Rick Santorum and Tony Perkins Pay Lip Service to Libertarians

In the final hours of the Values Voters Summit, social conservative icons like former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins expressed optimism about the libertarian influence on the conservative movement and Republican politics. 

Santorum has never had kind things to say about libertarians, and his speech at the Values Voter Summit mentioned them only once.

“So economic conservatism—libertarian types can say, oh, well, we don’t want to talk about the social issues. Without the church and the family, there is no conservative movement. There is no basic values in America in force, and there is no future for our country,” he said.

When Santorum was leaving he said to reporters that he thinks the libertarian influence in the Republican Party isn’t necessarily a bad thing, contradicting several statements he has made before.

“I think it can be very positive but you have to understand I am a conservative not a libertarian,” he said.

When asked who is a bigger threat to social conservatives he said, “Liberals, hands down.”

During a press conference Perkins went so far as to suggest Santorum has played a large part in this alleged libertarian-social conservative alliance.

“I think Rick Santorum, I think his candidacy, was a large part of that by making the economic argument for marriage and the family,” said Perkins, standing outside the Values Bus, a touring bus for the FRC.

“If you look at the libertarian viewpoint, which I share in terms of a wanting a smaller government, I want less government, well how do you do that? You strengthen the American family. Because if you look at the government that has expanded, it has expanded to make up for where the family is in decline and that is a large part of the large deficit,” he said.

Perkins added that this is a key point of agreement for libertarians and social conservatives.

“So, right here is a good starting point to bring libertarians and social conservatives together. It’s an economic issue, but it’s a cultural and moral issue, too,” he said. 

Pete Bond, an attendee from Delaware said he’s sees common ground with libertarians on things like opposition to Obamacare.

“Obamacare is a big one because it infringes on religious freedom,” said Bond, 65.

He added that it forces taxpayers to pick up the tab for abortion and sterilization.

“The legalization of drugs, though, is something I can’t condone,” he said.

Not all though were excited about this chummy libertarian-social conservative alliance.

“You libertarians and us conservatives side with each other on 85 percent of everything, however we don’t on life,” said Jim Yarborough, an attendee from Texas.  

Yarborough isn’t impressed with the pro-life libertarian arguments because they don’t come from the Judeo-Christian perspective.

“The sanctity of life trumps all other decisions. Sanctity of life is the key issue,” he said.

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.

  • ||

    So Garrett, you a baseball fan or something?

  • ||

    I wonder if Garrett knows the real reason Santorum hates us

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I wouldn't be surprised if Santorum is aware of that thread's existence.

  • ||

    Alas, the comments are gone. Only the memories remain.

  • C. Anacreon||

    Has all the recent upgrading and registration eliminated all the olden-times comments? Sad to know some classics would be lost.

  • ||

    Yup. Although I'd bet rectal copies down everything we write and hoards the papers in her house like those people on TLC.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Could probably find the comments in a previous iteration of the site on archive.org.

  • Romulus Augustus||

    He certainly remembers being hosed in the 1992 tv debate by the Libertarian Party candidate.

  • Chloe||

    "Yarborough isn’t impressed with the pro-life libertarian arguments because they don’t come from the Judeo-Christian perspective."

    Geez, you can't please some people

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Well, Non-Juedo-Christians don't count.

    AMERICA!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Yarborough isn’t impressed with the pro-life libertarian arguments because they don’t come from the Judeo-Christian perspective.

    “The sanctity of life trumps all other decisions. Sanctity of life is the key issue,” he said.

    Yes, because the height of morality and ethical responsibility is the Santorums pumping out mutants that can't survive outside the womb and, thus, die horrible, painful deaths full of uncomprehending fear.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    TBH sometimes I do get the vibe from religious pro-lifers that they prefer having abortion legal to having abortion made illegal due to non-religious reasons. Just last year I ran into some folks who protest the local PP execution chamber by praying the rosary outside; they refused to donate to Birthright because "only the rosary can end abortion".

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    That's just a bizarre mindset that I can't even begin to sympathize with. And I consider myself "pro-life due to religious reasons"!

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    I thought you were Jewish?

  • ||

    No, he's a half-Trinidadian, half-Chinese Buddhist. Or something. So much for this round of "Know Your HyR Commenters".

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    My mother is Jewish, my father is a Trinidadian of Scottish, Indian, African, and Chinese descent. (Hey, it's a small island!) While I was raised Jewish, I converted to Buddhism about 12 years ago.

  • BakedPenguin||

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Oh great. So you are a Buddhist. Let me guess, "Buddhism is a religion of peace", right? Sell it somewhere else , mister.

    ;)

  • Tulpa Doom||

    I remember Buddhists lighting people on fire in Vietnam.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Sarcasm, I hope? As I recall, it was *self*-immolation.

