Jennifer Rubin is alarmed that Rick Santorum is getting so much traction in the Republican primaries. She says that he’s not conservative, but a reactionary. To prove her case, she quotes Rick Santorum explaining the precise doctrine of the Catholic Church on birth control and conjugal love. If there is a problem with Santorum, it’s not that he’s confused about the teachings of the Church. His problem is that he wants to impose those teachings on all of us through the American legal system.
Most Catholics don’t follow the teachings of the Church on birth control and conjugal love, but I don’t know if you want to go around calling those who do ‘reactionaries’ or denying them their right to call themselves ‘conservatives.’ In any case, I’d think a Washington Post columnist might want to be a little more careful to distinguish Santorum’s beliefs from his political platform. She makes an effort, but this doesn’t quite get it done, in my opinion:
Santorum is reactionary in his discomfort with women working outside the home (other than his own working mother, presumably), who he claims were bamboozled by greed or “radical feminists” into seeking fulfillment and equality in the workplace. He is reactionary in declaring that women in the military are fit only to “fly small planes,” but not take on the duties they have been assuming under battlefield conditions for years. He is reactionary in telling women (married ones, even!) that contraception is harmful to them.
Unlike a think tanker or pundit who wants to elucidate the adverse impact of social trends, he is running for president where, through policy and the bully pulpit, he intends to wage war on post-1960 America.
I’d probably be more sympathetic to Rubin’s concerns if I thought there was a whiff of difference between Santorum’s social conservatism and the rest of the party’s. Okay, there’s a pontifical scent to Santorum that doesn’t hover around the ravings of Michele Bachmann or Tom Coburn, but their positions are largely the same. The only movement conservative I see who doesn’t want to roll everything back to 1960 is Ron Paul, who wants to roll things back to 1912.
Hmm. I don’t understand your problem with this. I think reactionary is a great description of Santorum.
Sure. It’s also a great word for Romney or Gingrich or Ron Paul.
I can’t wait to hear Rubin’s latest outrage now that Mittens is trying to pander to what ever UAW members are GOPers. See here:
Romney: `Labor Unions Play An Important Role In Our Society’
I don’t see where she’s excluding them from the label. Santorum just makes the most obvious example. I’ve had a problem for a long time with calling the likes of the current Clown Car “conservatives”, since even Nixon wouldn’t recognize the bulk of their rhetoric. Reactionary is the proper description for the whole Republican Party/Right Wing.
It is tiresome to see TheReactionaries treat politics like religion. They seem to assume that they can wander off the reservation all week long and as long as they confess/confer with the Sunday bunch they will be forgiven and can restart again each Monday with a clean slate to fill with another rash of crazed stories.
And they treat religion like politics. It’s the kind of crap that turned me off organized religion for good.
.
Of course the Catholic teachings were covered in your earlier fp story, however I found this interesting reading in The Forward…
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
Rubin is against anything that might limit the amount of cannon fodder available for unending war in the Middle East.
They’re gay-hating, woman-hating, modernity-hating motherfuckers, that’s why. I don’t mind asshole Catholics–I leave that to my Catholic friends–but those shitbird sanctimonious Jews make me want to regrow my foreskin.
The only movement conservative I see who doesn’t want to roll everything back to 1960 is Ron Paul, who wants to roll things back to 1912.
I’m actually starting to wonder when the real libertarians are going to decide that the Constitution was a mistake and start calling for a return to the Articles of Confederation. After all, the very first power the Constitution grants Congress is the power to lay and collect taxes, which it didn’t have under the Articles of Confederation. I’m sure Ron Paul would love that.
Real libertarians want to roll it all back to Clan of the Cave Bear.
LOL
Daryl Hannah in her cave woman outfit could be a great ad theme for them, at least in the young male demographic.
Leave Rick Santorum aloooone !
Do I have to make a U-Tube video to make this clear ?
It would not be pretty. Have to make a trip to Bev-Mo for the requisite Irish Whiskey to accomplish the necessary Salubrious Legubrious. But it could happen. So be warned.
Can you not see that it is God’ swill that Rick be the anointed one ?
Mysterious ways, to be sure. But it is written. And consider who wrote it. Just stand back, do not interfere, let it happen.
Then, then, only then…
Will some canny interviewer ask the Nominee (savor the word, “nominee”) how he views John F. Kennedy’s vision of the separation of Church and State. It will be for Rick to disclose what a Godless Apostateist JFK was ! And that is but one of the multifarious ways God’s Word will be revealed through Rick, our own Jeremiah, Prophet in his own land, speaker of the speech, truthiness to Godlessness.
Do not stand in His way !
No doubt the Angel Moroni begs to differ.
So what’s the problem here? Are we indulging in the great liberal game of “our words are so important they must be perfect”?
Fuck ’em. Shit still stinks and so does the clown car review. Reactionary sounds about right to me, and even if its wrong who gives a tinkers dam?
I think the cynic’s definition of reactionary is anyone who is to the right of me.
The devil talk from Santorum is really wonderful. And he’s handling it really well I think. There’s an interesting post at dkos about how having to dissemble about the Satan talk is an opportunity for Rick.
I agree, if he can simultaneously let the fundies know he’s gone there, but also play the victim for the national media, he’s golden. It’s one thing to talk god. But talking Satan is what separates the men from the boys.