Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Politics

Why Santorum and Libertarianism Don't Mix

Matt Welch | 3.14.2012 2:24 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Speaking of Rick Santorum and libertarians, Cato Executive Vice President David Boaz tells Washington Post "Right Turn" blogger Jennifer Rubin why Santo gives us limited-gubmint types the creeps. Excerpt:

What scares you about Rick Santorum?

Being philosophically minded, what scares me most about Rick Santorum is not his specific policy mistakes but his fundamental objection to the American idea of freedom. He criticizes the pursuit of happiness! He says, "This is the mantra of the left: I have a right to do what I want to do" and "We have a whole culture that is focused on immediate gratification and the pursuit of happiness … and it is harming America." And then he says that what the Founders meant by happiness was "to do the morally right thing." He really doesn't like the idea of America as a free society, where adults make their own decisions and sometimes make choices that Santorum disapproves. In practice, I worry that he would continue and intensify Bush's big-government conservatism, a federal government committed to reshaping individuals according to a religious-conservative blueprint. […]

Is Santorum a fiscal conservative?

Santorum is broadly speaking a fiscal conservative. He did try to reform entitlements, both welfare and Social Security. He got As and Bs from the National Taxpayers Union on spending issues, ranking anywhere from top 10 to middle of the Republican pack. But he supported No Child Left Behind, the Medicare prescription drug entitlement, the massive highway bill of 2005 and even the notorious Bridge to Nowhere. He bragged about his pork-barrel spending and trade protectionism for Pennsylvania. As president he'd probably resist tax increases, intend to spend less than Obama and come up with lots of schemes to subsidize marriage, children and local schools.

Read Reason's Santorum candidate profile here, scroll through his Topic page, then check out these critiques, listed in reverse chronological order:

* "Ron Paul vs. Rick Santorum: Is the soul of the Republican Party even worth fighting for?", by Brian Doherty

* "Rick Santorum: Against contraception, against online gambling," by Nick Gillespie

* "Santorum Is Severely Wrong: The former senator from Pennsylvania is libertarianism's sweater-vested arch-nemesis," by Gene Healy

* "Rick Santorum v. Ron Paul on Constitutional Interpretation: Santorum Fail," by Ronald Bailey

* "Rick Santorum's Moral Delusions: Is America really on a downhill slide?", by Steve Chapman

* "Rick Santorum: The 10th Amendment Does Not Mean What It Says," by Damon W. Root

* "The Dreamy Thing About Rick Santorum Is That He Has Met the Enemy, and He Is Individual Freedom," by Matt Welch

* "Rick Santorum Is a Conservative Technocrat: If you favor an intrusive Republican government, he's unquestionably your candidate," by David Harsanyi

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: $2 Trillion For a Decade of Expanded Health Coverage Under ObamaCare?

Matt Welch is an editor at large at Reason.

PoliticsLibertarianismRick Santorum
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (155)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Episiarch   13 years ago

    Why Santorum and Libertarianism Don't Mix

    If you mix Santorum with water, you get jenkem. True story.

    1. Gojira   13 years ago

      At least by not winning the nomination, we'll be spared some people (who will not be named) trying to convince us that voting against Obama is so important, and dems are so bad, that we HAVE to vote for Santorum if we care about liberty.

      It'll be bad enough hearing it about ROMNIAC 5000.

      1. Episiarch   13 years ago

        "Look, Jimbo, I'm totally not a TEAM RED shill and the fact that somehow I always advocate for voting for the TEAM RED candidate is merely a coincidence. If you say otherwise, I will spin and argue with you with utter tenacity as if my partisanship wasn't completely obvious. So, you voting for Romney? Because it's really the only choice."

        1. Warty   13 years ago

          ANARCHIST!!!!!

        2. MNG   13 years ago

          Why note vote for Johnson?

          The LP gets on the ballot pretty much everywhere.

          As someone who has voted third party several times in POTUS elections it amazes me when people say I'm "throwing my vote away." Since I have yet to recall a state's electoral votes hinging on a single vote in my lifetime, I'm doing that either way. Might as well vote my beliefs while I'm throwing it away.

          1. Robert   13 years ago

            And what if he doesn't get the nomination?

        3. Gojira   13 years ago

          It's astonishing how easily people forget that intentions don't matter (unless you're a liberal prog).

          "Well I voted for him, but I really don't like him very much." Hey, guess what? Your vote counts exactly the same as a rabid partisan. They don't care whether you cast it reluctantly or not. If you vote for the standard GOP candidate, then I don't care what you say online or how often you cry that you aren't a republican...you are a republican.

          1. romulus augustus   13 years ago

            Yep, votes are counted not weighed. You'll be the one ashamed and embarrassed later when the guy you voted for does something you despise.
            They'll be all "well you voted for me after all." I learned my lesson in 1968 with Mr. Nixon.

            1. Gojira   13 years ago

              Yeah my dad got burned on that one, too.

              "Well let's see: I voted for a conservative, and I got the EPA, wage and price controls, and inflation out the yin-yang. Great."

