Rick Santorum, Class Act

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303815404577336030654905246.html

Rick Santorum dropped out of the Republican Presidential race Tuesday, having enhanced his political reputation and forced Mitt Romney to become a better candidate. Not bad for someone who few beyond his own family gave much of a chance of getting past Iowa, much less to April.

Mr. Santorum outlasted everyone who was thought to be Mr. Romney's main competition to become the chief conservative alternative. He did so in large part with a forthright appeal to religious conservatives that was both a strength and weakness.

The pitch helped the Catholic from western Pennsylvania win support from self-identified evangelical Christians who are a huge chunk of the GOP base, especially in the South. Mr. Santorum galvanized those voters in a way no one else did, and his success reminded GOP elites how important those voters are to the party's success. Mr. Romney will need them in November. …

Mr. Santorum nonetheless deserves credit for making Mr. Romney lift his performance and improve his platform. Mr. Santorum's overarching theme of restoring American freedom had more resonance than Mr. Romney's recitation of his resume, and the likely GOP nominee has since picked up some of Mr. Santorum's words if not the music.

The Pennsylvanian was also by far the most effective Republican critic of RomneyCare. When he stood on stage in a debate and took apart the Massachusetts health law as a prototype for ObamaCare, Mr. Romney realized he couldn't coast to the nomination. That's when the former Massachusetts Governor came out with his own tax cut and tax reform plan to appeal to economic conservatives. …

Among the major candidates, Mr. Santorum ran the least negative campaign, and by leaving now he will let Mr. Romney focus his attention and monetary resources on Mr. Obama. Mr. Santorum also departs before the April 24 Pennsylvania primary, where a defeat in his home state would have tarnished his 2012 achievement. There are no consolation prizes in Presidential politics, but if Mr. Romney does win in November, Mr. Santorum's strong run will be part of the victory story.

“The best argument the GOP nominee will have for a win in November”

This article by Daniel Henninger speaks not only of the “electability” of Rick Santorum, but suggests he should stay in the race because the force of his argument against Obamacare/Romneycare is “the best argument the GOP nominee will have for a win in November”.

Here are a few selections:

America's long-slog presidential campaigns are a process of discovery. Candidates, voters and the press criss-cross a complex nation trying to discover where the public mind will be the first Tuesday in November. No candidate has had a more interesting journey through 2012's campaign frontier than Rick Santorum.

Few are going to forget Sen. Santorum in the early debates, stuck in the left-field bleachers, begging to be heard over such center-ring heavyweights as Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Herman Cain. In August, no one thought this guy would be toe-to-toe with the Romney machine in March. What happened?

I went to Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, Monday to find out….

He's doing something right, and what one learned in Cuyahoga Falls, an Akron suburb, is that it doesn't have much to do with the famous Santorum controversies over social issues. It's about ObamaCare. And it's about the idea of freedom.

What Mr. Santorum has discovered in this campaign is that for a large number of voters, a connection has surfaced between Barack Obama's economic policies and the issue of personal freedom. The potency of the latter is what's new, and a vulnerability for this presidency.

 Rick Santorum has linked these concerns about the status of personal freedom directly to ObamaCare and beyond that to the broader policy legacy of Obama administration.

His 35-minute speech in Cuyahoga Falls touched an array of subjects that drew applause. But at the halfway point, when he tore into ObamaCare, his mostly working-class audience exploded into applause and cries of "Rick! Rick! Rick!"

Mr. Santorum didn't get this response by discussing health-insurance exchanges and guaranteed issue. He told these people that ObamaCare "is usurping your rights. It is creating a culture of dependency. Every single American will be dependent on government, thanks to ObamaCare. There is no more important issue in this race. It magnifies all that is wrong with what this president is trying to do." His call for repeal produced the explosion.

Does it make upper-middle class, suburban independents uncomfortable to see that Mr. Santorum's working-class audiences push back by yelling "freedom"? Perhaps, but maybe it's also true that upscale voters have their own way of describing the Obama-era unease.

Their less rustic version is finding its way into votes for Mitt Romney. Alas, Mr. Romney is the only GOP candidate who won't or can't deploy on his own behalf that one powerful, damning word Barack Obama doesn't want to hear: mandate.