  • ||

    Yeah that's the joke dude.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    I don't think most religious pro-lifers feel that way, only some. I should have been more clear.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Rick Santorum and Tony Perkins Pay Lip Service to Libertarians

    A guy who is a psycho and a guy who starred in Psycho. Perfect pair.

  • C. Anacreon||

    Time to change your handle to Karnak the Magnificent.

  • Metazoan||

    Huh? How is marriage related to liberty (other than that consenting adults should be able to get married, or arrange some other relationship, if they desire)? And what is "the economic argument for marriage?" Do they not know that libertarians are not looking for politicians to say "HURR DURR JOBZ" but rather to just leave us alone?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    If you look at the libertarian viewpoint, which I share in terms of a wanting a smaller government, I want less government, well how do you do that? You strengthen the American family...

    And as every good, small-government Conservative knows the very best equipped to strengthen the family are legislators, regulators and agents of the state. Sans government intervention the family unit will completely break down.

  • wef||

    santorum has more in common and shares more policy positions with mohammedanists than he does with libertarians

  • ||

    “If you look at the libertarian viewpoint, which I share in terms of a wanting a smaller government, I want less government, well how do you do that? You strengthen the American family. Because if you look at the government that has expanded, it has expanded to make up for where the family is in decline and that is a large part of the large deficit,” he said.

    And here's where is argument falls apart. He wants to use government power to "strengthen the American family". That means more government, which means more dependence on the government by "the American family". In other words, he's saying that in order to have less government... we need to have more government. You can't get independence by breeding dependence.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    I think the argument he's attempting to make is that to shrink govt you need some strong societal structure outside of government. A hypothetical society of totally unrelated individuals would need a very expansive government to survive.

    Thing is, there are scads and scads of voluntary organizations in America, any of which can take the place of family and church, so his argument is ultimately fairly hollow.

  • ||

    More importantly, churches and families are not going to go away if Santorum doesn't get his SoCon nut.

  • Robert||

    This is an interesting question. To the extent the family as an institution has declined coinciding with expansion of gov't, was either change partly a cause of the other, and if so, which?

    I've become very interested in recent years in the possibility of the advance of liberty by indirect means, because it seems direct means put libertarians at loggerheads with authoritarians. You can try to make authoritarians more libertarian, but they can just as well make libertarians more authoritarian. But what if there were changes that both sides would favor that would lead (accidentally as far as authoritarians are concerned) to more liberty?

  • Lord Humungus||

    You know who else paid lip service to libertarisns?

  • Tulpa Doom||

  • Tulpa Doom||

  • ||

    They both work fine for me.

  • Blueman||

    “I think it can be very positive but you have to understand I am an AUTHORITARIAN not a libertarian,” he said."

    Fixed it for ya, Santorum.

  • ||

    Tom Brady starts off Week 2 right with -1.00 points. The suspense is killing me!

  • A Serious Man||

    Ugh, I finally get a Sunday off and what do I get? The frickin' Raiders and Dolphins as my local game.

    My other game is Giants-Bucs which involves watching Eli Manning play in a situation where I actually want him to win (picked Giants in HnR fantasy pick em league), so that's not going to work either.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    I'm not going to gloat and say RedZone Channel is the shit, but it's the shit.

  • A Serious Man||

    It really is, but unfortunately I have to budget my money for stuff like food and rent.

  • ||

    I don't follow football...

    ...but I'm not gay.

  • ||

    santorum

    lip-service

    libertarians

    words that do not go great together

  • Hugh Akston||

    “You libertarians and us conservatives side with each other on 85 percent of everything, however we don’t on life,” said Jim Yarborough, an attendee from Texas.

    Yesssssss, and once we rid America of these do-gooder Social Conservatives, no one will be able to stop us from destroying ALL LIFE! Mwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!!

  • juris imprudent||

    That's one of the problem with 'them conservatives' - they don't have too strong a grasp on reality.

    Libertarians aren't big on fucking with people because of what they choose to consume.

    Libertarians aren't big on fucking with countries just because.

    Hey Yarbrough, you are just the kind of person C.S. Lewis was talking about.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    "Life" is the least of the libertarian problem with social conservatives. There are far more libertarians pro-lifers and libertarians who don't care about gay marriage, than there are libertarians who support various other agenda items like gambling, obscenity, and prostitution bans.