              1. MNG   13 years ago

                Was Nixon all that bad? He made peace with Russia, albeit after that attack by Dr. Manhattan/space aliens.

                1. DesigNate   13 years ago

                  Stupid Dr. Manhattan, not having emotions and being all powerful and shit. Traveling to Mars just cause he can. What an asshole.

                  1. Gojira   13 years ago

                    Hey, I don't walk around throwing my blue dong in everybody's face, so why do you have to? Keep it in the closet pal!

                  2. MNG   13 years ago

                    He kind of was an asshole, teleporting his colleagues away when he was done talking to them.

                    And yeah, disintegrating one.

                    1. MNG   13 years ago

                      Hey, DC is coming out with a series of Watchmen Prequels.

                      http://www.comicsalliance.com/.....dc-comics/

      2. Tulpa   13 years ago

        I would still strongly consider voting for Santorum over Obama, but the difference isn't as clear as MR vs BO.

        Santorum is a disgusting person with a loathsome philosophy but it's unlikely he can actually do most of the loathsome things he wants to do. Obama's eldritch agenda is much more easily accomplished in the current political environment since it comes down to buying off voters rather than trying to save their souls.

        1. Gojira   13 years ago

          Wow, that's hilarious. I was literally planning on posting under a joke handle, "But Santorum won't be able to do any crazy things so he's better than Obama!", and you beat me to it. Reality is better than fiction.

          A lot of people said Obama couldn't do some of the shit he's done. Secret assassination orders don't have to have a public debate and pass through congress, so I'm sure Rickey could achieve some things you believe are impossible the same way (low-key executive decisions that are not announced before hand, and given bullshit legal dressing after the fact).

          1. Episiarch   13 years ago

            Jimbo, SOYLENT GREEN IS SANTORUM!!!

            1. Gojira   13 years ago

              Somehow I doubt that food product would be quite so popular if that were the case.

          2. Tulpa   13 years ago

            The secret assassination stuff (that's not so secret anymore) and drum-beating for an Iran war isn't what I had in mind. Any viable presidential candidate in the current environment is going to be bad on that stuff. And if you think Santorum could get away with starting wars and droning US citizens abroad, think again. The media would have his head.

            I'm thinking of the socialist economic policies of Herr Obama vs. the creepy social conservatism of Sour Man T.

            1. Gojira   13 years ago

              I only meant to use the assassination issue as an example of something crazy extreme that nobody in their right mind would have thought of before an election, but that the winner then finds a way to impliment, which is why I don't buy the, "But he could never do that!" argument.

              1. MNG   13 years ago

                Here's one: Romney took a big, NFL level punt when he was asked to comment on the right to privacy, and Santorum has openly derided it. Apologists for conservatives around these parts like to defend this by saying "well, there's caselaw and precedent in place on this so they would never be able to mess with this."

                Yeah, the guy who appoints the people who make the caselaw and precedent could never mess with that...

                We've already got two justices on the SCOTUS who've openly mocked Griswold and would likely overturn if given the opportunity.

                1. Tulpa   13 years ago

                  I don't think there's a constitutional right to privacy either, so that dog don't hunt. The 9th amendment wasn't supposed to be a rights ATM, it was supposed to keep the enumerated powers doctrine in force. Read the federalists worries about how the existence of a bill of rights would be interpreted some time.

                  1. MNG   13 years ago

                    "I don't think there's a constitutional right to privacy either, so that dog don't hunt."

                    Tulpa, no offense, but you're making my point for me here...I think most people stopped seeing you as a libertarian a while back.

                    1. Brandon   13 years ago

                      Yeah, Tulpa and John are pretty much just neocons.

                    2. Tulpa   13 years ago

                      Neocon? You're either stupid or talking out of your ass or both. I've been stoutly against all foreign intervention this century and welfare statism at home.

                    3. Night Elf Mohawk   13 years ago

                      WTF does what he thinks the Constitution says have to do with whether he is a libertarian?

                      If I got to make the rules, contraception would be available for purchase but that doesn't mean I think the Constitution says that this must be the case.

                    4. Robert   13 years ago

                      "Right to privacy" is way too vague for comfort. If asked, I don't believe in one either, and I'm as libertarian as they come. Someone once wrote an analysis piece on the front page of LP News (national) explaining the same thing.

                    5. Tulpa   13 years ago

                      Tulpa, no offense, but you're making my point for me here...I think most people stopped seeing you as a libertarian a while back.

                      Wow, complementing your fallacious appeals to authority with fallacious appeals to vox populi? I don't give a crap what people here think; as far as I'm concerned, I'm one of the most libertarian commenters here. I'm one of the apparent few who thinks initiation of force is improper in response to someone calling your wife a slut. Also one of the few who doesn't redefine "liberty" and "force" so as to drag their preexisting pet issues into the liberty discussion.

              2. Tulpa   13 years ago

                The sociocon stuff Santorum might want to do could not possibly be done in secret, since it needs to be enforced on the public somehow. Also, it would be much easier to challenge in court since there are fewer questions about standing when you're talking about people being forced to change their behavior than when you're talking about money being spent in a certain way.

