Political Animal
Blog
Now that Rick Santorum is having his moment—and it may be no more than a moment—as the latest asprirant to the role of True Conservative Alternative To Mitt Romney, it’s not a bad time to take a more serious look at the guy—more serious, perhaps, than the mockery he so richly earned from Dan Savage and many others.
Readers of the Washington Monthly don’t have to look very far. Bill Galston (disclosure: he’s a friend and mentor, and also co-editor, with Stan Greenberg and Ruy Teixeira, of The Democratic Strategist, the web-site I manage) reviewed Santorum’s book It Takes A Family for the Monthly six years ago this month, and the review remains interesting reading.
As Galston noted back then, Santorum was seeking to impose on American conservatism a type of old-school Catholic social and political philosophy, rooted in the concept of subsidiarism, that is alien to the constitutional tradition and the distinctive American attachment to individualism. But as Galston also noted, Santorum wasn’t especially loyal to his own purported tradition insofar as he seemed completely blind to the destructive impact of market capitalism on families and the other voluntary social bonds he so lavishly praised. Moreover, in deifying the traditional family and seeking government support for its perpetuation, Santorum failed to distinguish that institution’s own manifest shortcomings. The review’s conclusion is succinct:
In the end, Santorum does not have the courage of his convictions. The logic of his argument should lead him to conclude that parents are not free to raise and educate their children in ways that undermine universal moral truths and socially essential virtues. He shrinks from this conclusion, I suspect, because he understands that his fellow citizens would never accept it. Yet, his premises point straight toward the ultimate concentration of state power we call theocracy. Nothing could be farther from the intention of the Framers in whose name Santorum claims to speak.
Galston nails the incoherent quality of Santorum’s “thinking” that leads hammer-headed conventional conservatives like Erick Erickson to label him a “pro-life statist.” They have to point to votes for earmarks and No Child Left Behind to justify their unease with him, but they rightly feel he’s not One of Them, which makes his current “surge” all the more a sign of the abiding power of theocratic impulses in the conservative movement.
Aside from giving us insights into the ideology, such as it is, of Rick Santorum, Galston’s review is also a reminder of the value of the Washington Monthly as a regular outlet—increasingly rare these days—for political book reviews. I’m proud to have contributed a number of them over the years, and think it’s some of the best stuff I’ve ever written. If you for some reason don’t read the Monthly’s book reviews, you are really missing something, as would everyone if this publication were not around.
Facebook
Twitter
chi res on December 30, 2011 12:23 PM:
But "frothy mix" is so much more...VISUAL.
c u n d gulag on December 30, 2011 12:24 PM:
"...it’s not a bad time to take a more serious look at the guy..."
EEWWWWW!
No thank you!
I'm not a Proctologist.
I've never even played one on TV.
And, I won't ever stay in a Holiday Inn if someone might confuse me for one.
Ed,
I'll be leaving for most of the afternoon, so I wanted to take this time to thank you for guest-hosting for Steve.
You were great!
Interesting, funny, and, most surprisingly - prolific! That's not easy.
And a "good" prolific, not in a prolific for prolificity's (prolificities?), ah, hell - prolific for the sake of being prolific.
Thank you again - it was a genuine pleasure to read you!
Oh, and lest I forget - Happy New Year to you!
And, because one never knows what may happen, do one?
Happy New Year to Everyone!!!!!!!!!!!
Chris on December 30, 2011 12:29 PM:
I'm a college graduate and currently working on a graduate degree. I'm a liberal, relatively well read, and a Steve Benen addict...in part because his writing style is so accessible. So, I hope that I don't come across as anti-intellectual, but I have only a vague idea what the italicized portion of following paragraph means, and to the extent that I understand it, I don't think I agree...
"As Galston noted back then, Santorum was seeking to impose on American conservatism a type of old-school Catholic social and political philosophy, rooted in the concept of subsidiarism, that is alien to the constitutional tradition and the distinctive American attachment to individualism. But as Galston also noted, Santorum wasn't especially loyal to his own purported tradition insofar as he seemed completely blind to the destructive impact of market capitalism on families and the other voluntary social bonds he so lavishly praised. Moreover, in deifying the traditional family and seeking government support for its perpetuation, Santorum failed to distinguish that institution's own manifest shortcomings."
Contrary to assertions coming from the right, liberalism is not mutually exclusive with being pro-market capitalism and pro-family. For example, pro-single payer is not the same as being anti-capitalism and pro-gay rights is not the same as opposing traditional family values. Therefore, I hate to see any progressive reinforce these false claims and absorb their rhetorical devices as factual.
