Is this Heaven? Nope, it’s Iowa. Or maybe Shoeless Joe Jackson and Ray Kinsella had it all wrong. It seems to be a cold day in you know where. Rick Santorum just became a serious candidate for President of the United States. Well, serious to half of the electorate.
Had this process started two and a half years ago, we could have gone through all the Baskin Robbins flavors before realizing that there are two serious candidates for the position. Instead, the GOP is still breaking out the sampling spoons when it’s time to place an order. I think I can hear Judge Smails in the back of line saying, “Well…we’re waiting…” If you ever wanted to know how to skilffully weave together Caddyshack and Field of Dreams, that’s how.
If you don’t know about Rick Santorum, he’s the guy often on the left hand side of the dais during these endless debates. He hasn’t said much, because debates one through googleplex have pit Mitt Romney against the Flavor of the Week. America will finally get a chance to see him in action when he takes center stage for debate googleplex plus one.
In an attempt to contrast himself with Mitt Romney, Santorum noted “We are not looking for a chief executive officer for this country. We’re looking for a commander in chief.” This quote implies that superior business acumen is not what’s needed in the White House, and that the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW is unfit as commander in chief. Osama Bin Laden would probably beg to differ with that sentiment. Perhaps Santorum is playing the reverse-psychology card. The current President was elected on a hope and change platform, has provided neither, yet has succeeded in ousting high value targets. Perhaps we need someone who will talk about everything but the economy, and then that someone could stumble and bumble to five percent growth.
So far it has been surmised that Rick Santorum’s platform will not be painted with a ROYGBIV color scheme. It would appear that with the debt ceiling being reached once again, a tax structure not indicative of our economic activity, underfunded entitlements, chronic unemployment, and a massive health insurance albatross about to be placed around our neck, the biggest problem we face is gay people wanting to be in the military. Even if it isn’t true of Santorum, has he gone out of his way to dispel this notion? Does he at least have a catchy tax plan/pizza special to sell to the Nation?
One would have to go pretty far down the list to find “gays in the military” as one of my talking points. In fact, one would have to flip the paper over a few times and check for the invisible ink before telling me that I’ve missed something. If you have ever seen your columnist (and if you have, please stop stop stalking me), I’m like Steve Rogers before he gets the Captain America serum. If the Nation’s future lies in the hands of Neil Patrick Harris or myself, we probably have a better shot if we send Doogie to destroy the oncoming asteroid. I’m guessing that if a legion of men come under fire, and one has to depend on another to get them out of a sitting duck position, the injured soldier isn’t going to say, “Hey real quick. Robert Pattinson or Kristen Stewart?” It is in that sense that I was never offended by the prior DADT policy, as a military recruiter had no more of a right to ask that question of someone than the head of HR at a private company.
Then there’s the marriage debate. We know where Santorum sits on this. If he doesn’t trust a person to go where other men dare not go (the battlefield), then he’ll keep his hands tightly gripped on DOMA until the day he dies. I suppose he is entitled to his beliefs, but I take the “John Boehner option C” on this issue. Since marriage is not an enumerated right in the US Constitution, the many States should have latitude in defining marriage. Of course this means that States could recognize no marriages at all. If the State does not dictate that a church must perform a gay wedding, nor does it compel me to marry a man, then I don’t think anyone’s rights are being invaded.
Which brings us to the great irony in all of this “values voter” talk. These folks identify with the party that rejects bureaucracy and legislating behavior by the force of law, yet who do they run to when they see behavior that they feel ought to be dictated? It’s okay to be against California’s new curriculum on the grounds that the contributions of one group of people should be considered equal to other groups. It’s okay if people have beliefs. It’s even okay if said people wish to purchase an advertisement to tell us about them. But there’s a credibility gap if this “Santorum in the middle of the dais” thing leaves Iowa.
The pundits will probably harp on the values voter narrative. What must be remembered is that seventy-five percent of caucus voters weren’t in favor of a Rick Santorum nomination. Here’s hoping that phrase “Iowa picks corn, New Hampshire picks Presidents” rings true. Ultimately, sanity will be restored in the Granite State.
Gren Whitman says
Surprised that such an intelligent commentator as Mr. Troup wasted so much time on Rick Santorum!
After all, he’s only the latest in the string of “I’m-not-Mitt” GOP lightweights, preceded, of course, by Pawlenty, Trump, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Gingrich (plus dotty Uncle Ron Paul and his libertarian stew).
The only reason Romney achieved his eight-vote Iowa landslide over Santorum was because anti-Mitt voters were split five ways.
If it selects anyone from this bizarre gang as its presidential nominee, face it … the GOP will be in a heap of trouble.
Stephan Sonn says
Speaking as an ardent supporter of the Philosopher, Prophet and Sci Fi spinner Gene Roddenberry, this country has been scrambled by the transporter beam like Kirk, split in two. The splice undone.As if the human race can sustain civilizations with just lusting greed or just trusting compassion.
