<< Previous Post | Main | Next Post >>

CONSERVATISM

As the nation reconsiders the federal government's response to Katrina and what it means for the future of government in this nation, it is important to consider the competing strains of thought held by modern day conservatives. In that regard, Jonathan Rauch has an excellent piece in the National Journal disecting the philosophy of Rick Santorum. By comparing and contrasting with the language of the founders of modern conservatism, Reagan and Goldwater, together with the language of Madison and Jefferson, its possible to see just how truly radical the man is. Here's a taste:
Goldwater and Reagan, and Madison and Jefferson, were saying that if you restrain government, you will strengthen society and foster virtue. Santorum is saying something more like the reverse: If you shore up the family, you will strengthen the social fabric and ultimately reduce dependence on government.

Where Goldwater denounced collectivism as the enemy of the individual, Santorum denounces individualism as the enemy of family. On page 426, Santorum says this: "In the conservative vision, people are first connected to and part of families: The family, not the individual, is the fundamental unit of society." Those words are not merely uncomfortable with the individual-rights tradition of modern conservatism. They are incompatible with it.

Santorum seems to sense as much. In an interview with National Public Radio last month, he acknowledged his quarrel with "what I refer to as more of a libertarianish Right" and "this whole idea of personal autonomy." In his book he comments, seemingly with a shrug, "Some will reject what I have to say as a kind of 'Big Government' conservatism."

They sure will. A list of the government interventions that Santorum endorses includes national service, promotion of prison ministries, "individual development accounts," publicly financed trust funds for children, community-investment incentives, strengthened obscenity enforcement, covenant marriage, assorted tax breaks, economic literacy programs in "every school in America" (his italics), and more. Lots more.

Though he is a populist critic of Big Government, Santorum shows no interest in defining principled limits on political power. His first priority is to make government pro-family, not to make it small. He has no use for a constitutional (or, as far as one can tell, moral) right to privacy, which he regards as a "constitutional wrecking ball" that has become inimical to the very principle of the common good. Ditto for the notions of government neutrality and free expression. He does not support a ban on contraception, but he thinks the government has every right to impose one.

Presented like this, its very difficult to understand what Santorum means when he says "liberal." His vision of government is as activist as any liberal has ever proposed. With one key exception. Where liberals would allow individuals the freedom to make choices themselves, Santorum believes it is both good and right for government to limit the choices you can make. And that's supposed to be conservative? There is a huge, and growing, split right down the heart of hte Republican party. What that means for the future, well... if you have any doubt about what I think, the name of my blog should help clear that up.

Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan.


--------

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: CONSERVATISM.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.alexwhalen.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2266

Leave a comment