President Christ Can See What You're Doing... And He Is PISSED.
This morning on NPR, Buzzmachine heard Rick Santorum sum up why my short flirtation with the Republican party a few years back is over for good, unless they do something to get rid of "conservatives" like him.
This whole idea of personal autonomy — I don’t think that most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. And they have this idea that people should be left alone to do what they want to do, that government should keep taxes down, keep regulation down, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, that we shouldn’t be involved in cultural issues, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world. And I think that most conservatives understand that we can’t go it alone, that there is no such society that I’m aware of where we’ve had radical individualism and it has succeeded as a culture.
If I read this correctly, real conservatives want to manage my bedroom behavior, raise taxes, regulate everything, prohibit unsavory cultural activities, and make sure people can't just do whatever they want. Personal autonomy: bad. Government control of behavior: good.
Now I know that some folks might claim that Rick Santorum is an outlier, that he does not speak for conservatism and its place in the Republican party. That would be a fine argument, Margaret, if only he weren't the third-ranking Republican in the Senate and therefore one of the national spokesmen and leaders of the conservative movement. No, Rick Santorum's conservatism is part of the Republican party just like Bill Clinton's wang is part of his body. It may be ugly, it may jump out of his pants at inopportune times and get him into a peck of trouble, it may be shameful and creepy when it rules his mind, but it's an inextricable part of his identity, part of who he is.
The howler is, of course, that Short Bus Santorum is construing "radical individualism" as a threat to the American way of life. Right. "individualism" like "liberty" and "radical" like "for all."
As Buzzmachine observes,
That’s not radical. That is the center of America. That is where most of us live — in let-us-be land. Santorum lives on the fringe, right neighborly with the PC folks who would tell us what to think and say. Yes, the far right and far left do, indeed, meet at the fringes....
God, I hope this guy makes a run in ought-eight. I have a hankering to watch him get torn to pieces in the public arena. Metaphorically speaking, of course.
on
| § 15
§ 15 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
Santorum has moved further
Santorum has moved further and further up my list of people who make me embarrassed to be conservative.
On the whole, it's not that big a list. But right now, he's at the top of it.
Santorum is like (and Johno will understand this reference) the Chris Benek of the Republican party. He's an idiot with strongly held positions that he will go out and advocate in the worst possible way. It's not enough for the Beneks and Santorums of the world to hold goofy opinions. Were we honest, we would admit that all of us hold goofy opinions about something or other. But these fucktards have to go out and parade their opinions as recieved truth in the most retarded manner possible.
And then I have to explain to my liberal friends why I'm still a conservative, despite his manifest idiocy.
Curiously, I never see my liberal friends having to emplain why they're still liberal after the most recent pronouncement of Howard Dean or Nanci Pelosi.
And by the way, Santorum's
And by the way, Santorum's taxonomy of real/fake conservatives is completely off base.
Real Conservatives in this country are not like conservatives in other countries. Conservatives in Russia are trying to conserve things like the USSR. Conservatives in most European countries are tory monarchists.
Real Conservatives here are trying to conserve the radical individualist, don't tread on me, liberty or death values of the founding fathers. Limited government as the best way to preserve liberty, which when you get down to it, can't be anything other than individualistic.
Social conservatives like Santorum demonstrate why these things are not the same.
If I considered myself a
If I considered myself a liberal, I'd take you up on the Dean/Pelosi front. But I don't really, and you know as well as I that Dr. Dean and Ms. Pelosi are prone to saying immensely stupid things in public.
Maybe what gets me about Ricky S. more than them other two is that the Republicans seem to be more regimented, more on message and on target than their opponents. When Santorum says something, it sounds like it's coming from someone the party has put in a position. When Dean or Pelosi speak, it sounds more like they are speaking for one wing of a terribly fractuous group.
That's probably more perception than reality, but hey... it's the conservative that's in charge right now so it feels good to get my hits in.
Not for nothing did Dan
Not for nothing did Dan Savage run a contest to find the true definition of "Santorum". Here's what he came">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savage_Love]came up with:
For repeated examples of its contextually proper use in a sentence, see the">http://www.villagevoice.com/people/0327,savage,45221,24.html]the column Savage dedicated to the matter a couple of summers ago.
