Monday, February 27, 2012

Some (Last?) Thoughts About Santorum

I found a lot to like in Andrew Sullivan's denunciation of Rick Santorum's theological conservatism. There were two things I thought were worth critically discussing. The first was his characterization of Santorum's faith:
he is not a man of questioning, sincere faith and should not be flattered as such. He is a man of the kind of fear that leads to fundamentalist faith, a faith without doubt and in complete subservience to external authority.
I like that "questioning, sincere faith" fits together as a phrase to Andrew -- I like people for whom this makes sense more than those for whom it doesn't. But I fear the latter are much more common than the former.

On a more tactical note, I wondered if anything like this actually works:
For now we can see in plain view the religious fanaticism that has destroyed one of the major parties in this country, a destruction that is perilous for any workable politics. It must be defeated - and not by electing a plastic liar and panderer like Romney. But by nominating Santorum and defeating him by such a margin that this theo-political Frankenstein, which threatens both genuine faith and civil politics, is dispatched once and for all.
Is this actually a dynamic that has any chance of working? If the Republican Party loses with Santorum, will the forces he represents really be dispatched? Or will Republicans dig themselves deeper into a hole of fanaticism and paranoia, inventing strange new theories that blame traitorous party moderates for the loss and continuing to nominate extremists? I'd expect Fox and Limbaugh to lead them the latter way.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter that much with Romney coasting towards the nomination, but I thought it was worth talking about. (Edit: maybe this sentence should sound less certain about Romney's chances -- I weary of predictions.)

3 comments:

Ron E. said...

It might work if Santorum lost to Obama by a Goldwater-esque landslide, but I don't see that happening. The economy just isn't strong enough. It's probably a wash between the voters Santorum would lose because of his theocracy and the voters Romney would lose because he's a Mormon and a ridiculous living, breathing caricature of the top 1%.

As you say, after losing the election GOP voters won't be reading David Brooks' bemoaning how extreme the GOP has become in the NYT anyway. They'll be listening to Rush and Hannity say it was because Romney/Santorum wasn't a true conservative and next time if they just nominate Jim Demint or whoever they'll win 70% of the vote.

It would probably take losing 3 or 4 consecutive Presidential elections before the GOP electorate would come around to the view that they needed to moderate their extremism.

CRS said...

The idea is that a crushing enough blow can render their narrative untellable, even to themselves.

Like you Neal, I don't know that it can. But Andrew is right that they can simple kick the issue down the field when Romney loses by yoking him with the "not conservative enough" lodestone.

Rush is a real problem for the Republicans. He has a direct interest in promoting extreme statements and the extreme extremists that make them. The man sells eyeballs (well, ear-holes) and doesn't really care about winning.

Don K said...

I'm with CRS. I wouldn't be surprised if Limbaugh makes more money when the Dems are in power. Kind of like environmental groups historically have gained members when Reps are President, and ideological magazines have gained circulation when the opposite ideology is in power.

And considering it took the British Labour party 15 years after losing to Thatcher to elect the electable Blair as leader, Ron E might be right that it could take 3 or 4 election losses for the Reps to come to their senses.