Musings Of An Indie Writer| « | Shorn of the partickalers. |
»
|
|
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
The Media And The “Shouldna.”
The Republican Party, at least in the persons of its current presidential contenders, is proving to be both clueless and spineless. The most recent "debate," in which Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos hectored Mitt Romney about contraception, is an excellent demonstration. But for an acceptably complete treatment of this matter, we must retreat to the final days of campaigning before the Iowa caucuses.
Every candidate for an office seeks to distinguish himself from his competitors -- in a positive sense, of course. Marketers call it "differentiating the product." In modern political practice, this imperative blends with the urge to tell voters what they want to hear. The consequences can be pernicious.
At the crux of today's topic sits this statement from Rick Santorum, a devout Catholic and formerly a United States Senator from Pennsylvania:
"We need someone who is going to go out and be unapologetic in laying out the truth to the American public -- not only on faith, family, life, but on all the issues that we are dealing with," said Santorum."This is the most critical time in our country's history, economically, morally, culturally, national security," he said. "And the reason President Obama has divided this country is because he has not told the truth to this country. He hides the ball. He plays games. He pits groups against another. It's all this political chess game, instead of trying to be honest with the American public."
"If you're a leader as a president, you have got to motivate the American public, and the best way to do that is to be truthful, to lay out the problems and say here is the problem that we have and what are we going to do to join together and solve that problem," said Santorum.
"I think one of those common things that we agree on, that we should agree on, are these basic foundational principles of our country, based on the Declaration of Independence," he said. "If everyone is endowed by God -- not any god, but the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that God -- with the right to life, then there are certain things that we need to follow through and we need to have in our laws," he said.
"If you believe in the right to liberty, then there are certain things that come with liberty....Freedom is not an open checkbook to write whatever check you want, to perform whatever actions you want," Santorum said.
"We cannot long last as a country with people going around living lives that are not responsible," he said. "Freedom comes with the responsibility to do not what you want to do but what you ought to do. That is the freedom our founders gave us.
"If you look at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, happiness in the vernacular today has a very different meaning than it had at the time of our founders," he said.
"Happiness today is enjoyment, pleasure, what makes you feel good. At the time of our founders, one of the principle definitions was to do the morally right thing," said Santorum. "So, think of what our founders envisioned: The freedom to do the morally right thing. Rights given to us by God to serve him and his will in our lives. That is the moral foundation that is America. "Now, can we get Americans to agree with that or not?" he asked. "I believe the vast majority of Americans would agree with those foundational principles. Then we say: OK, how do we build upon that?"
"We build a culture of freedom," he said, "but a freedom to do what you should do, not what you want to do."
Such a statement from a Christian pastor or lay preacher might raise a few eyebrows, but it would pass muster with many -- at least, with the many American Christians who are serious about their faith. From a candidate for president, it's quite another matter.
Just what was Santorum saying here? Was he implying that, as president, he would press for a legislative agenda that would write Catholic teachings into federal law? Was he saying that he would use the prestige of the presidency to exhort Americans to follow those teachings? Exactly what was he saying? Statements such as "Freedom comes with the responsibility to do not what you want to do but what you ought to do," and "We build a culture of freedom, but a freedom to do what you should do, not what you want to do," compel the alert hearer to demand clarification.
Santorum was pressed on the subject in several media interviews. In an exchange with Bill O'Reilly, he said:
“Well, the states have a right to do a lot of things. That doesn’t mean they should do it. Someone asked me if the states have the right to do it [i.e., pass a law banning the sale of contraceptives]? Yes. They have the right to do it, they shouldn’t do it. I wouldn’t vote for it if they did. It doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to do it. As you know, Bill, you’re a Catholic, Catholic Church teaches contraception is something you shouldn’t do. So when I was asked the question on contraception I said I didn’t support it.”
To CNN's John King, he said:
“I didn’t vote for any kind of ban on contraception, nor did I vote for any ban on sodomies, nor would I as president. I don’t believe that everything that is immoral should be illegal. The government doesn’t have a role to play in everything that, you know, that either people of faith or no faith think are wrong or immoral. That was one. And I said it at the time that I wouldn’t have voted for the Texas sodomy law that was in place nor would I vote to ban contraception, even though I think that – as a Catholic who the Catholic Church teaches that contraception is wrong - I would not do it myself.”
