Please, God, let Santorum be lying!

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.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

23 responses to “Please, God, let Santorum be lying!”

  1. rjp Avatar

    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 think Rick really meant to little government, but used no government for the exemple.

    ”…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.”

    Our church is our law with regards to this.

  2. John S. Avatar
    John S.

    I despair of the Republican party that Santorum is now the frontrunner and, barring any stroke of brilliance by Romney, will probably win the nomination. (I especially despair of my home state of Missouri… and although I haven’t asked her, I’m pretty sure my mom voted for Santorum in the Missouri primary.) If Santorum’s Republican party has no room for libertarians and no room for gay people who want to settle down and get married, then it has no room for me.

  3. Jennifer Krieger Avatar

    You are not so funny when you are crude. And apologizing does not help, especially when you don’t mean it.

  4. John S. Avatar
    John S.

    In my church, contraception is OK (although abortion is most definitely not). So I guess we should have one civil law for those whose church says contraception is not OK, and one for those whose church says it is. Also, we should have a civil law that says Muslim women from Saudi Arabia must cover themselves completely and may not drive, while Muslim women from Malaysia may drive and do not have to cover themselves. That way, civil law reflects everyone’s church “laws”.

  5. John S. Avatar
    John S.

    I thought it was pretty funny. Rachel Maddow is a cow and deserves far worse than that.

  6. Kate Avatar
    Kate

    The thing the Santorums – and their liberal equivalents on the other side of the ideological fence – forget is that if you grant that government has the right to legislate against something you consider a moral wrong, it also has the right to legislate against something you consider a moral imperative. Sooner or later this will happen no matter what you consider to be moral or otherwise, if you grant that government has the right to legislate against any moral issue.

  7. Randy Avatar
    Randy

    I’m still trying to find those passages in the Bible where Jesus instructs Christians to enact laws that require everyone to live within Christian mores and punishes those who don’t. I can’t find it.

    Besides, it seems to me that a proper reading of the Golden Rule instructs Christians to do just the opposite. A Christian would not like a different religion and its mores forced on him, so he should not force his on others. Isn’t this what the Golden Rule means? What else could the Golden Rule mean, if not this? Why is the Golden Rule so misunderstood by God-believing Christians.

    It will be a grand day in America and around the world when Christians actually begin living like Jesus and not like the Pharisees.

  8. newrouter Avatar
    newrouter

    ” ”…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? "

    it appears he's arguing about christian doctrine not gov't policy.

  9. Frank Avatar
    Frank

    Does Rick Santorum meet Andrew Sullivan’s definition of “Christianist”?

  10. latte island Avatar
    latte island

    The thing is, it’s not just Santorum, it’s all the Republican candidates who are pandering to these statist religious right activists. Lesbian advice columnist Dr. Darcy nails it: “Banning Gays From Human Rights [has become]the new War Against Drugs.”

    Indeed. As a socially liberal registered Republican, I’m tested as never before. In order to vote against Obama, I have to submit to a hostile social agenda. Should I? These people are really too aggressive. But both parties have made it impossible to push back without supporting something equally awful.

  11. Frank Avatar
    Frank

    …Rick Santorum, perhaps the only person the Republicans could have found with a more authoritarian streak than Obama.

    Warren Mayer endorses Gary Johnson and leaves the Republican Party.

    http://www.coyoteblog.com/

    Also, just below the endorsement is a horrifying video of Henderson, NV police kicking a diabetic in the face, breaking his ribs, and then laughing about it.

  12. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    If Jennifer is referring to:

    I think he secretly makes her wet. sends a thrill up her leg.

    I was most amused. In fact I was going to say something amusing and then decided not to. Until I read Jennifer.

    My comment was to have gone something like this:

    So Eric, I see that some of my attitude is rubbing off on you. Nice.

    ====

    I must admit that all those years spent with male and female mating connectors may have corrupted me. A few years in the US Navy didn’t hurt either.

  13. Tom Avatar

    I’ve been beating the Gary Johnson drum since he was the first candidate to announce a run for the GOP nomination. I love Ron Paul, but outside of a couple social issue disagreements (I respect his stance on abortion, but I still believe it’s completely a moral decision that has to be made at the individual level)I have a hard time supporting someone without executive experience for the presidency. Not that it’s a guarantee of good governance (obviously), but if one is highly successful as a Governor (Johnson) then it is very easy to assume that one would take that next step (president) successfully. On top of which, he clearly knows how to practice good governance even if he’s having to work with a potentially “hostile” legislature, and I have no doubt he would be able to do it again in the office of the presidency! I just hope he can somehow, some way, get into the national debates when they come around…all he needs is that free media to get his message out, and you will see flocks of people coming to his side to avoid the authoritarian drivel that is coming out of both parties candidates (minus Paul) right now!

  14. Brett Avatar
    Brett

    The Republicans don’t want my vote. Allrighty then.

  15. Jenny Avatar

    Men, and Women, (not a lot of gentlepeople here today):
    Lordy, I don’t carry a torch for RAchel Maddow; insert your mother’s or wife’s or your own name for all I care.I do prefer public discourse be carried on in an adult and polite tone. You’ve signed your name to this, for goodness sake. Trash talk is better uttered aloud and then gone forever.

  16. SDN Avatar
    SDN

    “A Christian would not like a different religion and its mores forced on him, so he should not force his on others.”

    The problem, Randy, as we saw with Obama and the birth control issue, is that too many people, what I call anti-theists, want to tell me that because they find my belief that abortion is wrong, or that gay marriage is an oxymoron, to be offensive, I should be silenced, forced to associate with them (remember the wedding photographer in NM who didn’t want to photograph the gay marriage?), etc., and unless the law is made crystal clear, they will use it for that purpose.

    I’ve never found that clause in the Constitution that says no one has a right not to be offended.

  17. tkdkerry Avatar
    tkdkerry

    Jenny:

    Lighten up, Francis.

  18. […] Rick Santorum is in the lead to become the GOP nominee, but I’m wondering how well his views on birth control are setting with the general […]

  19. Mercy Vetsel Avatar

    According to the only good classical liberal scorecard that I’m aware of, the Republican Liberty Caucus, Santorum was a libertarian for each of his last 7 years in the Senate:

    http://www.republicanliberty.org/libdex/cg_legis.asp?key=sar01

    That seems strange since we all no how Santorum has invoked the wrath of the left-wing culture warriors, but remember that when Santorum first got into politics, he was ambivalent about abortion and supported the content of Roe v. Wade (abortion within the first two trimesters), but not the decision itself.

    -Mercy

  20. […] I’m so sick of being negative that I’m feeling negative about negativity. I often wish I had never heard of politics. The presidential race is incredibly irritating, and I am not only sick of it, I am sick of my pessimism about the results. It seems like we’re in for a lose-lose. Whoever wins the primary loses. And of course that sets off in my mind a cascade of game theory pessimism in which I judge the “best” outcome according to who is held responsible for the Republican defeat. From a libertarian perspective, if defeat at the hands of Obama is a certainty, then Santorum is the “best” candidate, as he is the least libertarian and has gone out of his way to say so. […]