America's Anti-Reagan Isn't Hillary Clinton.It's Rick Santorum.

[luckydevil]

http://www.reason.com/rauch/090605.shtml

A Frothy Mixture of Collectivism and Conservatism

America's Anti-Reagan Isn't Hillary Clinton. It's Rick Santorum.

Jonathan Rauch

In 1960, a Republican senator named Barry Goldwater published a little book called The Conscience of a Conservative . The first printing of 10,000 copies led to a second of the same size, then a third of 50,000, until ultimately it sold more than 3 million copies. Goldwater's presidential candidacy crashed in 1964, but his ideas did not: For decades, Goldwater's hostility to Big Government ruled the American Right. Until, approximately, now.

Rick Santorum, a second-term Republican senator from Pennsylvania, has written a new book called It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good . The book is worth taking seriously for several reasons, not least of which is that it is a serious book. The writing and thinking are consistently competent, often better than that. The lapses into right-wing talk-radioese ("liberals practically despise the common man") are rare. Santorum wrestles intelligently, often impressively, with the biggest of big ideas: freedom, virtue, civil society, the Founders' intentions. Although he is a Catholic who is often characterized as a religious conservative, he has written a book whose ambitions are secular. As its subtitle promises, it is about conservatism, not Christianity.

Above all, it is worth noticing because, like Goldwater's Conscience, it lays down a marker. As Goldwater repudiated Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon, so Santorum repudiates Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. It's now official: Philosophically, the conservative movement has split. Post-Santorum, tax-cutting and court-bashing can hold the Republican coalition together for only so much longer.

As a policy book, It Takes a Family is temperate. It serves up a healthy reminder that society needs not just good government but strong civil and social institutions, and that the traditional family serves all kinds of essential social functions. Government policies, therefore, should respect and support family and civil society instead of undermining or supplanting them. Parents should make quality time at home a high priority. Popular culture should comport itself with some sense of responsibility and taste.

Few outside the hard cultural Left—certainly not Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) who makes several cameos as Santorum's bete noir—would disagree with much of that. Not in 2005, anyway. Moreover, Santorum's policy proposals sit comfortably within the conservative mainstream. But It Takes a Family is more than a policy book. Its theory of "conservatism and the common good" seeks to rechannel the mainstream.

In Santorum's view, freedom is not the same as liberty. Or, to put it differently, there are two kinds of freedom. One is "no-fault freedom," individual autonomy uncoupled from any larger purpose: "freedom to choose, irrespective of the choice." This, he says, is "the liberal definition of freedom," and it is the one that has taken over in the culture and been imposed on the country by the courts.

Quite different is "the conservative view of freedom," "the liberty our Founders understood." This is "freedom coupled with the responsibility to something bigger or higher than the self." True liberty is freedom in the service of virtue—not "the freedom to be as selfish as I want to be," or "the freedom to be left alone," but "the freedom to attend to one's duties—duties to God, to family, and to neighbors."

This kind of freedom depends upon and serves virtue, and virtue's indispensable incubator and transmitter is the family. Thus "selflessness in the family is the basis for the political liberty we cherish as Americans." If government is to defend liberty and promote the common welfare, then it must promote and defend the integrity of the traditional family. In doing so, it will foster virtue and rebuild the country's declining social and moral capital, thus fostering liberty and strengthening family. The liberal cycle of decline—families weaken, disorder spreads, government steps in, families weaken still further—will be reversed.

"Freedom is not self-sufficient," writes Santorum. He claims the Founders' support, and quotes John Adams ("Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people") and George Washington to that effect. But as University of Maryland political scientist William A. Galston notes, Washington and (especially) Adams stood at one end of a spectrum of debate, and it was a debate that they ultimately lost.

Other Founders—notably James Madison, the father of the Constitution—were more concerned with power than with virtue. They certainly distinguished between liberty and license, and they agreed that republican government requires republican virtues. But they believed that government's foremost calling was not to inculcate virtue but to prevent tyranny. Madison thus argued for a checked, limited government that would lack the power to impose any one faction's view of virtue on all others.

Freedom, for Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and others, was an end, not just a means. A government that allows individuals to pursue happiness in their own fashions, they believed, is most likely to produce a strong society and a virtuous citizenry; but the greatest benefit of freedom is freedom itself. Civic virtue ultimately serves individual freedom, rather than the other way around.