And to ABC News's Jake Tapper:
"The state has a right to do that [i.e., pass a law banning the sale of contraceptives]. I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right. The state has the right to pass whatever statutes they have. That is the thing I have said about the activism of the Supreme Court: They are creating rights, and they should be left up to the people to decide."
Your Curmudgeon was appalled, more for one reason than any other: The Left is aware that the public harbors a residual uneasiness with conservative bluenosery about sex. Many persons of otherwise libertarian or conservative inclination disdain the GOP for that reason alone. It was guaranteed that the Left's Old Media annex would exploit any opportunity to deepen those fears.
The blue-nosed chicken came home to roost at the most recent "debate:"
On Saturday night, Mr. Stephanopoulos stepped outside the role of honest interlocutor when he pursued Mitt Romney with the issue on nobody's lips or legislative agenda: whether states have the right to ban contraception. Likewise, fellow moderator Diane Sawyer, who asked Republicans what they would say, "sitting in their living rooms," to a gay couple.As the audience appreciated—they booed after Mr. Stephanopolous's sixth follow-up—these questions were designed less to illuminate than to paint Republicans as people who hate gays and are so crazy they might just ban contraception if elected.
Santorum had made that attack possible with his campaign strategy, which was clearly intended to appeal directly to the large evangelical-Christian population of Iowa. It left your Curmudgeon wanting to pick him up by his lapels and shake some sense into him:
Your Curmudgeon: Mr. Santorum, which do you consider the higher priority: ejecting Barack Hussein Obama from the White House, or installing yourself in it?
Santorum: Uhhh...would you put me down, please?
Santorum's convictions are no doubt heartfelt. He certainly lives by them. Despite that, there is a time and a place for all things, including promulgating one's beliefs about sexual morality, and the most critical presidential campaign in the history of the United States is not that time.
We may expect further assaults from the Old Media against all the Republican presidential aspirants, as "journalists" seek to trap them into spilling their personal convictions about sexual propriety for popular consumption and dismay. But such attacks could have been shrugged aside, even laughed off, had Rick Santorum not opened the way for them with his unthinking use of the nomination campaign as a stump from which to hawk his views about sex. Now any candidate who seeks to deflect the exchange to another subject will be made to look shifty, even sinister.
In short, Santorum shouldn't have done it. By doing it, he might just have handed Barack Hussein Obama a second term as president.
Comments
I honestly don’t know if Santorum, on his own, has handed Obama another four years. But I am willing to bet, to some degree or another, almost all of the current crop of GOP hopefuls have fallen into the same trap. So collectively, perhaps they all have provided Obama just enough slack to stick around for a few more years.
Posted by Guy S. on 01/10/2012 at 02:59 PMHe’s stating basic Thomist doctrine—the very root of libertarianism—that laws cover the big essential items and the rest is left to conscience. Santorum is expressing his confidence that strong moral leadership will allow Americans to form stronger individual consciences. I think that’s a very sound approach and at the heart of ordered liberty, which is the real path for “the pursuit of happiness,” and not a trip to the luxury brothel in Las Vegas, though anyone is free to choose that as well. But that is the path to decadence, not happiness.
We can’t be endlessly frightened away from clarity and strong statements about values because the pagan half of the society absorbed the full program in the public schools and universities.
Santorum speaks boldly against the human sacrifice industry, as he must if he is to lead America somewhere better. And he’s not going to back off from the screechings and gnashing of teeth from within the gates of Rectumpolis.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/10/2012 at 04:12 PMIf we object to “the State” allowing for the restriction on which type of firearms (or any arms for that matter) “we” are allowed to buy/own, under the guise of “they know what is best for us…or how to “correctly interpret” any particular article of the Constitution (better than “we” can)...or for “the greater good”, than it should only follow we strenuously object any (not specifically addressing Santorum, he is but one of many who follow the same faulty logic) who would seek to impose their will…their specific moral compas…on the American people.
