Options
Print
8 Comments
Post a Comment
Email
Those 'Social' Issues
· Tuesday, February 28, 2012
The "social issues" have popped up in the Republican presidential campaign, courtesy of Rick Santorum, causing Democrats to drool, left-wing pundits to twirl their broadswords in the air and various Republicans to turn green, fearful of alienating key voting blocs. The horror, the horror -- can't the party's candidates just keep their searchlight trained on the economy?
Probably not. The task of governing the United States of America seems not to accommodate that strategy any more. Current screeching about Santorum's introduction of religion into the campaign calculus reinforces that point.
Santorum -- a candidate exceeded only by Ron Paul when it comes to implausibility as a Republican presidential nominee -- is playing his long suit when he talks about religion and family and morality. There's not much else to distinguish him from the rest of the field. What appears, to many, as his old-fashioned views on religion (including contraception) call forth from many others a gratitude that warrants inspection.
"What kind of country do we live in," he inquired, rhetorically, on ABC the other day, "that says only people of nonfaith can come into the public square and make their case?"
Now that's a stretch -- nobody is saying only "people of nonfaith" have a license to speak up -- but the people to whom Santorum is talking know what he means: To wit, "people of faith" often find their concerns downplayed, depreciated, excluded or ignored, on the ground that church-state separation forbids undue emphasis on those concerns.
Which it doesn't. No such doctrine as church-over-here-and-government-over-there has ever existed among us. It's a made-up notion, providing cover to those who see religious expression, especially Christian, as a barrier to the fulfillment of policy ideals such as abortion-on-demand, same-sex marriage and secularization of public places (e.g., schools) formerly hospitable to religious expression of a sort.
Changing times brings their own rationales. If today we're for abortion, it's because we view the individual woman's right to "control her body" as trumping any appeal to life's sacred dimensions. Religion itself becomes offensive to the extent it upholds understandings no longer in favor. Liberal churches (on this showing) are OK: They let a person do as he or she wants to. Conservative churches, by refusing to give the zeitgeist free run of the place, show their bigotry and inhumanity. Why, they think unborn life deserves protection. Shut those people up! Show 'em who's in charge!
Think the average Santorum voter doesn't know what's afoot here? Use the First Amendment as a pretext to shove aside non-liberal viewpoints on morality -- viewpoints with some grounding in Scripture or church tradition -- and the sailing gets a lot smoother.
The economy is an absolutely urgent topic for discussion, possibly even some rabble-rousing, as liberals sit tight on the welfare state apparatus they built and now want to protect by renewing Barack Obama's White House lease. Nonetheless, there can't be any excluding the social issues, whether or not one likes Santorum's dour and preachy manner of raising them.
The habits of a free people -- for stability, thrift, obedience to law, respect for others' rights, etc. -- are the formative elements in national character, without which you aren't going to have much that resembles freedom. Without freedom, you aren't going to have much of anything. Certainly, you aren't going to have an economy that produces jobs and prosperity on any long-term, contrasted with a Chinese-like short term, authoritarian basis.
The social issues aren't enjoyable to talk about in an election year -- least of all a year in which an irrational tax system and the federal takeover of the health care system urgently require attention. That's life. You don't solve problems by positing their triviality or even nonexistence.
Conservatives who couldn't, on pain of waterboarding, envision a "President Rick Santorum" should lay off him as much as possible for the nonoffense of raising issues that -- woe and alas -- have to be raised; issues, more to the point, that go far toward explaining why we're in the mess we're in right now.
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM
Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.
Options
Navigation
Subscribe
Accuracy in Media Editor Cliff Kincaid: "Mark Alexander is the recipient of the 2007 AIM Award for Grassroots Journalism. It is an honor to be associated with Mark and PatriotPost.US." It's Right. It's Free. Subscribe now!
The Right Opinion
Peggy Noonan: Mitt Romney's Moment
Argus Hamilton: From The Comedy Store
Burt Prelutsky: Time to Start Playing Offense
Rich Galen: Obama & Romney Tout Good News
Edwin J. Feulner: 'Law of the Sea' Treaty: Sink It
Arnold Ahlert: With Democrats, You're Either All In - or All Out
Oliver North: Memorial Day 2012
Ken Blackwell: Remarks on Religious Liberty
L. Brent Bozell: Canada's 'Scientific' Museum of Smut
Michelle Malkin: Obama's Land of the LOST
Rebecca Hagelin: The 'Gay Marriage' Spin
David Limbaugh: Obama and Leahy vs. Sir William Blackstone
Navigation
Grassroots Commentary
Policy and Analysis
- Heritage Foundation Insider
- Heritage Foundation Research
- American Enterprise Institute
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- The Cato Institute
- Hoover Institution
- National Rifle Association
- Ludwig von Mises Institute
- Citizens Against Government Waste
- National Center for Policy Analysis
- The Heartland Institute
Our Mission
"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!
mac
Stick a fork in Santorum, he's done.