It was in this tradition that Goldwater wrote, "Every man, for his individual good and for the good of his society, is responsible for his own development." Note that word "and": Individual and social welfare go together—they're not in conflict. All the government needs to do, Goldwater said, is get out of the way. "The conservative's first concern will always be: Are we maximizing freedom?" Reagan spoke in the same tradition when he declared that government was the problem, not the solution to our problems.

Goldwater and Reagan, and Madison and Jefferson, were saying that if you restrain government, you will strengthen society and foster virtue. Santorum is saying something more like the reverse: If you shore up the family, you will strengthen the social fabric and ultimately reduce dependence on government.

Where Goldwater denounced collectivism as the enemy of the individual, Santorum denounces individualism as the enemy of family. On page 426, Santorum says this: "In the conservative vision, people are first connected to and part of families: The family, not the individual, is the fundamental unit of society." Those words are not merely uncomfortable with the individual-rights tradition of modern conservatism. They are incompatible with it.

Santorum seems to sense as much. In an interview with National Public Radio last month, he acknowledged his quarrel with "what I refer to as more of a libertarianish Right" and "this whole idea of personal autonomy." In his book he comments, seemingly with a shrug, "Some will reject what I have to say as a kind of 'Big Government' conservatism."

They sure will. A list of the government interventions that Santorum endorses includes national service, promotion of prison ministries, "individual development accounts," publicly financed trust funds for children, community-investment incentives, strengthened obscenity enforcement, covenant marriage, assorted tax breaks, economic literacy programs in "every school in America" (his italics), and more. Lots more.

Though he is a populist critic of Big Government, Santorum shows no interest in defining principled limits on political power. His first priority is to make government pro-family, not to make it small. He has no use for a constitutional (or, as far as one can tell, moral) right to privacy, which he regards as a "constitutional wrecking ball" that has become inimical to the very principle of the common good. Ditto for the notions of government neutrality and free expression. He does not support a ban on contraception, but he thinks the government has every right to impose one.

The quarrel between virtue and freedom is an ancient and profound one. Santorum's suspicion of liberal individualism has a long pedigree and is not without support in American history. Adams, after all, favored sumptuary laws that would restrict conspicuous consumption in order to promote a virtuous frugality. And Santorum is right to observe that no healthy society is made up of people who view themselves as detached and unencumbered individuals.

"But to move from that sociological truism to the proposition that the family is the fundamental unit of political liberty," says Galston, "goes against the grain of two centuries of American political thought, as first articulated in the Declaration of Independence." With It Takes a Family , Rick Santorum has served notice. The bold new challenge to the Goldwater-Reagan tradition in American politics comes not from the Left, but from the Right.

© Copyright 2005 National Journal

[Guest Gichin13]

Very interesting piece. I saw Santorum talking about his book on the John Stewert show, interesting stuff.

[Prosperity]

"In Santorum's view, freedom is not the same as liberty. Or, to put it differently, there are two kinds of freedom. One is "no-fault freedom," individual autonomy uncoupled from any larger purpose: "freedom to choose, irrespective of the choice." This, he says, is "the liberal definition of freedom," and it is the one that has taken over in the culture and been imposed on the country by the courts.

Quite different is "the conservative view of freedom," "the liberty our Founders understood." This is "freedom coupled with the responsibility to something bigger or higher than the self." True liberty is freedom in the service of virtue—not "the freedom to be as selfish as I want to be," or "the freedom to be left alone," but "the freedom to attend to one's duties—duties to God, to family, and to neighbors." "

Collectivist bullcrap from the right, is it a surprise anymore? Santorum is a despicable human being.

[iheartskins]

Very interesting. Perhaps the Republican party has its own demons and divisions. How this plays out over the next 10-20 years will be very interesting. Not to mention how it pans out for the next election. Thanks for posting this luckydevil.

[Cskin]

Read many of the letters of our Forefathers... and that Santorum sentiment can be seen. All of the great figures of that era spoke of a higher purpose... and I believe it filtered down through most of the local communities.

Today however, it's "what about me" and screw everyone else. Further evidence of the continued social decay of America.

[Prosperity]

Individualism is social decay? Maybe you should form your own little commie farm where you can put everyone else ahead of your selfish needs.

[chomerics]

I was waiting for you to post that lucky, I came across it a few days ago, I figured you'd find it, and it looks a lot better coming from you then me :laugh:

Great article though, and spot on.

