Two Miscast Candidates for the GOP

· Thursday, February 23, 2012

WASHINGTON -- The Midwest begins on the western slopes of the Allegheny Mountains, around Rick Santorum's Pittsburgh, birthplace of the Ohio River, the original highway into the Midwest. Pittsburgh fueled the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, an early eruption of Western resentment of the overbearing East, which taxed the whiskey that Westerners made from their grain. Santorum the Midwesterner, after victories in Iowa, Minnesota and Missouri, is waging more of his political capital on the region.

Rather than wait for Super Tuesday's (March 6) congenial calendar featuring five culturally conservative states (Georgia, Tennessee, Virginia, Oklahoma, Idaho), he is contesting Michigan, which votes Tuesday, and Ohio. But instead of keeping his Rust Belt focus on his blue-collar roots and economic program for reviving manufacturing, he has opened multiple fronts in the culture wars.

By doing so -- questioning much prenatal testing, disdaining Barack Obama's environmentalism as "phony theology," calling involvement of even state governments in public education "anachronistic," reiterating that abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape and incest, explaining the proper purpose of sex (procreation) -- Santorum has eclipsed Newt Gingrich, his rival for the support of social conservatives. But in doing so Santorum has made his Catholicism more central and problematic in this nomination contest than Mitt Romney's Mormonism has been.

The problem is not that the phenomena that trouble Santorum are unserious. The use of prenatal testing for search-and-destroy missions against Down syndrome and other handicapped babies is barbaric. Obama's stealthy pursuit of a national curriculum for grades K through 12 is ill-advised and illegal. And no domestic problem -- not even the unsustainable entitlement state -- is more urgent and intractable than that of family disintegration.

The entitlement state can be reformed by various known -- if currently politically impossible -- policy choices. But no one really knows the causes of family disintegration, so it is unclear whether those causes can be combated by government measures.

We do know the social pathologies flowing from the fact that now more than 50 percent of all babies born to women under age 30 are born to unmarried mothers. These pathologies, related to a constantly renewed cohort of adolescent males without fathers at home, include disorderly neighborhoods, schools that cannot teach, mass incarceration and the intergenerational transmission of poverty. We do not know how to address this with government policies, even though the nation has worried about it for almost 50 years.

In 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then in President Lyndon Johnson's administration, published his report on the black family's "crisis," which was that 24 percent of black children were then born to unmarried women. Today, 73 percent are. Forty-one percent of all children are now born to unmarried women.

Moynihan, a social scientist in politics, proposed various family policies, but also noted this: When the medieval invention of distilling was combined with Britain's 18th-century surplus of grain, the result was cheap gin -- and appalling pockets of social regression. The most effective response to which was not this or that government policy, it was John Wesley -- Methodism. Which brings us back to Santorum.

He is an engagingly happy warrior, except when he is not. Then he is an angry prophet of a dystopian future in which, he has warned, people will be "holed up in their homes afraid to go outside at night." He has the right forebodings but may have the wrong profession. Presidential candidates do not thrive as apostles of social regeneration; they are expected to be as sunny as Ronald Reagan was as he assured voters that they were as virtuous as their government was tedious.

Today's Republican contest has become a binary choice between two similarly miscast candidates. Romney cannot convince voters he understands the difference between business and politics, between being a CEO and the president. To bring economic rationality to an underperforming economic entity requires understanding a market segment. To bring confidence to a discouraged nation requires celebrating its history and sketching an inspiring destiny this history has presaged.

Romney is right about the futility of many current policies, but being offended by irrationality is insufficient. Santorum is right to be alarmed by many cultural trends, but implies that religion must be the nexus between politics and cultural reform. Romney is not attracting people who want rationality leavened by romance. Santorum is repelling people who want politics unmediated by theology. Neither Romney nor Santorum looks like a formidable candidate for November.

(c) 2012, Washington Post Writers Group


Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.


Comments

DavidMac

Will wrote, "Neither Romney nor Santorum looks like a formidable candidate for November."

Neither does Obama. The election is the Republicans to lose.

Posted February 23, 2012 at 7:45:43 AM


Oathkeeper Scott

Obama's team will induce a national crisis going into the fall, spin it to causes apart from the White House, i.e. a new war, terrorist attack, economic collapse, etc.

They'll paint themselves as the 'in place' team necessary to 'continue course' to 'save us.' Enough sheeple will vote in compliance.

Posted February 23, 2012 at 9:13:27 AM


Steve

Will is correct, neither establishment frontrunner looks formidable because they are mostly STATUS QUO canidates best known for sidebar issues and subjects NOT within the PROPER purview of the President.

Neither articulates the Constitution and the Rule of Law as the overriding principles that should and would focus their presidencies. Ohdrama will most certainly exploit their tendencies to stray into theology and vague off-topic rambling and platitudes.

With the race in a dead heat 50/50 state (Status Quo v. Status Quo), I fear as does Oathkeeper Scott, some October surprise manufactured crisis to tip the scales in favor of the status quo incumbent over the status quo challenger.

It appears that the GOP is not ready to support REAL Change and return to Rule of Law and the Constitution as represented in Ron Paul. Therefore, status quo appears to be a certain outcome... continuing the fiscal insanity until our plunge into the abyss.

Posted February 23, 2012 at 9:39:31 AM


chuckgold

I agree, there does not appear to be a willingness to support REAL Change within the Republican Party, at least, at this point in the nomination contest. However, REAL Change is still possible. REAL Change has been achieved and recorded by one Conservative. The only Reagan Conservative with a proven record of achievement in Washington, DC, Newt Gingrich! Read Newt Gingrich | 21st Century Contract with America!

http://www.newt.org/contract/

Posted February 24, 2012 at 1:28:00 AM


sane paul

love your comments on how YOU and apparently you alone know how to interpret the constitution. i.e. this 10th amendment crap. of your 2 top candidates, 1 is a moralistic preacher who would like us to return to the 1950's where women had no rights, blacks knew their place and white men ruled the day. the other, well, who knows what he believes other than in a religion where everyone gets to be a god and have their own planet when they die and where jesus (not the christian jesus by the way) is coming back to missouri. you wackos live in the bubble of fox and limbaugh. don't let the facts get in your way. please write back from the wilderness after november. your screeds are at least entertaining

Posted February 24, 2012 at 10:56:58 AM


Post a Comment

Please keep comments civil and brief. Obscene, profane, abusive and off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.

(required, displayed)
(required, not displayed)
Facebook Twitter YouTube RSS Connect with The Patriot Post






Our Mission

To Support and Defend -- Read The Patriot Post -- It's Right. It's Free. -- www.patriotpost.us

"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher


The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

Support The 2012 Patriot Fund