Me, I think Savage has been nicer to Santorum than reality perhaps warrants, because Santorum's view of how much control he should have over lives not his own makes him appear to be a pompous douchenozzle.
Buckethead, while I agree
Buckethead, while I agree with you about what conservativism really is -- and isn't -- I have to say that, from my interaction over the last couple of years with people who consider themselves the rising young opinion-makers of the Republican Party, Santorum's remarks are pretty close to the target on how they view things. Take a gander over at, say, Redstate.org sometime, and you'll see plenty of stuff that falls right in line with Ol' Frothy's POV.
I can't stand it!
I can't stand it!
The Democrats became the party of fools some time ago. Now jack-asses like this are making the Republicans the other party of fools.
Do I just waste my votes on Libertarians? I think many of their domestic positions and their entire view of foreign affairs is beyond foolish.
Can we just start our own party? We can call it the "Federalist" party, or maybe the "Whigs". Everyone applying for membership will be required to read the Constitution.
Bram,
Bram,
You're too diplomatic.
How about the "Non-Fuckwit, Normal Party"? OK, as an homage to politics past, we can go with "Non-Fuckwhitte".
Demonstrated understanding of the Constitution is a requirement. And a photo ID.
GL, that would be, "Non
GL, that would be, "Non-Fuckwytte" FYI. I like it!
Our motto could be: "Don't Tread On Me. You Asshole."
Sort of like Bill Hicks' "People Who Hate People Party."
Santorum's formulation there
Santorum's formulation there is just like Inkblot Bob Bork's: "No activity that society thinks immoral is victimless. Knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral."
Apart from the fact that these folks are inimical to liberty (and therefore my enemies), they would establish a precedent that would be turned around and pointed at their collective temples the moment they lost their electoral majority. That's what makes constitutional originalism based on the Presumption of Liberty so essential: majorities get up to mischief. You can't leave matches lying around, because they'll play with them.
Bram: my attempted solution is to get directly involved with the Republicans to try to marginalize the land-grabbers, gun grabbers, and Santorums and keep 'em there. I choose the Republicans because the Dems are in such pitiable condition that the Blue Dogs can't even make up their minds to make the tax cuts permanent.
In wooden boat terms, the Rs are a major restoration project; the Ds are a constructive total loss. The only tools you need are a chainsaw and a match.
The real iisue is the Second Amendment, though. Everything else is secondary. Consider: one who is sufficiently well armed has personal autonomy, regardless of who doesn't like what she does with it.
I know we gun nuts can be tiresome (and some can be scary), but that's what it boils down to--the ability to enforce our natural right to be let the heck alone.
I think that if the second
I think that if the second amendment had been the first, and vice versa, we'd have less argument about what gun rights mean.
I promise to vote a straight
I promise to vote a straight Non-Fuckwytte ticket in '06!
Well, the current First and
Well, the current First and Second were originally the Third and Fourth as introduced. The first two (I forget what they were) didn't make it.
There shouldn't be any argument about whether the Second Amendment enumerates an individual right. The historical evidence is both abundant and laughably one-sided. That it has not carried the day is a testament to the lengths to which would-be tyrants will go.
Bram, that should be a pledge
Bram, that should be a pledge!
"I, John Mercutio Olivetti hereby pledge I shall vote a straight Non-Fuckwytte ticket in 2006."
N.B. Mitt Romney, governer of my fair state, is a Fuckwytte.
You're all a bunch of anti
You're all a bunch of anti-Fuckwytte bigots. Shame on you.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Christine Todd Whitman, former Gov. of NJ where I now live, is the Queen Mother of all Fuckwyttes. Her complete and utter stupidity set up the financial disaster New Jersey is now facing. Every time I hear her complain about the direction of the Republican Party, my teeth start to grid.
Instead of religious dogma, she insisted on a pro-abortion stance for all of her State Supreme Court nominees. The result – judges who disregard the state Constitution and court decisions that have caused huge increases in wasteful spending. Ironically, I think the only abortion related cases they have heard were regarding paternal notification. The NJ legislature is not about to ban abortion.