[chomerics]

Today however, it's "what about me" and screw everyone else. Further evidence of the continued social decay of America.

Really??? Isn't that the conservative Mantra? Aren't you a conservative? Well, at least you admit you are responsible for the social decay in America. It's the first time I think I've ever seen you hold neocons accountable for anything.

[twa]

Individualism is social decay? Maybe you should form your own little commie farm where you can put everyone else ahead of your selfish needs.

Just want to point out when two people get married they should not be individualist and I believe living in a community and society you must surrender some individualism simply to make society function.

I am all for freedom,but it comes with responsibilities.

[DarkLadyRaven]

Read many of the letters of our Forefathers... and that Santorum sentiment can be seen. All of the great figures of that era spoke of a higher purpose... and I believe it filtered down through most of the local communities.

Today however, it's "what about me" and screw everyone else. Further evidence of the continued social decay of America.

To be honest Im looking out for number one first before anyone else. If we are to talk about getting rid of welfare and individual responsibilty you have got to realize that our constitution is set up for an indiviualistic societey that is the nature of democracy , the group above all is not what our societey values. ( well communism is all about group mentality)

[Prosperity]

Just want to point out when two people get married they should not be individualist and I believe living in a community and society you must surrender some individualism simply to make society function.

I am all for freedom,but it comes with responsibilities.

"I am all for freedom, unless I don't like you" is what you mean if you are defending Santorum's line of thinking.

PS :laugh: look at all these "conservatives" crying about the rights of the group. Seriously if you like that thing you should consider changing what you call yourself.

So we have one group of collectivists who want to tax everyone to help out the unfortunate, the lazy, the incompotent, or all three.

Then we have another group of collectivists who say they can do whatever they want to do with their money, but they get to decide which freedoms are too liberal for you to have.

You know what is especially funny? The former didn't pretend to be anything other than what it is. While the latter can't stop saying bs completely contradictory to its actual essence.

People are too bust blaming gays or judges or the liberal media to notice any hypocrisy.

[NoCalMike]

Sanitorum is absurd.

[BlueTalon]

"In Santorum's view, freedom is not the same as liberty. Or, to put it differently, there are two kinds of freedom. One is "no-fault freedom," individual autonomy uncoupled from any larger purpose: "freedom to choose, irrespective of the choice." This, he says, is "the liberal definition of freedom," and it is the one that has taken over in the culture and been imposed on the country by the courts.

Quite different is "the conservative view of freedom," "the liberty our Founders understood." This is "freedom coupled with the responsibility to something bigger or higher than the self." True liberty is freedom in the service of virtue—not "the freedom to be as selfish as I want to be," or "the freedom to be left alone," but "the freedom to attend to one's duties—duties to God, to family, and to neighbors." "

Collectivist bullcrap from the right, is it a surprise anymore? Santorum is a despicable human being.

I'd rather have him for a next door neighbor than you.

The point he's making, if you care, is that the choices you make with your freedom have consequences. You can either ignore those consequences and just do whatever you want (liberal view) or take into account what those consequences might be and act accordingly with the freedom you have (conservative view).

If that makes him dispicable in your judgment, then I really question your judgment.

[chomerics]

"I am all for freedom, unless I don't like you" is what you mean if you are defending Santorum's line of thinking.

PS :laugh: look at all these "conservatives" crying about the rights of the group. Seriously if you like that thing you should consider changing what you call yourself.

So we have one group of collectivists who want to tax everyone to help out the unfortunate, the lazy, the incompotent, or all three.

Then we have another group of collectivists who say they can do whatever they want to do with their money, but they get to decide which freedoms are too liberal for you to have.

You know what is especially funny? The former didn't pretend to be anything other than what it is. While the latter can't stop saying bs completely contradictory to its actual essence.

People are too bust blaming gays or judges or the liberal media to notice any hypocrisy.

Great Post liberty

[Ancalagon the Black]

The point he's making, if you care, is that the choices you make with your freedom have consequences. You can either ignore those consequences and just do whatever you want (liberal view) or take into account what those consequences might be and act accordingly with the freedom you have (conservative view).

Have you read his book? Because that's not what comes through in this review one little bit.

You are fabricating a strawman with your assertion that the "liberal view" is that choices have no consequences. I challenge you to find a liberal who would defend that statement.

