Posts Tagged ‘Santorum’

The Rick Santorum phenomenon only makes sense in the context of what the Republican Party has become. He is supported by a significant number of people who vote as a group, and who possess a world view that is disconnected from any sense of reality other than their own. But to me, the problem isn’t Rick Santorum per se, nor is it any other Republican candidate because, after they are relegated to the political scrapheap, the right-wing, evangelical whack jobs who breathed life into them will still be around questioning evolution, promoting the Christian-nation baloney, removing Thomas Jefferson from social studies textbooks in favor of John Calvin (Texas schoolbook adoption), denying global warming, discriminating against gays and the transgendered, denying women the right to manage their own bodies, and burning an occasional witch. Can you imagine any other developed nation where a guy like Rick Santorum would be given even a puncher’s chance of becoming president, prime minister or whatever?

In a New York Times article by David Kirkpatrick entitled, “For Evangelicals, Supporting Israel Is ‘God’s Foreign Policy’” (November 14, 2006), he wrote:

Many conservative Christians say they believe that [President George W. Bush’s] support for Israel fulfills a biblical injunction to protect the Jewish state, which some of them think will play a pivotal role in the second coming. Many on the left, in turn, fear that such theology may influence decisions the administration makes toward Israel and the Middle East.

Well, I’m on the left and it sure scares the hell out of me; it should scare anyone who gives a damn about how the most powerful nation on earth conducts its foreign policy. But remember that Kirkpatrick was referring to the presidency of George W. Bush, a guy who talked the talk but didn’t walk much of the walk…thank God :).

An evangelical Christian like Rick Santorum will be another matter, altogether. Surrounded by like-minded cheerleaders and hounded by extreme-right supporters with markers to cash, would anyone be surprised if the U.S took up arms in support of Israel and, along the way, seized a little oil? In fact, would anyone be surprised to learn that our involvement in Iraq was a nod to the same evangelical forces?

But, once again, the issue is less Santorum than it is those who pull his strings. For this group, the ends justify the means. That’s the way it is with Crusades and the next election is a Crusade. The Right is already in with voter suppression, and they know a thing or two about electronic vote fraud (Vote Fraud 2004: How Ohio was “Delivered” to Bush). So 2012 is going to be a war, and it’s a war that the Left can ill afford to lose. I hope we’re up to it.
________________________________________________________________________

In a post on this site entitled Religion in politics, a line in the sand, I offer this test to determine whether ideas are suitable for political debate: when ideas cannot stand apart from the faith-based belief set from which they spring, especially when those ideas can influence domestic and foreign policy, they must have no standing in the public square debate.

________________________________________________________________________

those who allow religious dogma to trump their own, god-given ability to think and reason believe they are on a never-ending mission to make the world “Christian.” Frankly, I think that the whole lot of them, including Rick Santorum, are both nuts and dangerous.

________________________________________________________________________

I thought better of mentioning it at the time, but what she said reminded me of three song titles: “Don’t worry, be happy”; “What will be, will be”; and that perennial favorite, “I feel better when I outsource to God any personal responsibility that I might have for future generations.”

So, I’m watching Meet the Press this morning. One of my least favorite theocrats, Rick Santorum, commented on Presidential candidate John F. Kennedy’s speech before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in which Kennedy said he believed in an “absolute” separation of church and state. Rick Santorum said that Kennedy’s words almost made him throw up, and that and absolute separation was never the intent of the founding fathers. Really? (Read the full text of Kennedy’s speech.)

Of course, David Gregory didn’t take the trouble to call him out on this…I suspect that challenging Santorum wasn’t part of a pre-appearance agreement setting the interview ground rules…so I just muttered what the f*** to myself, figuring that there must be another Constitution out there that I hadn’t read.

He then goes on to say that the founding fathers wanted a public square filled with a diversity of ideas, and that the ideas belonging to people of faith were not meant to be excluded from that debate. You’re right, Rick, the founding fathers did not intend to exclude people of faith…or people of no faith…from the public square, but I am equally confident that the ideas they had in mind were those that were well reasoned and intellectually based, rather than those rooted in religious myth and custom. The latter, no matter how widely they are believed, have no more place in the public square than do beliefs in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny or, my personal favorite, the Tooth Fairy.

To say this in a less prejudicial way, when ideas cannot stand apart from the faith-based belief set from which they spring, especially when those ideas can influence domestic and foreign policy, they must have no standing in the public square debate. Maybe that’s what James Madison meant when, in a letter to William Bradford, Jr., April 1, 1774, he wrote, “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect.” Having channeled Madison on a number of occasions, I know, when he spoke of debilitations of the mind, he was referring to Santorum’s inability to embrace Darwin’s theory of evolution, as well as the threat of global warming.

Later on in the interview Santorum unleashed a Republican favorite; the government shouldn’t pick winners and losers. What drives me insane about this is that even left-wing pundits seem comfortable with the winners and losers thing as though picking them is some kind of transcendent evil. Tell it to China or Germany or Brazil. They find winners pretty easily, and then eat our lunch with them.

Of course, Rick Santorum will argue that American exceptionalism takes us down a different and better path…a path that includes exceptional ignorance.