Most conservatives will vigorously agree with Rick Santorum’s message here, but is this the right way to frame it? In the age of the micro-soundbite, throwing your support behind “income inequality” carries a certain amount of risk. There’s no doubt Santorum’s words will be twisted here to make him seem indifferent to Americans who have been hit hard by the economic crisis:
“The reason you see some sympathy among the American public for them is the grave concern — and it’s a legitimate one — that blue-collar workers, lower-income workers, are having a harder and harder time rising,” the former Pennsylvania senator said at a presidential campaign stop. “They talk about income inequality. I’m for income inequality. I think some people should make more than other people, because some people work harder and have better ideas and take more risk, and they should be rewarded for it. I have no problem with income inequality.”
“President Obama is for income equality. That’s socialism. It’s worse yet, it’s Marxism,” Santorum said. “I’m not for income equality. I’m not for equality of result — I’m for equality of opportunity.”
Santorum goes on to express his support for equality of opportunity, which he says can be achieved by reducing corporate taxes and regulations. But he may have been better off framing this in more optimistic terms – like Jeb Bush did with the “Right to Rise” earlier this week – rather than supporting “income inequality,” which has a distinctly negative connotation and cedes the language to the political left.
Perhaps more interesting than Santorum’s speech is the fact that he’s actually receiving media attention for it, a sign that he’s seen as the next in line for the “not-Romney” spot in Iowa. We’ll have to wait for the polling companies to catch up before we can see if Santorum got a bump from his two major social conservative endorsements yesterday, but Politico reports that internal polling already looks promising for Santorum:
A source with one of the 2012 campaigns relays this view from its ID calls in Iowa, of a two-tiered race between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney on top, and the other four hopefuls in the second tier.
There is “some shifting among the second tier,” per the source, but Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum seem to be moving up. Newt Gingrich’s trajectory is still falling.
Bachmann is rising too, which isn’t a surprise after her impressive debate performance last week. Now that Newt Gingrich is waning and Rick Perry is staying flat, Bachmann will probably be Santorum’s biggest obstacle for winning social conservative voters in the state.
I disagree, Alana. By avoiding the "income inequality" language like you advocate, that language is still out there and can and will be used against consservatives. "Right to rise" does not prevent inequality arguments. The problem with Santorum is not that he said he wants inequality, but that he (or anyone else) doesn't say this nearly enough, loudly enough or clearly enough. Just like the gay community re-appropriated the word "queer", it is quite possible to change the meaning of a term in politics. The inequality argument is stupid and should be called out as such. The problem is you have to do it vigorously and not shy away, which is what you would have him do.
When asked why she chose to use the emotion-loaded word "selfishness" to describe her anti-collectivist, anti-altruist philosophy rather than a more nuanced, explanatory phrase, Ayn Rand replied: "For the very reason you fear it." Fifty years later Rand has the left wing in a tizzy, and her ideas are gaining more credence than ever. I am not a particular fan of Santorum, but he has it right, and maybe more plain-spoken rhetoric is just this thing our vapid, politically correct culture needs. The only downside is that I probably don’t have 50 years left to wait for a similar phenomenon.
Reward hard work as Rick Santorum said. Rick is one of the best choices for voters. On the GOP side – avoid Gingrich – he is probably the worst choice.