  • Zeb||

    Not to mention drug prohibition,

  • Bill Dalasio||

    If you look at the libertarian viewpoint, which I share in terms of a wanting a smaller government, I want less government, well how do you do that? You strengthen the American family. Because if you look at the government that has expanded, it has expanded to make up for where the family is in decline and that is a large part of the large deficit


    I'm afraid this fellow's gotten the entire thing bass ackwards. That is to say that, rather than family decline being a cause of ever-expansive government, it's much more likely that said decline is a consequence of ever-expansive government. And building the government up to manage families will bring all the integrity and vibrancy to family values we find is maintained by the DMV.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Of course, it's also possible that "the family" is an inherently problematic entity that individuals flee as soon as they have the chance. Big govt merely provided the excuse.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Possibly. My concern in that case is what are they using as the surrogate family? All too often we've heard women on welfare boasting that they don't need a man in their life; they're independent, empowered women.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Yes, substituting govt for family is not a good thing for our society.

    Of course, if I had my druthers we'd have group marriage as the norm and a very different type of society but that's not going to happen given our culture for a long time.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    It is a bit strange to see the people touting family as a solution to all of society's ills also insist that homosexuals can never be allowed to form a family.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Well, that's why although I don't think same sex marriage is a right (How can you claim a right to social recognition of your relationship?), it's probably justifiable on policy grounds.

    Of course, I don't think same-sex marriage supporters have thought through the consequences of legally enforceable monogamy contracts on gay culture.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Of course, it's also possible that "the family" is an inherently problematic entity that individuals flee as soon as they have the chance.

    Well in 20th-21st century American culture at least. It doesn't work that way in most of the world, and it didn't work that way here until about 100 years ago.

  • John||

    And libertarians pay lipservice to SOCONS. So what? Why is this news?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    It's of interest as an indicator of shifts in the Republican party and the political climate. Santorum wouldn't let those words slip from his mouth-hole unless he thought they were of benefit; ditto Perkins.

    Quite a shift from the Bush years, where libertarians and fiscal conservatives more often than not were the boogeyman for various conservatives and fake-conservatives while pretentious gasbags like D Brooks were given a platform.

  • Calidissident||

    For a guy who loves to criticize reason whenever they equate Obama with Romney, you sure do love to play the equivalency game

  • ||

    Fuck that fucking SOCON fuck in his fucking Jebus loving ass! That piece of shit epitomizes ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING I despise about the Republican party. What a waste of oxygen.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    tell us how you really feel

  • MWG||

    I don't know Francisco... I don't think he's THAT bad.

  • ||

    I was going to vote for Obama if the Republicans nominated him.

  • MWG||

    It would've been tempting.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Why would the Republicans nominate Obama?

  • Robert||

    Take advantage of incumbency.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    This must be the high road I was reading about.

  • ||

    Thought it pretty subdued when you compare it to what that POS deserves. He is a pig.

  • Xizang||

    I'm finding that Libertarians really are those who take the high road. Too bad Santorum feels a need to attack people who believe in the Constitution, minimum government, or who leave religion to personal conscience. What Rick? Would you prefer political parties that push a particular religion? They're doing that in Iran.

  • Tybus||

    I'm cynical enough to believe he's not so much a socon as an opportunist. He'd praise Allah if he thought it would get him 51%. And as far as conscience, he probably deep down sees it as a weakness.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    I think he's sincere to some degree. His final Senate campaign was basically a full-throated celebration of the war in Iraq and the Bush administration, in a year when both were incredibly unpopular in PA. Say what you will about him, he's no weather vane.

  • Tybus||

    Respectfully disagree.

    Before entering politics he was pro-choice.
    Was pro-union while in pa, became right-to-work in the primaries.
    Voted for no child left behind, regretted the vote for the primaries.
    Voted for eamarks, he was against them for the primaries.
    Voted against nafta, says he would keep it in place during the primaries.
    Won his rep seat by criticizing his opponent for living out of state, he in turn did did just that.
    Wanted to eradicate libertarians from the gop, now welcomes it.

    The guy is a weathervane.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Turning a man's name into a synonym for anal residue is the high road?

  • ||

    Dan Savage is a libertarian?

  • General Butt Naked||

    Fuck the high road.

    You wanna know what the 'high road' really is?

    It's what the opinion of the public grants to victors and losers grasp at with greasy fingers.

    Rick Santorum would have me thrown into a cage by men with guns for some of the things I have done in my life, things, I might mention that had no victims. My high road is Tricky Rick eating the dogshit out of the tread of my steel-toed shitkickers. Fuck him.

  • cheap electronic cigarettes||

  • Lyle||

    Perkins makes a good point about family.

  • ||

    Perkins is an idiot.

  • Lyle||

    Not when it comes to his point about family.

    He's smarter than you think.

  • Calidissident||

    No he doesn't. Cause his solution is more government. Which is idiotic.

  • Lyle||

    Really, that's what his point about family entails... more government?

    Don't think so.

  • cheap electronic cigarettes||

  • alittlesense||

    Cheap electronic cigarettes will save the family!

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