, time and time again, into voting for their guy, because hey, at least he's not TEAM BLUE! And so nothing ever changes, and that is how we fail.

    You don't know me at all. The first time I was old enough to vote I voted for Clinton. Then Harry Brown, then Al Gore. I voted for Bush in 2004, the first time I ever voted GOP.

    Don't assume you know my history.

  • robc||

    Wow, your voting history is crappier than mine. I was going to give you a pass for the Clinton vote.

    Bush,Perot,Browne,Browne,Badnarik,Barr.

    Gore? Bush in 2004? WTF?

  • robc||

    Can Johnson win the LP nomination or will he have to change his last name? Vote Bohnson 2012!

  • Tman||

    I blame the drugs. I went to college at Uski Boulder in 1990 and was born and raised in the liberal capital of the east, Cambridge MA. It took me years of low paying jobs to burn the socialism off of me.

    I voted for Bush in 2004 because Kerry is a giant fucking asshole, whom I had the displeasure of living under in Massachusetts. Let's not forget Smilin' John Edwards was the VP. I pulled that lever gladly.

    Honestly, and I know many will hate me for saying this, but GW Bush wasn't as bad as people make him out to be. I know he failed t stop the growth of government, but when the country was dealt a recession followed by an unprecedented attack he cut taxes and got the country going (mostly) in the right direction. He failed miserably at the end, but I don't consider him as terrible as most people do.

    So sue me.

  • Brandon||

    Um, Homeland Security, Iraq, TSA, bailout after bailout after bailout, No Child Left Behind, Medicare part D, Afghanistan, added trillions to the debt, hundreds of thousands to the federal payroll and thousands of lines to the federal register, any of that ring a bell? Got the country going in the right direction? What fucking country did you spend those 8 years in?

  • Gojira||

    Lighten up, Francis. I didn't mean you personally, I meant it in the general sense, as in, "that's how they get you".

    And Carter deregulated the airlines, and home brewing. It's pretty shitty when he looks alright by today's standards.

  • robc||

    And appointed Volcker to the Fed.

    Of course, only because he got a 2nd chance. He choked the appointment the first time around.

  • Tman||

    My mother called me francis......ONCE.

    Seriously though, I agree with you that "TEAM BLUE/RED" are always going to make the other guy seem apocalyptic but Obama has achieved a level of government expansion that I believe in unrivaled from a historic standpoint. Obamacare alone is evidence of this.

  • Anomalous||

    I will not tolerate any smearing of Santorum.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Hey come on! It's lunchtime on the EC. Stop it with the nastastic images of pols eating.

  • Old Mexican||

    Maybe if he didn't munch on that thing with such suggestive panache...

  • ||

    That is a photo begging for Photoshop.

  • db||

    How do you kmow the ice cream wasn't added to cover something else?

  • Nate Nelson||

    Your commentariat > my commentariat.

    To the person who asked if he's the only one pulling for Santorum because it would help Johnson: I would be right there with you, except that the mere possibility that Santorum might actually win the general election terrifies me enough to want to prevent his nomination altogether.

    Thanks to Nick for the link.

  • robc||

    You left out about 14 > signs.

    Your commentariat really sucks hard.

    There is every cliched anti-libertarian comment I have ever seen in there. Wow.

  • JT Florida||

    I love how Sen. Santorum's victory occurs at roughly the same time as Matt Welch and Jonah Goldberg debate whether libertarians are part of the conservative movement. Talk about the ultimate test of the fusion between libertarians and conservatives.

  • Gojira||

    Here's the gem from Nate Nelson comments:

    Except for abortion? You say that as if abortion isn’t important. It is the most important issue. We’re sacrficing our future for a lifestyle. Until abortion goes down, we’re no different, and no better, than worshippers of Baal sacrificing live children.
  • ||

    We’re sacrficing our future for a lifestyle.

    An excellent description of our current fiscal mess.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I suspect the underlying attitudes in each case are related.

  • AlmightyJB||

    So he likes the big chocolate ones huh. How cliche. Next he'll be dying his hair blond and hanging out at rap concerts.

  • Yes||

    1 Candidate 1 Cup

  • ChrisO||

    Santorum plays both ends of the political spectrum.

  • ||

    Santorum has a good blowjob face in that picture. Which only bolsters suspicion I've already had about him.

  • Barney The Frank||

    Ricky shows great style, gobbl'n that chocolate cone. I taught him everything he knows about gobbl'n.

  • Wyatt Bush||

    Amazing lol, a Santorum for President advertisement at the end of the article.

  • buy3buy.com||

    my good

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement