While I haven’t followed Rick Santorum as closely as I probably should have, via Glenn Reynolds I found a lovely remark he made about libertarians which displeased Neal Boortz big time:

“I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement. I don’t think the libertarians have it right when it comes to what the Constitution is all about. I don’t think they have it right as to what our history is, and we are not a group of people who believe in no government.”

Hey, at least we know where the guy stands! There is something refreshing about his honesty in admitting what he thinks, even if it is so obviously wrong. Neal Boortz does an excellent job of explaining what ought to be obvious, but apparently isn’t.

Libertarians are not anarchists (gasp!):

For me libertarianism is pretty simple. The government should not make any action a crime unless that action interferes with another person’s right to their life, their liberty or their property through either force or fraud. That definition reveals a requirement for government. Some entity must exist, after all, to step in to prevent one person from denying another those rights.

I realize that many people disagree with the above philosophy, but it is wildly inaccurate to characterize it as “no government.” Whether Santorum is merely ignorant or deliberately engaging in libertarian-baiting, who knows? Boortz bluntly put it bluntly:

If Santorum truly believes that libertarians believe in “no government,” then he’s a idiot. If he knows that statement was untrue he’s a liar. Your choice.

I want desperately to give Santorum the benefit of the doubt. (Personally, I hope he is a clever demagogue of some sort rather than a naive true believer.)

However, as to his constitutional point, I also think it is worth noting that most libertarians believe in a narrow, quite literal reading of the Constitution. They are likely to say things like “What part of ‘Congress shall make no law’ don’t they understand?”

Santorum’s view of the Constitution is, IMO, so analogous to the “Living, Breathing” liberal view that the man gives me the willies.

Does Santorum think that no state has the right to legalize marijuana because it’s wrong? What if you think that not guaranteeing free health care is morally wrong? A moral wrongness standard may not be as infinitely flexible as the Democrats’ “impact on the economy” standard, but it seems pretty open-ended to me.

But who gets to decide? The problem is, a lot of people (including myself) would see imprisoning people for marijuana or gay sex as a profound moral wrong. And if allowing marijuana and gay sex is a moral wrong, then what about mercury, divorce, global warming, lead, CO2, alcohol, unequal income distribution, and social injustice?

If a “moral wrongness” standard is to override the Constitution, then whose view of moral wrongness is to prevail? The majority view? I think it’s better to stick with constitutional separation of powers, and I think Santorum would do well to bear in mind that the slavery was finally abolished by constitutional amendment. Just as Prohibition was both established and abolished by amendments.

This came up during a debate between Santorum and Perry, and while Perry is hardly a libertarian, he is at least a constitutionalist. Santorum is not. He clearly believes that his view of morality trumps all laws, including the law of our land, which is the Constitution.

What’s fascinating about this is that if he is right, for example, in his position that neither the states nor the people have a right to allow gay marriage because it is morally wrong, then no constitutional amendment prohibiting it would be needed, right? So why support a superfluous and unnecessary amendment? Might that be a tacit acknowledgement that the Constitution means something? Or is the idea that some moral wrongs are more morally wrong than others and are more in need of moral amendments to the Constitution? Prohibition of alcohol was one such moral amendment, and many people thought then and think now that consumption of alcohol is morally wrong. If enough people feel that strongly about something, then under our system it is their right to amend the Constitution. But again, if strong moral beliefs alone are enough that the Constitution may be disregarded, then why bother with amendments?

Take Santorum’s opinion on birth control. Please!

”…I think the dangers of contraception in this country, and the whole sexual libertine idea — many of the Christian faith have said, well that’s okay, I mean y’know, contraception is okay. It is not okay.”

So, does that mean he would support an amendment banning birth control, or is no amendment needed? If not, why not?

Splain, Rick, splain!

The left is gloating over this, and while Rachel Maddow is struggling to look outraged when she talks about Santorum, I think he secretly makes her wet.  sends a thrill up her leg.

It occurred to me that maybe I wasn’t allowed to say what I first said so I unsaid it and made it clean enough for Chris Matthews (with apologies to my betters, of course….)

Aside from whether the left wants Santorum to be the true voice of the GOP, I really and truly hope that the man is a lying demagogue.

Share