Santorum is saying something much more insidious than what you're ascribing to him. He is saying that we need laws and regulations to protect and uphold "decent behavior"--that is, we need government telling us how to behave. Is that a liberal or a conservative viewpoint?

[Guest Gichin13]

Collectivist bullcrap from the right, is it a surprise anymore? Santorum is a despicable human being.

That is a little strong in my book.

From my view, on the founders, I admire Jefferson but ultimately James Madison was the ultimate founder. For my money, he was the true architect of separation of powers and the basic premise that power is what government is really all about. All this talk of "virtue" (with a Platonian capital V Virtue) is nice and idealistic, but we can see how power corrupts ideals. The small government conservatives are now in power spending more money than the drunken sailors they replaced. Same story, different group.

[BlueTalon]

Have you read his book? Because that's not what comes through in this review one little bit.

You are fabricating a strawman with your assertion that the "liberal view" is that choices have no consequences. I challenge you to find a liberal who would defend that statement.

Santorum is saying something much more insidious than what you're ascribing to him. He is saying that we need laws and regulations to protect and uphold "decent behavior"--that is, we need government telling us how to behave. Is that a liberal or a conservative viewpoint?

No, I haven't read his book. Have you?

I wasn't attempting to fabricate a straw man -- what I wrote was what I got regarding the topic of libertay/freedom from the review. Several liberals on this thread interpreted what was in the review, and reacted to it rather vehemently. I simply gave what my interpretation was of what was written in the review.

Also, I wasn't attempting to speak for liberals so much as give what I thought was Santorum's view on the matter, based on what was written in the review. And of course liberals wouldn't defend their view the way I wrote it! I presented it from a conservative point of view, so it's a bit unflattering. If a liberal were to defend it, he/she would first reword it.

But whether or not a liberal would defend it really doesn't speak to the matter of whether or not it is accurate. I contend that it is, especially in the context of a discussion on family matters. Abortion and no-fault divorce are two liberal inventions that stem directly from the desire to do whatever I want whenever I want with whomever I want. And to me that represents a very good example of what I earlier wrote: You can either ignore those consequences and just do whatever you want (liberal view) or take into account what those consequences might be and act accordingly with the freedom you have (conservative view). I wouldn't say that any individual liberal necessarily believes that, but liberalism as a movement seems to operate on that premise.

Ancalagon, I really like debating with you, because you tend to be rational and bring up good issues and questions. We don't often agree, but that's OK. But, just to let you know, I try not to construct straw men.

[Prosperity]

No, I haven't read his book. Have you?

I wasn't attempting to fabricate a straw man -- what I wrote was what I got regarding the topic of libertay/freedom from the review. Several liberals on this thread interpreted what was in the review, and reacted to it rather vehemently. I simply gave what my interpretation was of what was written in the review.

Also, I wasn't attempting to speak for liberals so much as give what I thought was Santorum's view on the matter, based on what was written in the review. And of course liberals wouldn't defend their view the way I wrote it! I presented it from a conservative point of view, so it's a bit unflattering. If a liberal were to defend it, he/she would first reword it.

But whether or not a liberal would defend it really doesn't speak to the matter of whether or not it is accurate. I contend that it is, especially in the context of a discussion on family matters. Abortion and no-fault divorce are two liberal inventions that stem directly from the desire to do whatever I want whenever I want with whomever I want. And to me that represents a very good example of what I earlier wrote: You can either ignore those consequences and just do whatever you want (liberal view) or take into account what those consequences might be and act accordingly with the freedom you have (conservative view). I wouldn't say that any individual liberal necessarily believes that, but liberalism as a movement seems to operate on that premise.

Ancalagon, I really like debating with you, because you tend to be rational and bring up good issues and questions. We don't often agree, but that's OK. But, just to let you know, I try not to construct straw men.

What you are saying is that in my point of view actions don't have consequences. What I have always said and will say is that we should be free to do whatever harm (in whoever's point of view) to ourselves without the government making decisions for us. Rick Santorum's idea of personal responsoblity is to use coercion to force people to meet his moral ideals. Your post was just a reactionary statement. I think you mat actually agree with me, but because you usually disagree with me you attacked me in order to defend a "conservative" who you would usually disagree with.

In conclusion,

Me: Do what you want without hurting others if you hurt yourself it was your personal responsobility

Santorum: Freedom is you doing what I think you should do to be a moral Christian. You can still be free and do other things but the consequences are going to jail. (Coercion)

As for not wanting to be my neighbor, birds of a feather fock together I guess.