Forgive me if I misunderstood.
susan on December 30, 2011 12:49 PM:
I fail to understand how anyone fails to see that there is little if any daylight between this guy and a Taliban mullah (other than the headgear, perhaps) and how the theocratic regime that he envisions is fundamentally any different from the Sharia law that he and his ilk spend so much time railing against.
anytime I actually listen to the policies that he is espousing I recoil in horror, as should any thinking citizen.
Ed on December 30, 2011 1:03 PM:
Thanks for the props, and a Happy New Year to you as well!
martin on December 30, 2011 1:06 PM:
Proving susan correct, from today's Washington Times:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/29/santorum-willing-throw-bombs-are-needing-be-thrown/
Speaking to reporters in Coralville, Mr. Santorum said he alone among the candidates mixes an outsider’s zeal with the ability to get things done on the inside in Washington, and he said he is willing “to throw the bombs when bombs need to be thrown.”
Bombthrowing Zealot. Oh Goody
Ed on December 30, 2011 1:10 PM:
Oops, responded to C U N D Gulag's note, and didn't realize two other comments had gone up. To Chris, I apologize, but this was just a snippet from Galston's review, and I think the full review is more "accessible."
The term "subsidiarism" is not one Galston used; it's my own summary of the tradition he's talking about, which, in a sentence, holds that government should reinforce and not duplicate the role of "intermediary" voluntary institutions (family, church, guilds, community organizations, etc). It's a distinctively European concept, and one particularly beloved of early twentieth century right-wing Catholic thinkers, though some more recent conservatives (e.g., Robert Nisbet) have stressed it as well. It's also part of a tradition that is more than a little hostile to individualism, which it views as "atomistic" and anti-social.
Hope this helps.
chi res on December 30, 2011 1:44 PM:
@Chris
To put it in more simple language (which I always need!), subsidiarity has been defined as "the principle that first, close, and small trumps last, far and large when it comes to the fabric of civil society, governmental control and influence, and the structures of familial and communal support."
Seems to me that Galston/Kilgore are saying that, by ignoring some of the detrimental effects of the "larger" market forces on the "smaller" family unit, Santorum is being philosophically inconsistent for the sake of political expediency, i.e., an unwillingness to criticize even the worst parts of capitalism.
Like most republicans these days, Santorum has re-written Goldwater to read: "Extremism in the pursuit of political gain is no vice."
Giant Kid on December 30, 2011 1:48 PM:
The first thing that comes to mind whenever I see Santorum’s name is that ridiculous press conference he and Pete Hoekstra (remember him?) held back in 2006 claiming we found the WMD’s we went to war for in Iraq.
As I recall, the Department of Defense quickly debunked the claim (a claim Hannity repeats to this day)
thebewilderness on December 30, 2011 2:16 PM:
Santorum is one of Newties grifters. A review of Santorum's behavior during the years he was a member of the House demonstrates this quite clearly. His charity, his residence, scandals. Like so many of the self righteous he turned out to be a grifter wearing self righteousness as a shield.
Chris on December 30, 2011 2:17 PM:
Thanks Ed! I wasn't previously familiar with the term, and I had taken the time to look it up after coming across it in your post. Your explanation expands on what I read and helps a lot.
However, I was more concerned with the statements "the destructive impact of market capitalism on families" and "Santorum failed to distinguish that institution's [i.e., traditional families'] own manifest shortcomings..."
The general nature of these statements, as I said, seems to reinforce the false notion that the left is anti-free market and anti-family when I would argue that positions held by those of us on the left actually do more to strengthen markets and strengthen families (traditional families included) than positions held by the so-called "pro-markets/pro-family" right.
I might be nitpicking too much, and I guess my sensibilities are easily offended, but I always felt that we could frequently take much of what Republicans claim about themselves and accurately adopt such descriptions as the liberal perspective. In many cases, we support less government, states' rights, stronger families, free markets, judicial restraint, lower taxes, and the rest . They don't believe what they claim to believe (their mission is simply to enrich the rich), and we don't believe what they claim we believe. For example, one could make a very strong argument that the Occupy Movement is a pro-market/pro-family movement (free markets do not favor unearned income over earned income as our tax system does). We're pragmatists, they're demagogues. Let's turn their false rhetoric on it's proverbial head rather than absorbing and reinforcing their bogus characterizations of the left.
Ed Whitney on December 30, 2011 8:23 PM:
I looked up "subsidiarism" in the Oxford English Dictionary and in Webster's Third International (hard copies of both); neither had an entry. No luck with the Catholic Encyclopedia either. Any suggestions as to where else to look?