                1. MNG   13 years ago

                  I'm starting to enjoy Tulpa quite a bit.

                  Right below where he says he agrees with Santorum on privacy he then goes into the "well, he would never get any of that done!" line.

                  1. Tulpa   13 years ago

                    I don't think there's a right to privacy in the federal constitution.

                    I also don't think contraceptives should be illegal.

                    Remember, I don't operate from the axioms that you and your fellow "liberals" do: I don't think the govt should be regulating everything the constitution allows them to.

                    1. MNG   13 years ago

                      I'm afraid I'm a bit distrustful of the government so I'd like to see it recognized as a right, thanks.

                    2. Night Elf Mohawk   13 years ago

                      I'd like to see making up crap and acting as if it were in the Constitution not be a question of whose ox is gored, thanks.

                    3. cynical   13 years ago

                      I hope you mean in the "Constitutional amendment" sense. Because if it's in the "just creatively interpret the Constitution, or think it of it as a guideline rather than fundamental law", then you're putting every explicit right at risk by making it more acceptable in our political culture for officials to "creatively interpret" those rights as being violable.

          3. Robert   13 years ago

            "Gojira" is not a joke handle?!

            Secret assassination orders don't require that they come from someone in elected office -- or any office at all.

        2. MNG   13 years ago

          "but the difference isn't as clear as MR vs BO."

          Yeah, we know you love Romney dude.

        3. protefeed   13 years ago

          I would still strongly consider voting for Santorum over Obama ... Santorum is a disgusting person with a loathsome philosophy

          Do you even listen to yourself? The only way that could have been worse is if you had put those two irreconciliable thoughts in the same sentence, rather than adjoining sentences.

          1. Tulpa   13 years ago

            It's called choosing the lesser evil. Even you would do it in other circumstances.

            "I would strongly consider shooting the guy holding a knife out at me and demanding money in the dark alley...his wife and kids starving would be a terrible thing to have happen."

            Any contradiction there?

            1. Joe M   13 years ago

              But you have more than two options when it comes to voting.

              1. MNG   13 years ago

                Tulpa's now going to tell you about throwing your vote away, and how this is THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION EVAH!

                1. Joe M   13 years ago

                  Which is of course nonsense, since a single vote has never made a difference in a presidential election. Even the time it was close back in 2000, courts made all the decisions.

              2. Tulpa   13 years ago

                You have more than two options when confronted by a mugger too. Run away; try to hit him with the gun; shoot the gun into the ground to show you mean business; etc.

                Now, most of these options are no better than simply giving him your money, but that doesn't change the fact that you have options.

                1. Joe M   13 years ago

                  not voting for Santorum > voting for Santorum

              3. Almanian   13 years ago

                Wait....WHAT?

            2. DesigNate   13 years ago

              Wouldn't the lesser evil be Johnson?

              1. MNG   13 years ago

                You think Johnson is an evil?

                WTF?

              2. Tulpa   13 years ago

                Johnson has the LP nomination already? I must have missed the convention coverage.

            3. protefeed   13 years ago

              You could have picked a stronger counterexample ... a wife literally starving to death is not the usual consequence of her mugger husband dying.

              A really accurate counterexample would be where you have the choice between something that is not evil at all (the LP nominee) and two roughly equivalent evils (Santorum vs. Obama), and you choose one of the evils, say this:

              "Given the choice of running away and avoiding trouble altogether, shooting and killing a mugger and putting his wife and kids through some temporary hardships, or letting the mugger take the money from my wallet, I would ..."

              Tulpa: BLAM! BLAM! "Die, you bastard!"

              1. Tulpa   13 years ago

                Running away from a mugger is usually not going to accomplish anything, for reasons given in the Ron Paul Survival Report. They know their environment much better than you do.

                Sort of like voting LP accomplishes nothing, unless the LP has somehow gotten to the point where they can actually win something.

                1. Joe M   13 years ago

                  And voting for "a disgusting person with a loathsome philosophy" accomplishes what, precisely?

                  1. Tulpa   13 years ago

                    It gets rid of the disgusting person with the more implementable loathsome philosophy.

                    1. Joe M   13 years ago

                      Do you think Santorum will appreciate your reasoning?

            4. Bright Bulb   13 years ago

              The lesser of the evils would be Obama.

  2. MNG   13 years ago

    I've always said that in many ways liberals and libertarians have more in common than the latter and traditional conservatives. There's a reason they have the same root in their titles. They both kind of derive from Mills view in On Liberty.

    Liberals just diverge from libertarians in that they think there are certain dilemmas and conditions, if you will, among people that limit their ability to exercise autonomy meaningfully, and these can only be addresed via "positive rights" or coercive measures imposed on some others. While some are just nannies, most liberals share an idea of increasing liberty, they just have different axioms and premises than libertarians.

    Traditional conservatives on the other hand are fairly explicit that they think a strong authority and conformity is best for society. At most they will talk about "ordered liberty."

    1. Tulpa   13 years ago

      There's a reason they have the same root in their titles.

      Yeah, because socialists stole "liberal" from the classical liberals after the term "socialist" had been sullied beyond repair by their awful policy prescriptions. Sort of like they're moving on to "progressive" now that "liberal" is a dirty word for most of the populace.

      1. MNG   13 years ago

        Don't confuse politics and politicians with political philosophy and philosophers Tulpa.

        Wait, it might be too late for me to say that to you 🙂

        1. Tulpa   13 years ago

          Please explain how I'm confused...lest I confuse your accusation of confusion with a feeble attempt to dodge my point.

          1. MNG   13 years ago

            I know philosophers who call themselves socialists and ones who call themselves liberals and they differ on quite a bit...It's in today's politics that those two things are simply equated.

    2. Applederry   13 years ago

      If liberals did operate towards empowering people to exercise their autonomy, I could agree with you. But most of what I see them doing is granting more entitlements and more dependency.

      Liberals empower individual autonomy to the same extent that conservatives shrink government.

      1. MNG   13 years ago

        I know you're not going to agree, and a lot of days you might be surprised to find I would agree with you, but they see the "dependency" you speak of as empowering people to exercise their autonomy. The idea is that if you have your basic needs assured you are more free to "be who you are" without fearing you will lose your job and starve to death and such...

        1. Chupacabra   13 years ago

          "but they see the "dependency" you speak of as empowering people to exercise their autonomy"

          That is hilarious.

          Or, it would be if it weren't so fucking horrifying.

          1. Suthenboy   13 years ago

            Chupa, I dont think MNG is making that argument, I think he is explaining the liberal line of thought. But then, it is MNG so maybe....

            You are right, it is horrifying, more so than the socon's school of thought, at least to me.

            Still, I confess the words HOLY. FUCKING. SHIT! went through my mind when I read ""This is the mantra of the left: I have a right to do what I want to do" and "We have a whole culture that is focused on immediate gratification and the pursuit of happiness ... and it is harming America."

            1. MNG   13 years ago

              Yes, that is what the left says.

              The left really thinks it is promoting a culture of "doing with I want." They think for example that if you give people condoms they can "do what they want" sexually without fear of getting disease or pregnant, that if you give people welfare they can "do what they want" without fear of going hungry, etc.

              Should they think a bit more about how they have to impinge on others to support people "doing what they want?" Sure. My only point is they really do want that as a goal.

              1. wareagle   13 years ago

                does the left ever consider that "doing what you want" ought to come on your dime? Welfare is not doing what you want; it's other people subsidizing you doing what you want. THAT's the evil of liberalism.

        2. EDG reppin' LBC   13 years ago

          Right. But the way liberals commonly propose those basic needs are assured is to abridge someone else's rights, or confiscate someone else's property. Hence, libertarians and liberals have a wide chasm to traverse.

        3. protefeed   13 years ago

          but they see the "dependency" you speak of as empowering people to exercise their autonomy.

          The Newspeak is strong in you, my son.

        4. mad libertarian guy   13 years ago

          "Enabling" autonomy, as you put it, is effectively nulled by actively taking away autonomy from others.

          You can't give to one person, in order to take care of their most basic needs, without taking from another.

          The only way to effectively encourage people to be autonomous is to aloow them to be autonomous. Taking government handouts, for whatever reason, is not autonomous. It's dependency.

          1. MNG   13 years ago

            Like I said, different axioms, so I'm not surprised at your reaction to it...

            If your rich uncle died and gave you a million dollars, wouldn't it "free" you up in many ways in life? That's how liberals see government assistance as operating often.

            Should they think more about where its coming from and what it does to those people? Sure. But the fact is they focus on its "freeing up" aspects.

            1. Tulpa   13 years ago

              And if we redefine the sun to be the moon, then the day would be darker than the night.

              1. MNG   13 years ago

                Where's the redefinition? Are all the people who would say they are "freed up" engaging in redefining?

                I'm afraid you don't own the concept of liberty and what it means.

                1. Tulpa   13 years ago

                  Nazi policies freed up the Aryans by giving them more land to settle.

                  The problem with leftism and other encroachments on liberty is that the "freeing up" of some is accomplished by binding down others. Your rich uncle example is, as usual, inapplicable since it's a voluntary gift, which no libertarian would have a problem with.

                  1. MNG   13 years ago

                    Did you miss the part about where I explained the difference between individual liberty and "race" liberty?

                    1. MNG   13 years ago

                      See, both liberals and libertarians say and think they are promoting individual liberty, not "race liberty" or some metaphor like that.

                      The two just pick avenues to get to it, and even ideas of what it is about, that are contrary. But they share in common that individuals should be "free."

                      Conservatives are usually quite skeptical of individual liberty. It's not a debate about means with them, but actual ends.

                      Don't get me wrong, two sides with the same ends can get so far apart on the question of means it can be quite the gulf. That's likely what's happened between liberals and libertarians at this point.

                    2. Tulpa   13 years ago

                      Individual Aryans had more land to settle.