Somewhere in the bible it speaks of casting men out to the perils of spealing many languages no longer unified by speaking in the same tongue. The Republican road shows of the last several months speak in many forms but with only one common cause., Depose Obama
Obama for his part does not cull any passion in voters for him, just their rejection of the colon fodder propping up the opposition,
Two influential kin have discovered how to crack the diamond by finding the right buttons to play on the flaws in the diamond that has endured for two generations. The Middle class birthed inclemently in The Great Depression by hybrid Marxist social engineering is brought down latter day reactionaries.
It remains to be seen if human history is as flimsy as a soundbite.
Keith Thompson says
@Michael,
Thanks for pointing out what I see as one of the inherent flaws in the conservative status quo mode of thinking. How can a politician preach smaller government and yet believe that the government has a role in legislating social values or morality?
@Gren,
I think its more than just the GOP that’s in trouble…I think it’s the whole political status quo. We effectively have two political parties that are fighting to keep their own slices of the big government pie and the result is a government that we can no longer afford to pay for. When the dust settles, the two political parties will have to adjust to a new reality of re-defining the proper role and function of government to reflect a finite-sized government. Those “dotty” libertarians reflect one side of what I see as the future political paradigm (the Occupy movement is likely the embryonic stage of the anti-libertarian side). How the two major parties align along this axis is yet to be determined.
Steve Payne says
@Keith,
They don’t completely want to legislate social values on people. Only people v1. They will let corporations (AKA people v2) screw whoever they want.
Keith Thompson says
@Steve,
I think you’re right…sort of.
It depends on how you define corporations screwing whoever they want (and this is where I argue that conservatives are protecting their slice of big government). If you’re talking about corporate CEOs with 7 figure or more annual salaries while their company has accepted a government bailout, I’d agree. If you’re talking about a bank being inflexlble on a foreclosure due to a high risk loan encouraged or aided by a government program, I’d agree. If you’re talking about a corporation taking tax breaks to locate a manufacturing facility in a locality and then moving out after the tax break ends, I’d agree. What would be common in the three situations I cite is that these would commonly be perceived as excesses of capitalism while I would argue that these examples are not capitalism at all, but are examples of corporate welfare. A true small government advocate will be as much against corporate welfare as he/she would be against social welfare.
Michael Troup says
@Gren – I love your backhanded compliments! While I like to use the latitude afforded to me to talk about the world as I would like to see it, sometimes I have to talk about how it is. Since the election season is underway and Santorum just placed second, I feel somewhat of an obligation to discuss it. I’m not arrogant enough to think that someone on Water Street rolled out of bed, flipped on the CNN, and said “Wonder how Troup feels about this” but I don’t think I’d be doing my duty if I just let it go.
@Keith – I think a major component of the Feds’ toxic relationship is that morality and tolerance have been placed at opposite ends of the spectrum. Certain candidates get a lot of mileage out of trying to own those concepts.
Just as a final word, past top two finishers in Iowa include Mike Huckabee, Pat Robertson, John Edwards, and Tom Harkin (albeit an IA senator). That’s why I think this Santorum thing ultimately won’t go too far.
Stephan Sonn says
But Keith it is not welfare when it benefits business, is it?
Corporate persons do take welfare from the govt.
My brother used to say he was happy to use other peoples money
instead of his own,
and then brag about it
Ayn Rand would not have said that and maybe not even Goldwater.
Blackmail.
Government is too big…except when it comes to bailouts
for corporations too big to fail.
Cherry picking.
Ferengee Logic
Keith Thompson says
@ Stephan,
If government bailouts or subsidies benefit large corporations, then yes it’s welfare in my book. If your brother is bragging about using other people’s money instead of his own, if that other’s person’s money is via a bailout or a government backed loan, your brother is also not practicing capitalism.
Stephan Sonn says
My brother is long dead so his case is moot and more moral than legal..
The problem is that if Capitalism is at a certain level a cadre of cannibals foul the nation
Reform is the only answer. The answer is certainly not socialism.
Any ideas besides a chain of fish swallowing each other until
the shark eats the last one
S Pennington says
-> If it selects anyone from this bizarre gang as its presidential nominee, face it … the GOP will be in a heap of trouble.
Really? Based upon the Immaculate One’s track record of economic and employment destruction during his 3 years in office, he’s got his own world of hurt to overcome. Exhibit A, the Keystone XL pipeline. By delaying but not outright cancelling the project, he satisfied (barely) the Sierra Club and other alarmists, but at the same time deprived the pipefitters, teamsters, operating engineers, and other unions of 10s of thousands of jobs for many many years to come, while simultaneously ensuring a supply of oil from a friendly country and good neighbor, ensuring cheaper gas and diesel for years into the future. Instead he chose to mollify the Kennedy and Hollywood enviro crowd. They may have billions of dollars, but they can still each vote only once (well, according to the rules used everywhere but Chicago).
S Pennington says
Of course I meant to say “while simultaneously *failing* to ensure”.