While many of my views coincide with his, I can't help but wonder if his handlers went out to an early lunch and forgot to leave him notes.
It IS the economy - and the debt - stupid.
One of Obama's messages right now is how good the economy is getting since his wonderous diktats are working.
HUH????? It's the 'ol tell a lie often enough the sheeple will start to believe it.
Posted February 28, 2012 at 8:14:54 AM
wjmccrindle
Everything the liberals do is a lie. They disparage honest and cogent thought from Santorum, because any moral Christian can see that the marxists must do away with religion to support aberrant lifestyles no Christian can help but revile. They must keep their welfare state alive and growing, in order to stay in power. Santorum rightfully exposes the liberal lie. Until he is defeated and some other has the nomination, he will continue to get my full support. Rock on Santorum!
Posted February 28, 2012 at 10:09:57 AM
Old Bones
Pace "mac" above the social issues are "the" issue. It is ignoring the social issues and the disparagement of Christian values and ethics that has landed us in the economic and social mess we are in, and the only way we are going to get out of it is to seriosly address the taboo social issues.
Posted February 28, 2012 at 10:54:32 AM
Mike Schuerger Sr.
Right on wjmccrindle! We might just yet get a principled candidate.
"It ain't over 'til it's over."
Posted February 28, 2012 at 10:57:18 AM
steve
Crazy SPENDING is what has delivered us into "the mess we are in." That was enabled by Congress members and presidents NOT living within the Constitution, and choosing instead to create a welfare/warfare State. The people have gone along with this grievous wrong since the 1930s.
THEFT is wrong; it's specifically forbidden as a commandment from God. Government taking from one to give to another is Theft. Borrowing money and spending it on welfare/warfare programs is stealing from future taxpayers. In THAT sense, the welfare/warfare state violates a commandment, a moral precept, and THAT is a "social issue" in that the people condone THEFT, along with murder of the unborn, etc.
Rick Santorum was among the Congressmen who went along with Theft, who went along with growing government (e.g., No Child Left Behind, endless wars, crazy spending and borrowing, etc.) Only one Congressman voted against all the THEFT and unconstitutional unauthorized spending. He is the only presidential candidate with such a record and a consistent platform against the Leviathan today.
But, according to Murchison and many other "pundits" here and elsewhere, neither Paul nor Santorum have a chance to win the GOP nomination. The obvious question is: WHY? The obvious answer...I'll leave that to you readers.
Posted February 28, 2012 at 2:46:44 PM
JTG
I'm for bringing out as many issues, social and policy, as possible. Of course, the economy, fuel prices, Obama's disregard for the Constitution and his circumventing of the Congress with his czar appointments have to be emphasized. There's a treasure trove of information that depicts his failing to live up to the oath he took as well as so many items of mismanagement, one would have to be a demo partisan not to bring it up. With all of the debates that took place thus far, the GOP candidates should now focus on Obama rather than the circular firing squad format we now have. I think everyone knows enough to make his or her decision as to who to vote for today.
Posted February 28, 2012 at 3:14:46 PM
AJACKS
Santorum introduced "Social Issues" into the Republican campaign and he has "old fashioned ideas" about contraception? He had no choice but to respond when Obama and the Democrats insisted that contraception be "free" - paid for by those whose conscience and moral values are violated by such a decree. It is not about "contraception' per se, it is about religious freedom which is supposed to be protected by our Constitution.
Posted February 28, 2012 at 4:22:20 PM
Sherry
I just can't help but say the obvious again. Ron Paul is the only candidate that has any hope of beating Obama. How does that make him implausible as a Republican candidate? He is only implausible as a Republican candidate if the people pulling the strings continue to pretend their string pulling is going to work the same this year as it has in the past 30 years.
I have never, NEVER voted for anyone other than a Republican president. I will write Ron Paul in if he is not the Republican candidate and the thousands of people attending his rallies will write him in as well. You will split the vote and give Obama the White House again if you continue to pretend that anyone other than Ron Paul can defeat Obama in 2012.
Posted February 28, 2012 at 5:50:15 PM