            2. EDG reppin' LBC   13 years ago

              If your rich uncle died and gave you a million dollars, wouldn't it "free" you up in many ways in life? That's how liberals see government assistance as operating often.

              But it's not a rich uncle who died, and left you his estate. Liberals want to take the property from the productive and living and redistribute it mostly to their cronies, themselves, and then some of their supporters. Try a different metaphor.

              1. MNG   13 years ago

                The analogy is focused on the "being freed up" by the money, of course the rich uncle voluntary gift/government transfer payment is a breaking point for libertarians. I was trying to explain how, if you didn't get hung up on the second part you could see a payment to a person as "freeing them up."

                1. EDG reppin' LBC   13 years ago

                  I was trying to explain how, if you didn't get hung up on the second part you could see a payment to a person as "freeing them up."

                  The best way to "free up" a person is to give them freedom. Freedom to cut hair in their garage, freedom to sell hot dogs out of a truck, freedom to sell lemonade on the corner, freedom to sell their labor at mutually negotiated prices, freedom to educate their children how they see fit, freedom to drive whatever vehicle is most convenient, freedom to associate with whom they please. These are all examples of how people can be "freed up", to pursue their dreams and realize their full potential. And the government didn't have to "do" a thing, so it is cost effective as well.

            3. DesigNate   13 years ago

              In a meta sense, you are right MNG. Having more money does inherently "free" you up to pursue other things.

              Where I, and many others, get so bent out of shape is the fact that liberals (and conservatives for that matter) focus on the part of the equation that makes them feel good and ignore the icky part where they kicked someone in the nuts to feel good in the first place.

              1. MNG   13 years ago

                I don't disagree with anything you say here DesigNate, you got exactly what I was trying to say here.

            4. Suthenboy   13 years ago

              It isnt how they see govt assistance operating, it is how they rationalize their power grabs.

    3. Tulpa   13 years ago

      most liberals share an idea of increasing liberty, they just have different axioms and premises than libertarians.

      The Khmer Rouge* also wanted to increase liberty, just with a different concept of what liberty was.

      That doesn't buy much.

      Traditional conservatives on the other hand are fairly explicit that they think a strong authority and conformity is best for society. At most they will talk about "ordered liberty."

      And old-style conservatives are extremely rare in American political life. Authoritarian Democrats on the other hand comprise most of the Democrats in office.

      * Godwin-proofing...you know who I mean.

      1. MNG   13 years ago

        Really? Since you mean the Nazis I'd be interested if you could point to evidence in their philosophy that they revered liberty and individuality. I seem to recall quite a bit of contrary rhetoric..

        "And old-style conservatives are extremely rare in American political life."

        Er, don't look now but one just won two state primaries yesterday.

        1. Tulpa   13 years ago

          They had different definitions of liberty, MNG. Sort of my point. They wanted liberty for their race to expand and fill the eastern lands, which required some positive rights involving killing the people who already lived there.

          When you can re-define words and change premises on the fly, there's no limit to what horrors you can disguise.

          1. MNG   13 years ago

            Liberty for one's race is pretty different than individual liberty. My point is that Mills and the liberal tradition actually argued for the latter, they just honestly think it is promoted by policies libertarians think restrict it.

            1. Dekedin   13 years ago

              To be fair, Mill also advocated forcibly civilizing other cultures, although he may have been a product of his time. He argued that civilized outcasts like the Mormons should be left alone, but I have a feeling he might think that spreading democracy was a noble goal. (Of course, it's impossible to predict how he would view our foreign policy today, but I don't think he would necessarily be a peacenik.)

            2. Tulpa   13 years ago

              Oh, so suddenly you think having different axioms is a big deal!

        2. Tulpa   13 years ago

          And Santorum is in no way an old-style conservative if Edmund Burke and the monarchists of the 1700s and 1800s are your standard.

          1. MNG   13 years ago

            Use Russell Kirk then. The thing about conservative philosophy is its not full of radical upheavals dude.

            1. Tulpa   13 years ago

              Why not? Are you trying to use the traditional definition of "conservative" to prove something about people who are trying to change the status quo but happen to be called "conservative" because of historical accidents?

              1. MNG   13 years ago

                I'm saying that conservatism has a consistent intellectual tradition, one that is skeptical of individual liberty and advocates strong institutional constraints on it so we don't "devolve into license."

                That hasn't changed from Burke to Kirk to Santorum.

                On the other hand liberalism has at its roots and currently the goal of promoting individual autonomy, they just have a way of understanding that and promoting it that is contrary to libertarians.

                So it becomes an issue of convincing liberals on means, but conservatives on ends.

                As I've said though, what we see today as "movement conservatism" is something unlike any of the three traditions. It's kind of a mix of liberalism and libertarianism, hence someone could actually appeal to PJ O'Rourke as some kind of definitional "conservative" thinker.

                1. Tman   13 years ago

                  hence someone could actually appeal to PJ O'Rourke as some kind of definitional "conservative" thinker.

                  Stop with arguments from authority Mingey. You just admitted below you are not an authority on conservative tradition. If you want to argue the reasons and ideas behind it fine, but appealing to historical figures is a weak argument.