Understand that I don’t object to much of what he suggests, at least on a personal level. But I strongly object to my government forcing me to comply. Good intent, on either side of the aisle, still leads one finally, to the same destination.
Posted by Guy S. on 01/10/2012 at 07:00 PMI find Santorum’s willingness to engage and defend his stances - in complete sentences, no less - refreshing, even as I agree with Francis’s assertion that this isn’t the time to raise the issue. Political debate in America has become so very shallow, with each “side” attempting to use mendaciously-cribbed phrases from their foe to create moral outrage and drive away the electorate for what are very defensible positions. I’m heartned that Santorum isn’t treating us as ADD-afflicted drones, but articulating reasons for his stands. Maybe, just maybe, some will listen and be convinced.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/10/2012 at 09:32 PMTo hear Rush Limbaugh tell it, he’s griping at both Gingrich and Santorum for sniping at Romney for being a capitalist.
It’s all odd and we’ll hear every mouther of interpretation try to tell us why we shouldn’t vote for this or that candidate.
I say, vote for the guy you most believe in in the primaries. PERIOD. That’s why the primaries are there. DO IT! Make your voice heard and if you go door-to-door even for an underdog, GREAT!
That said, suppose we get an asshole for our nominee? Could he be worse than Obama?
I doubt it. And I’ll almost certainly vote for the asshole.
That’s this democracy in this America. It’s simple! If we get almost 50% of Americans not paying taxes, it isn’t because we voted for Palin or Paul or Romney. It’s because we let that become the standard. And we need people declaring that that is wrong, whether they win or not.
I don’t think 2012 will be the beginning of the 2nd American conflagration if Obama wins.
It might be dire. . . but let’s face it, with all that banking debt, over-leveraging and deficit spending, it’s going to be dire no matter WHO is in the oval office.
Iran and nukes? Either Obama takes them out or a Republican takes them out. It’s the same problem.
What will happen if Obama gets a second term is that socialism, totalitarianism and fascism - ala “crony-capitalism” - will get four more super years to corrupt our society and weaken our position in the world.
I read that guy’s “Decline of the West,” 20 or 30 years ago. Spengler, that’s it! I hated it back then because he made good points but I disagreed viscerally.
Now, I see it coming true.
What do you do when you see everyone - from politicians to poets to cultural icons to commercials to financiers - abandoning your country?
What do you do when your country can’t produce steel or shoes or clothes, but instead invents jobs in government or service?
YOU VOTE FOR THE BEST GUY! Sure, you get your weapon and your ammo and prepare for the worst. But. we. vote. for. the. person. we. believe. in.
That’s what and who we are. BEFORE we go all-in and shoot the illegals and socialists and ne’er-do-wells and outright pigs, we give the ballot a shot, eh?
Davy Crockett, Sam Houston, Samuel Adams, Tom Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and even George Washington were “sons-a-bitches” to the political toadies of their times. But they had principles.
And we could have lost in 1777 or 1779 or any of a number of times. Our heroes are mighty, but not because they won. They’re great because they believed. And it’s time again to believe in the right thing, even if it loses.
We might not be able to force a flat tax, or make everyone understand they suffer under the burden of government. But the first thing we can do is say we believe in the Declaration and the Bill of Rights and vote against a demagogue.
I guess what I’m saying is that if this is the tipping point, I don’t want to be one of the folks who “stayed home” because this or that candidate wasn’t pure enough for me.
I need to beat Obama, and I don’t believe in putting a round between the mother-fucker’s eyes.
Vote for the best person you believe in. . . in the primaries, then the general. That’s what we do. If the good or the bad guy prevails and everything goes south, then we’re really no worse off than most people have been throughout history. . .
impoverished, illiterate and at the mercy of whoever has the most force. And using an outhouse when we had the wherewithal to make toilets.
Civilization is a freely cooperative thing, even as it needs competitive and free markets to survive. Obama and the statists think that cooperation must be forced, and markets can’t be free.
He- they - are wrong, and have been proven wrong time and again throughout history. The only reason they gain traction is because of ignorance and sloth amongst the families and people they think they rule.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/11/2012 at 06:46 AM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
