[whiteperil] Sean: Run-up

[Email subscription to blog articles]

Posted by Sean:
Run-up
http://whiteperil.com/posts/1162629450.shtml


   Since I've already cast my vote, I can settle in to enjoying the
   frantic final week before the election with no pressure.
   For US Senate, I ultimately decided on Casey. I know, I know: The
   power elite among the Democrats are traitors who want to promulgate
   the Culture of Death and you can't expect the GOP to be perfect and
   anyway I'm just throwing a fit because Santorum won't let me marry my
   dog.
   I really did have serious misgivings when I was filling out my
   absentee ballot, but they're dissipating. To find out why, consider
   [1]Peggy Noonan's latest column (via [2]Michael). I like Noonan very
   much. Her writing style isn't showy, but she has a distinctive
   voice--careful and sober and considered. It's a voice that makes her
   love of America come across very movingly, especially when she talks
   about the textures of daily life or personal interactions.
   Unfortunately, it's a voice that also betrays her when she says stupid
   things. There's nothing worse than saying something way-ass dumb while
   making it clear that you're thinking real hard about it:

     Rick Santorum's career (two Senate terms, before that two in the
     House) suggests he has thought a great deal about the balance, and
     concluded that in our time the national is the local. Federal power
     is everywhere; so are the national media. (The biggest political
     change since JFK's day is something he, 50 years ago, noted: the
     increasing nationalization of everything.) And so he has spoken
     for, and stood for, the rights of the unborn, the needs of the
     poor, welfare reform when it was controversial, tax law to help the
     family; against forcing the nation to accept a redefining of
     marriage it does not desire, for religious freedom here and abroad,
     for the helpless in Africa and elsewhere. It is all, in its way, so
     personal. And so national. He has breached the gap with private
     action: He not only talks about reform of federal law toward the
     disadvantaged, he hires people in trouble and trains them in his
     offices.

   One thing that's really starting to get on my nerves: Can we please
   stop referring to politicians who are publicly opposed to gay marriage
   as if they were being brave and taking a political risk? Such a stance
   may get you into hot water at certain cocktail parties and
   rubber-chicken dinners, but voters have demonstrated in state after
   state that they concur with it.
   Anyway, the things Noonan discusses--Santorum's prankish sense of
   humor, his genuine gratitude at the support he gets, his concern for
   the Casey family as human beings, his personal efforts to help
   individuals in straitened circumstances become self-sufficient--are
   all wonderful. They speak well of the man. But we're not voting for a
   church choir director.
   Santorum genuinely does seem to voice his beliefs more candidly than
   most senators; but then, who wouldn't look like a straight-shooter
   next to Arlen Specter? Speaking of Specter, Jacob Sullum [3]hasn't
   forgotten that Santorum supported him in the last primary against
   challenger Pat Toomey (an odd choice for someone who's restoring
   principledness to the GOP). Additionally...

     I realize social conservatives are a big part of NR's audience, but
     Miller offers economic conservatives, the other major component of
     Frank Meyer's grand fusion, little reason to root for Santorum,
     aside from the fact that he supported welfare reform (so did Bill
     Clinton) and "has served as a leader" on Social Security, which
     seems to mean he favors Bush-style baby steps toward "personal"
     (not "private") retirement accounts. On the down side, he opposed
     NAFTA, supported steel tariffs, and considers Bush's immigration
     reforms "too lax."

   And Sullum didn't even mention the $20 million-ish in federal money
   Santorum scored for farmland preservation in the commonwealth.
   My point here isn't that Santorum is a closet social democrat, or even
   that he's been a bad senator on balance. My point is just that going
   off the deep end and portraying him as an implacable opponent of
   federal waste and mission creep is ridiculous. He plays the game just
   like his ninety-nine colleagues, and it's condescending for
   opinion-shapers to cherry-pick his record in the hopes of convincing
   us otherwise.

References

   1. http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110009185
   2. http://gayorbit.net/?p=5848
   3. http://reason.com/blog/show/116323.html