One of the arguments Senator Rick Santorum made on behalf of his campaign was that if he were the nominee, he’d succeed in making Barack Obama the subject of the election, not himself.
That was before Santorum shot to the top of the GOP field. What candidates can never fully anticipate, until they’re considered a frontrunner, is the sheer intensity of the focus on their past record and words. That’s now happening to Santorum, and suddenly he’s on the defensive, despite his best efforts to avoid that from happening.
The main (though not exclusive) problem for Santorum is his rhetorical approach to social issues. He’s said he would be the one president who would talk about the damage contraception does to American society. He’s spoken quite openly about criminalizing doctors who perform abortions. He’s made a passionate case against prenatal testing. He’s been quite forthright in his views against homosexual acts, about women in combat, and about women in the workforce. He’s given a speech in which he’s said Satan has systematically targeted the key institutions in American life. The danger for Santorum is that, fairly or not, these statements and stands, separately and (especially) combined, create a portrait of a person who is censorious and sits in critical judgment of the lifestyle of most Americans.
The prospect of an American president using the “bully pulpit” to speak out about the dangers and damaging effects of contraception on American society (including among married couples) is not a reassuring one.
It’s almost impossible to overstate how important tone and countenance are when it comes to social issues. There is a great deal to be said for those who care about the cultural condition of American society. But the arguments on behalf of moral truth need to be made in ways that are winsome, in a manner that is meant to persuade. What this means, in part, is the person making the arguments needs to radiate some measure of grace and tolerance rather than condemnation and zeal. What we’re talking about is using a light touch rather than a heavy hand. To understand the difference, think about how the language (and spirit) of the pro-life movement shifted from accusing people of being “baby killers” to asking Americans to join a movement in which every unborn child is protected in law and welcomed in life. Social conservatism, if it ever hopes to succeed, needs to be articulated in a way that is seen as promoting the human good and advancing human dignity, rather than declaring a series of forbidden acts that are leading us to Gomorrah.
A wise observer told me years ago that for a politician to be seen as the aggressor in the culture wars is the quickest way to lose them. That is something Rick Santorum should bear in mind as this race moves forward.
Santorum can't, it's in his DNA. Like any good ideologue, he not only thinks he's on the side of the angels but that his soaring rhetoric will persuade everybody else that he's right. He also can't believe that the mushy middle is scared more by his position on social issues than they are by Obama's economic policies. Thus, he not only doesn't try to slip the discussion, he enthusiastically seeks to have social issues in the forefront. And to compound the problem, he's not adept enough to avoid giving the other side the opening to paint him as even scarier than he is. n nMy hope is that the non-rabid right picks up – and quickly – that he is poison in a general election. Romney is far from perfect but he doesn't scare people the way Santorum does.
I think is an accurate summation of the state of Rick. I just have to hope that a majority of Republican voters come to an understanding that the worst thing social conservatives could do for their causes would be to nominate someone who in the general would immolate in his own self-righteousness. n nYou have to choose your causes wisely. Rick, who in part lost the PA senate race by 18% (a staggering amount for a two-term incumbent not embroiled in a severe scandal) because of his dogged insistence that the Terry Schiavo affair be federalized, had shown a striking inability over the last decade to choose his causes wisely.
Sorry, but I must respectfully (but this gets my dander up) disagree with you on Schiavo. What happened as I see it is that a lying husband and his mistress who wanted to get insurance money went to court and, even though they were caught in their lies, got a judge to order Schiavo murdered by starvation. And the Democrats cheered! What crime did Schiavo commit to be sentenced to death by a leftist judge? And isn't death by starvation cruel and unusual punishment? Oh, that's right, Democrat judges think the constitution is outdated and makes good toilet paper. Ok, rant over. Mostly agree with your comments, but Schiavo still grates …
Whatever the truth about the Schiavo affair, most people did not perceive it as a federal issue. Not everything is. Rick Santorum thinks everything is. We only have to the right to do what God (read the Catholic Church) think we should do, remember. We need the federal government, headed by Rick Santorum (read the Catholic Church) to keep us on the straight and narrow path of righteousness. n nIt's an irony that the GOP, which has its roots partially in anti-Catholicism, considers nominating the most militantly sectarian Catholic presidential candidate in history (and I'm including Pat Buchanan). Of course, the other viable candidate is a Mormon, but at least Romney seems not quite under the thumb of his church like Santorum is.
Excellent article. Unfortunately Santorum comes across as dour and judgmental. You can be firm in your beliefs, but present those beliefs in a way that does not antagonize, or frankly scare, a large part of the voters. Think Reagan or George W.
Santorum is all sturm und drang, he altogether lacks a lyrical approach to things. In a general election Obama would win by the biggest landslide in history.
This article says it all! Santorum has benefited from Romney's successful attacks on Gingrich and has flashed as the latest alternative to Romney. And he actually makes Romney look good. All social conservatives can't seem to live and let live (which is, since they don't get it, how the rest of the Republican party gets along with them). Social conservatives are good people and certainly would make good neighbors, but they can't represent the rest of us very well (as in politics).
Sorry guys, but Santorum is that herpes virus Republicans have carried since 1988 that goes into remission from time to time but festers in the open in moments of stress. It has been in Republican body politic since you mated with Lee Atwater. We, the reasonable people, will enjoy your suffering.
Whatever else Santorum is, and his "Christian" stances are his own, and scare Right Wing Christians for his lack of Scriptural Balance for them, his voting record is that of a powerful supporter of DIM MARXIST PROGRAMS, such as NEA, voting rights for FELONS who have NOT worked to prove themselves viable and worthy members of society, a strong, powerful supporter of unions and unions thugs, Dim judges such as and including Sotomayor, and increasing financial packages for Dim Programs that rather need dismantling. nAny 3 or 4 on the list of hundreds of items is enough for me – I will not vote for such a creature. n nAnd it is NOT because he is a "Christian" – but because he is such an AVID DIM MARXIST PROGRAM ENABLER.
Interesting post, but the "fairly or not" caveat bothers me. There is no "gotcha" here. The media provides exposure to the candidate, but it is the public that ultimately decides. No one forced Santorum to say, among other things, "“Freedom isn’t to do whatever you want to do, it’s to do what you ought to do". Is this really social conservatism? Having the government decide what we ought to do? You can blame the messenger, but perhaps also you might want to look at the message.
Our current President spoke against a bill to protect children who survived an attempted abortion. Is this not being an "aggressor in the culture wars"? The difference is found in the preceding phrase: "for a politician TO BE SEEN AS the aggressor in the culture wars." The president has been just as aggressive on his side of the culture war. He just gets better press.
He voted against it, because it was redundant – there was already a law on the books that accomplished that. n nAs for 'being seen' as an aggressor in culture wars: that doesn't require "good press", it requires assessing the current social climate, consulting others to see what direction most agree we're heading, and then taking steps to move us in that direction. Which Pres. Obama has done – whether you, personally, like it or not. 'Culture' is not imposed by one man's idea of what SHOULD be, but by society's collective actions. n nI would imagine that if Santorum were elected and was successful in imposing his 'vision' of America on the rest of the country (imagine for just a moment), that the cultures he THINKS he'd get is a far cry from the culture that actually develops out of his policies.
"Social conservatism, if it ever hopes to succeed, needs to be articulated in a way that is seen as promoting the human good and advancing human dignity, rather than declaring a series of forbidden acts that are leading us to Gomorrah. " n nBut what if the motive of a given social conservative is precisely the belief that certain forbidden acts are indeed leading us to Gomorrah?
Rick Santorum -> frequently wrong but never in doubt.