        3. mad libertarian guy   13 years ago

          Not-Romney won.

        4. DesigNate   13 years ago

          Well, they are technically, pretty rare. It's not like there are a boat load of Santorum's running around the Capital.

          1. Tonio   13 years ago

            No, but there's a boatload of santorum running around the capital.

            1. sasob   13 years ago

              "Running" as in runney? 🙂

    4. Fluffy   13 years ago

      Maybe 35 years ago you could make this argument, but not today.

      A cardinal element of the faith of modern liberalism is that brown people, gender-confused people, gays, and women are actionably harmed by the things I think and say.

      That right there puts them squarely in the same category as the people who banned Tropic of Cancer. Sorry, it's true.

      1. MNG   13 years ago

        I certainly oppose that fluffy, and I think a lot of liberals would. For example, the ACLU is no fan of such things if I recall, and it's the ACLU that is often used as the archetype of liberalism by conservatives for a reason...

        1. protefeed   13 years ago

          The ACLU, with the exception of guns, tends to advocate for classical liberalism far more than modern liberals.

          modern liberalism is almost the opposite of classical liberalism -- not quite, but close

          1. MNG   13 years ago

            My point is that the ACLU is closer to what liberalism is than, say, elected Democratic US Senators, just like certainly the Heritage Foundation is closer to what conservatism is than Orin Hatch...

            And if you compare the ACLU and, say, CATO, there's going to be a lot of agreement. More importantly, there is going to be agreement that the main goal is individual liberty.

            1. protefeed   13 years ago

              The ACLU is selective about which liberties they advocate for, and occasionally take an anti-liberty stance such as on guns and economics, but if all Democratic politicians were clustered ideologically around where the ACLU was at, I would consider them to be a palatable alternative worth considering.

        2. mad libertarian guy   13 years ago

          . For example, the ACLU is no fan of such things if I recall, and it's the ACLU that is often used as the archetype of liberalism by conservatives for a reason...

          Tell that to the many liberals who bitch and moans about Citizens United.

          1. Gojira   13 years ago

            I think he means that mainstream conservatives bitch and moan about the ACLU all the time.

            I think a lot of it flows from the idea that if hte police arrest you, you MUST be guilty, and they find it preposterous that you should still have "rights". A lot of the ACLU hate I hear comes from criminal cases they participate in, and their opposition to the "no 4th amendment zone" the supremes have declared to exist within 100 miles of the border.

    5. R C Dean   13 years ago

      Well, MNG, there's a reason why people are careful to distinguish "classical liberals" from "liberals".

      That's because modern-day liberalism has only an accidental and occasional overlap with what Mills was talking about in on liberty.

      "Liberal", as currently used, is a brand that a certain clique of statists have adopted as they pursue various policies that have little to nothing to do with classical liberalism.

  3. Sterling Archer   13 years ago

    Phrasing!

    1. End Child Unemployment   13 years ago

      Do you want ants? Because this is how you get ants.

  4. Hugh Akston   13 years ago

    I really don't understand the David Brooks style big government conservative worldview.

    What is their view of the moral relationship between the government and its citizens? Is George Lakoff right that they see the government as a disciplinarian parent that can help shape the moral character of the "children"?

    1. MNG   13 years ago

      As Brooks would tell you it's an old version of conservatism with a looooong pedigree.

      Read Edmund Burke's work. He wanted a very vigorous state when it came to establishing law and order, a state religion, suppressing dissent and such. The state had a fundamental role to play in protecting the "delicate moral fabric" that in his opinion any "ordered liberty" rests upon.

  5. MNG   13 years ago

    I do think that liberals quest for increased autonomy via government assistance has led to so much nannyism and compromises that it creates that which what we today call "movement conservatism" with it's "get government off our backs" mantra is often reacting to. I find these conservatives are usually clueless or profoundly dishonest about what major traditional historical figures and thinkers have argued. But these folks are tapping into the liberty rhetoric.

    It's a bit complicated by the fact that while conservatives want to, wel, conserve things in the US our traditions are steeped in revolution and liberty, so you get a funny kind of conservatism here. But Santorum appeals to the kind of conservatism that you can readily trace back through Kirk to Burke...

    1. Tman   13 years ago

      You could not interpret conservatism more incorrectly if you tried.

      Here, maybe this will help, but I doubt it-

      "The individual is the wellspring of conservatism. The purpose of conservative politics is to defend the liberty of the individual and-lest individualism run riot-insist upon individual responsibility. "

      http://www.buildfreedom.com/tribute/o'rourke/explain.html

      1. MNG   13 years ago

        If you want to try to argue people like Kirk and Burke were individualists, I'd like to see that!

        They were pretty up front about their loathing of individuality, how it quickly devolves into "lisence" (Santorum didn't pull that word from his ass, it's a common word in conservsative literature) without the checks of healthy, strong institutions like the church, the family, the community and, yes, the state backing those institutions up...

        1. Tulpa   13 years ago

          And MNG again bases his claims on semantics.