Keith Thompson says
Stephan writes “The problem is that if Capitalism is at a certain level a cadre of cannibals foul the nation
Reform is the only answer. The answer is certainly not socialism.”
Stephan, I think freedom is the answer. What is missing from the conversation is that freedom has two components…liberty and responsiblitiy. It’s the responsiblity component that is missing in our current political culture, both on the left and on the right. As a thought exercise, perhaps you can re-think the concept of pollution. Instead of placing top down restrictions on what an individual or business can do on their property to protect the environment, think of pollution as a form of trespassing. If you frame the concept around regulations, you leave open the notion of finding loopholes to get around and promote cannibalism. If you frame the concept around trespassing, you leave a greater awareness of how your actions affect others and promote responsiblity. It’s a changing of mindset.
Stephan Sonn says
Keith
And what are the magic words that change mind set..
.Shazam? Abra-Cadabra-
Perhaps the Tooth airy can negotiate
Stephan Sonn says
Cave men used to foul the water upstream
so that people downstream drank the poison.
I see that hasn’t changed.
I guess it is in the genes.
My guess is that Obama will win, cut a few deals
but mainly be a veto cheerleader
Keith Thompson says
Stephan, no magic words…just circumstances will force people to change…like what happens when people realize they’re so far in debt that they can’t keep up with the credit card bills.
Stephan Sonn says
I dislike speaking in terms of share of the economy 1%…99% but how could retired people and young families afford health care just on their paychecks alone.?
Keith Thompson says
@Stephan,
The first question I would ask is, is healthcare a right that must be supplied by the government? If you answer it is, then you must have a way of funding it even if it means additional taxes or pulling funding from elsewhere. Our problem is that we want government funded healthcare but we don’t want to pay for it.
If you don’t view healthcare as a right, then from a general sense…retired folks should be funding their healthcare via savings that they have provided for throughout their lives….part of the personal responsibility I was talking about earlier. Young families should have the choice of having a health insurance plan that covers injury or catastrophic illness and therefore general checkups and minor illness taken care of out of pocket (which should result in a market for general medical practitioners who can dispense cheaper care by eliminating the insurance bureaucracy). Consider if folks used auto insurance like they do health insurance; all routine maintenance work would be covered by your auto insurance policy and the extra layer of bureaucracy will bump up the price of that 40 dollar oil change to a couple of hundred bucks. Of course, the cost of that oil change is not coming out of your pocket because it’s paid for by your insurance provider. Also, a healthcare consumer should be allowed to opt out of government required mandates if they feel they don’t need them. For instance, some states require insurance providers to cover substance abuse and therefore the consumer is forced to pay for the coverage even if he/she doesn’t have and never will have a substance abuse problem.
The biggest problem I see with healthcare is that since for most people, healthcare is linked to their employer so they don’t know how expensive the coverage is and may not even be aware of the things they are paying for.
Stephan Sonn says
Your arguements Keith are virtual and abstract and by their cold turkey flair I see mobs not momentum. Surfdom may be returning. What in the world makes you think that thereality created by the New Deal Social engineering can withstand class war blackmail.
S Pennington says
So for the dumb guy in the room (me):
-> cold turkey flair I see mobs not momentum.
Please translate.
-> Surfdom may be returning.
I’m reminded of the liner notes of an old Joe Walsh album, way way down in the corner, in teeny tiny print, it said “Pray for surf this decade.” I’m assuming (which may be dumb of me) that you mean “serfdom”. Given the percentage of my check which disappears before I even get a chance to see it, I’m going to go ahead and say that Serfdom is already here.
-> thereality created by the New Deal Social engineering can withstand class war blackmail.
I’m of the opinion that neither New Deal Social engineering (I know what that is) nor class war blackmail (I’m lost again) has done a whole lot to advance the causes of freedom or prosperity.
Is it dumb of me to just want to be left alone? Is it dumb of me to want to keep more than 50% of my paycheck?
Keith Thompson says
@Stephan,
I happen to think that New Deal style social engineering is a large part of the reason why we have class warfare. New Deal social engineering has done a large part in changing American attitudes about freedom and personal responsiblity where the ideas of hard work and thrift have been replaced by entitlement and greed. P.J. O’Rourke put it best when he said that the Bible tells us a lot about creating wealth. Instead of coveting your neighbor’s stuff, work hard and get your own stuff.
Michael Troup says
S Pennington makes a good point. How can one claim a war on the New Deal, or decry the inequality which would result from its toppling, when we see this result with the New Deal in place? There are some out there who are saying “We have to change these things to make the programs effective and solvent.” Unfortunately, too many read that as “We have to throw out the baby with the bathwater.”
In any event, this discussion tells you how relevant Rick Santorum is!
Gren Whitman says
@ Stephan Sonn
“Surfdom”: Forced to roam the Web forever, i.e., a digital incarnation of the Flying Dutchman?
Stephan Sonn says
Very cute Gren!!! I am far too old to worry about such things.
Stephan Sonn says
I get it surf v serf.