[Prosperity]

That is a little strong in my book.

From my view, on the founders, I admire Jefferson but ultimately James Madison was the ultimate founder. For my money, he was the true architect of separation of powers and the basic premise that power is what government is really all about. All this talk of "virtue" (with a Platonian capital V Virtue) is nice and idealistic, but we can see how power corrupts ideals. The small government conservatives are now in power spending more money than the drunken sailors they replaced. Same story, different group.

As a side note:

Power never corrupts it purifies; it only shows the completely pure and unfiltered actions that people would always do if they had the power to do so. (kind of like the Giges ring story in Republic) The small government conservatives never believed in small government, they believed in saying something to get elected while limiting the power of government so long as it was the Dems in power. One of the many reasons I despise the GOP.

[chomerics]

The point he's making, if you care, is that the choices you make with your freedom have consequences. You can either ignore those consequences and just do whatever you want (liberal view) or take into account what those consequences might be and act accordingly with the freedom you have (conservative view).

Wouldn't you consider a synonym for your (conservative view) accountability? I know I would say that is a pretty good definition.

Well, the question is, if accountability is your "mantra" how come you hold nobody accountable? How come all you do is point fingers and pass blame on everyone else, without ever looking in the mirror and holding your own party accountable?

You see, when you come out with doubletalk and orewllian speak which is so obviously false when held up to scrutney, you really lose all credibility.

And BTW AtB is correct. Santorum is promoting the ideology that HIS view of morality is correct and the government should force HIS views on its citizens. Sounds rather totolatarian to me doesn't it?

[BlueTalon]

What you are saying is that in my point of view actions don't have consequences. What I have always said and will say is that we should be free to do whatever harm (in whoever's point of view) to ourselves without the government making decisions for us. Rick Santorum's idea of personal responsoblity is to use coercion to force people to meet his moral ideals. Your post was just a reactionary statement. I think you mat actually agree with me, but because you usually disagree with me you attacked me in order to defend a "conservative" who you would usually disagree with.

In conclusion,

Me: Do what you want without hurting others if you hurt yourself it was your personal responsobility

Santorum: Freedom is you doing what I think you should do to be a moral Christian. You can still be free and do other things but the consequences are going to jail. (Coercion)

As for not wanting to be my neighbor, birds of a feather fock together I guess.

Whether you believe it or not, my post wasn't just reactionary. I think you misinterpret/misrepresent Santorum's statements, and I responded with what I though was a more accurate representation.

The poke about being neighbors was just that, a poke. I dunno, you could be a very fun guy to debate things with, over beer. Two of my best friends are liberal, my other best friend is conservative, and some of the most cherished memories I have are when the four of us can manage to get together for a night of beer-tasting and discussion.

That said, I would like to have people like Santorum as neighbors, as they share my values, and I know they're not going to keep me up with loud parties or arguments, they'll respect my property, etc.

[chomerics]

That said, I would like to have people like Santorum as neighbors, as they share my values, and I know they're not going to keep me up with loud parties or arguments, they'll respect my property, etc.

Having them as your neighbour is one thing, hell I think Bush would be a great neighbour. Having them run you country and promote a perverse ideological viewpoint on morality by limiting the freedoms of Americans is another. It is really un-American when you think about it.

[Henry]

I don't know if I'd call Santorum despicable, but he does scare the heck out of me. I've followed his career since his freshman term and from day one he's held a very cavalier attitude about the government's role in enforcing morality. I think that's a very dangerous road to travel, and needs to be approached with far more care than Santorum is apparently willing to give.

[Predicto]

edited after I read the rest of the thread

[Prosperity]

Whether you believe it or not, my post wasn't just reactionary. I think you misinterpret/misrepresent Santorum's statements, and I responded with what I though was a more accurate representation.

The poke about being neighbors was just that, a poke. I dunno, you could be a very fun guy to debate things with, over beer. Two of my best friends are liberal, my other best friend is conservative, and some of the most cherished memories I have are when the four of us can manage to get together for a night of beer-tasting and discussion.

That said, I would like to have people like Santorum as neighbors, as they share my values, and I know they're not going to keep me up with loud parties or arguments, they'll respect my property, etc.

If you provide the yuenglings