          Burke has very little to do with modern American conservatism. You may recall that we had a little falling out with the government he was a part of, no?

          If we were true to the terms' original meanings, the Democrats would be the conservatives as they're trying to conserve the statist status quo against all comers, and the Republicans would have a much stronger liberal streak (though they like the status quo to a great extent too).

          1. MNG   13 years ago

            Don't look now Tulpa, but I actually made your point a while back above...

            1. Tman   13 years ago

              Look mingey, modern conservatives care more about individual rights than do modern liberals. Here's a bit from the essay from O'Rourke which you ignored-

              The preamble to the Constitution states: "We, the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare..." It doesn't say "guarantee the general welfare." And it certainly doesn't say "give welfare benefits to all the people in the country who aren't doing so well even if the reason they aren't doing so well is because they're sitting on their butts in front of the TV."
              (continued)

              1. Tman   13 years ago

                A liberal would argue that those people are watching television because they lack opportunities, they're disadvantaged, uneducated, life is unfair-and a conservative might actually agree. The source of contention between conservatives and liberals, the po int at which the real fight begins, is when liberals say, "Government has enormous power; let's use that power to make things good."

                It's the wrong tool for the job. The liberal is trying to fix my wristwatch with a ball pein hammer.

              2. MNG   13 years ago

                Again, using O'Rourke to argue that the conservative tradition is close to libertarianism is goofy dude. The guy is a libertarian more than a conservative, and has kind of said as much at times. That's what Hugh was getting at above.

                1. Tman   13 years ago

                  Since when are you the authority on "conservative tradition"?

                  Gimme a break mingey. I'd accept you as an authority on conservative tradition the same day that I accept Santorum as an authority on magic mushrooms.

                  1. MNG   13 years ago

                    I'm not an authority, but I do know Edmund Burke is a bit bigger part of the conservative tradition than PJ O'rourke dude...

                    1. Tman   13 years ago

                      Since you now admit to not being an authority, perhaps you'd like to stop debating from a false position of authority.

                      I'm not debating the "who" of your definition of conservatism, I'm debating the "what".

                      And again, conservatism at its core supports the idea of the individual -and more importantly individual responsibility- than does liberalism.

                      You ever admitted it up thread in your ridiculous millionaire inheritance analogy, liberals want the government to take from some individual A forcefully that which A had earned himself and give to B who did nothing to deserve it.

                      The idea that liberalism cares more for the individual is complete and utter insanity.

      2. Hugh Akston   13 years ago

        I'm not convinced PJ O'Rourke is the best equipped to speak for "conservatism." He has been a libertarian-leaning gadfly for as long as I have been aware of him.

        He might be an advocate of big tent conservatism, but I there seem to be conservatives out there for whom the individual is not the fundamental particle of society.

        1. MNG   13 years ago

          "I'm not convinced PJ O'Rourke is the best equipped to speak for "conservatism.""

          Indeed, does anyone else remember his quote about hoping socons would "slither back under the rock from whence they came" or something like that?

          1. protefeed   13 years ago

            there seem to be conservatives out there for whom the individual is not the fundamental particle of society.

            And they are the core of Santorum's voters.

            The libertarian wing of the Republican party is marginalized and tiny -- Ron Paul has not won any state, which speaks volumes.

      3. MNG   13 years ago

        BTW-

        I love P.J. O'Rourke, he's hilarious and smart, one of my fav conservatives easily.

        But when I accuse conservatives of being clueless of their intellectual origins and you whip out PJ O'Rourke to counter Edmund Burke, you kind of prove my point there...

        1. nono   13 years ago

          PJ is undoubtedly a right leaning libertarian. I'd say the late Barry Goldwater as well, but he did write The Conscience of a Conservative.

    2. GILMORE   13 years ago

      increased autonomy via government assistance

      ...

      ...

      please tell me that sentence was meant as a joke.

  6. Typical H&R Commentator   13 years ago

    Who the hell is David Boaz, and why do I care what he thinks? Yeah, Santorum is bad, but he's not Obama. If I had to choose one or the other, I'd vote for him. Interviews like this are why the Kochs need to take over Cato. This election will decide the future of the country, and while I don't really care much for the GOP, I'll suck up my pride and vote for whoever they run because Obama is a disaster. But here we have Cato, a supposed libertarian think tank, giving ammo to the Democrats. Screw them.

    1. Spoof-o-meter   13 years ago

      2.1*

      *too long and not nearly 'typical' enough

      1. T   13 years ago

        Needs more glib.

        1. protefeed   13 years ago

          Make it "Typical Team Red Shill H&R Commentator" and it would be accurate rather than a parody.

    2. Typical H&R Commentator   13 years ago

      Damn, should have gone with Tulpa for a joke handle.

      1. Tonio   13 years ago

        No, that joke handle is already in use; please choose another.

    3. STEVE SMITH   13 years ago

      NOT ENOUGH RAPING

    4. STEVE SMITH   13 years ago

      NOT ENOUGH RAPING

  7. Warty   13 years ago

    Faith, Family, and Freedom-era Santorum had its moments, but the band's move toward a more mass-market, overproduced sound robbed it of most of the charm it displayed on its earlier albums, like Pissing Contest With Satan and especially Balls Deepest. It was a great disappointment at the time.

    1. MNG   13 years ago

      "Faith, Family, and Freedom-era Santorum had its moments"

      That album filled a much needed void.

    2. Ska   13 years ago

      OK, Balls Deepest is an awesome album name. If it wasn't used in Metalocalypse, you should submit that to them.

      1. End Child Unemployment   13 years ago

        Sorry, Brendan Small is too busy putting out Metalocalypse "albums" and masturbating furiously with his angry clitoris to release any more Metalocalypse episodes. I am aware there is an alleged 4th season scheduled to start airing in April but it's been like 3,000 fucking years since season 3.

        1. Warty   13 years ago

          Wait, did he put out Dethalbum 3 yet? There are some awesome tunes in the 3rd season, and I want them in finished form already.

          1. Warty   13 years ago

            OH FUCK YES

            1. Gojira   13 years ago

              I will look forward to that.

              1. End Child Unemployment   13 years ago

                While I like that the music in Metalocalypse is passable enough to almost seem metal, it is not good enough for me to want to listen to in it's own right. I want Brendon Small chained up in a room and not fed until there are new episodes out, not fucking around writing music. You are both false metallers. I bet you like Attack Attack! A pox on your house, and harumph!

                1. Warty   13 years ago

                  Are you joking? His sendup of melodic death metal is better than most real melodic death metal. It's awesome.

                  1. End Child Unemployment   13 years ago

                    I am not joking. I do not care for his music.

        2. Ska   13 years ago

          Alright, fuck them then. I'm using it myself.

  8. ?   13 years ago

    FFF was (is?) an underrated band

    Whenever maximum trolling is achieved, but nobody knows it is, Dennis Miller's dick gets itchy.

  9. Joe M   13 years ago

    As president he'd probably resist tax increases, intend to spend less than Obama and come up with lots of schemes to subsidize marriage, children and local schools.

    Well shit, I'm married with children! Sounds like he's my guy.

  10. Moogle   13 years ago

    The three don't mix. Faith leads to trying to control thought. Family leads to trying to control, well, everything else lest the wee ones see or hear anything that might alarm them.

    1. Tulpa   13 years ago

      Those aren't inherent problems with faith and family.

    2. DesigNate   13 years ago

      This might come as a shock, but I have faith AND a family and I don't want to control you. Or anyone else for that matter.

  11. protefeed   13 years ago

    intend to spend less than Obama

    That's some industrial strength sarcasm.

  12. The Ghosts of the Founders   13 years ago

    he says that what the Founders meant by happiness was "to do the morally right thing."

    Citation needed.

  13. GILMORE   13 years ago

    ~~~~~~~~~~SANTORUM2012!!!~~~~~~~~~~

    "BECAUSE YOU FUCKERS DESERVE IT!!"

  14. nono   13 years ago

    The probablility that Rick Santorum could "get away with" things, like broad invasion of privacy, is less than Obama getting away with "secret" assasinations because there's always Congress, the Courts, the media and public opinion that is more favorable to Democrats.
    But the probablity of Santorum actually getting elected is even lower than that.

  15. The Pointer-Outer   13 years ago

    Apperently, Santorum takes the same view of the Tenth Amendment as do liberals... they hate it.

  16. Eduard van Haalen   13 years ago

    I was startled that David Boaz's criticism of Santorum included this:

    "Santorum is broadly speaking a fiscal conservative. He did try to reform entitlements, both welfare and Social Security."

    I had been highly skeptical of this sort of thing when Santorum supporters said it. Now apparently a hostile critic agrees with it.

    What I'd like to see, if Santorum gets the nomination,* is a debate among him, Johnson and the Constitution Party guy about which of them could best help the country out of its financial hole. If such a debate were held, I suspect the non-Santorum candidate would get my vote - if only because Santo wants more budget-busting wars. But I'd like to see him be given a chance to run on this part of his record.

    *though I still think Romney's the favorite

    1. Eduard van Haalen   13 years ago

      And I shouldn't assume Johnson gets the LP nom either. Maybe this year the LP is so mad about Barr that they're going for a "pure" candidate, and I would expect Johnson isn't that, what with having actually gotten elected and everything.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Bob Menendez Does Not Deserve a Pardon

Billy Binion | 5.30.2025 5:25 PM

12-Year-Old Tennessee Boy Arrested for Instagram Post Says He Was Trying To Warn Students of a School Shooting

Autumn Billings | 5.30.2025 5:12 PM

Texas Ten Commandments Bill Is the Latest Example of Forcing Religious Texts In Public Schools

Emma Camp | 5.30.2025 3:46 PM

DOGE's Newly Listed 'Regulatory Savings' for Businesses Have Nothing to Do With Cutting Federal Spending

Jacob Sullum | 5.30.2025 3:30 PM

Wait, Lilo & Stitch Is About Medicaid and Family Separation?

Peter Suderman | 5.30.2025 1:59 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!