Rick Santorum should stay in the race, repeating from now till summer the perverse link between the ObamaCare mandate and the American idea of freedom. It looks like the best argument the GOP nominee will have for a win in November.

We, the people, and our long-term infrastructure

An article by Katrina vanden Heuvel (posted at RealClearPolitics.com) caught my eye. And it has something to do with the way we define “conservative” and “liberal” these days. Vanden Heuvel’s article challenges “the self-made myth”, the notion that, if there were just “lower taxes, less regulation and small government”, that each and every one of us could realize “the American dream”.

To some extent, each of these is a worthy thing to work for. A reduced tax burden, especially the indiscriminate, across-the-board lowering of taxes that Reagan accomplished, puts more money in people’s pockets and gives impetus to consumers to spend more and to businesses to invest, expand, and hire more. Less regulation means less government meddling, which is both costly and distracting. And overall, reducing the size of (and the cost of) government (which doesn’t produce anything, but frequently only meddles), is the way to “pay” for those lower taxes.

That said,

Santorum's Economic Program

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203918304577243133837070396.html

Santorum Sweeps Missouri, Minnesota, Colorado; Romney Campaign Plays Down Nonbinding Contests

No doubt y’all have already seen this.

There's a reason why Santorum is still standing at this point

And that reason is, he's a smart, hard-working politician. He knows the system, and he knows how to use the system to his advantage, and he knows how to "get things done" within it.

You may or may not like what he "gets done", but he's been the #3 Republican in the Senate, and for all of those who are inclined to call him a RINO, I'd suggest that Santorum is the genuine article. That is, he has been in power -- he has dealt with genuine political power in the United States [as has Newt Gingrich] -- has made things happened, has influenced the real government that makes laws and regulations. And that those who call him a "RINO" are really out of touch with the real world.

* * *

Rick Santorum stepped onto the political scene in 1990 with a textbook campaign. As an unknown, 32-year-old lawyer (I believe), he gave up his job, and spent about eight months doing nothing but walking door-to-door, handing out brochures and meeting people, in a suburban western PA district. And thanks to his unusual campaign style, he was able to defeat a popular and entrenched seven-term Democratic congressman. I think that by 1990, the Democrats had controlled the House of Representatives for something like 40 years (including during the Reagan years), before young Republicans like Santorum started doing their thing in the early 1990's.

He's doing that same thing this year, on a much larger scale. He's spent the last year walking door-to-door and seemingly visiting every Republican in Iowa, precisely with the intention of making a showing there and, as Charles Krauthammer says today, generating "millions of dollars’ worth of free media to make up for his lack of money."

Some may say that's too little too late against a well-organized, well-financed Romney campaign. And that's perfectly understandable. But as I said yesterday, Romney seems to have a ceiling of 20-25%, and that other 60% is a pretty big pool of votes he can draw from, with virtually no other "conservative" competition.

Krauthammer continues: Santorum has "got the stage to make his case, plus the luck of a scheduling quirk: If he can make it through the next three harrowing primaries, the (relative) February lull would allow him to build a national campaign structure before Super Tuesday on March 6.

* * *

In response to my post on George Will on Rick Santorum, one commenter named Craig said this:

If your conscience tells you to vote for Santorum, then you should follow your conscience.

At the end of his comments, he said further:

When I said I will not vote for Santorum, that is my decision. I'm choosing to vote for a candidate based on principle rather than on the "lesser of two evils" philosophy. I am choosing to vote FOR something rather than AGAINST something.

I don't want to comment on his dislike for Santorum. I can understand why people wouldn't like Rick Santorum. But I think this type of attitude is very short-sighted, and I think this presents an opportunity to talk about "what America is" and "how things work in America." Rick Santorum may win or lose, but I believe he's playing very smart and effective politics in what is a highly difficult, "settled", and otherwise lackluster environment. He knows what America *really* is, compared with what some people imagine it to be, or wish it to be.

To Craig's first point, I think we should have other reasons for voting, other than conscience. I am not sure that a "concience" vote is all that politically expedient. It can make you a perennial loser. And I think that is one reason why someone like Ron Paul can gain a very small but enthusiastic following. Ron Paul is articulating some very fine principles, but I don't know that he's a smart politician.

But further, I think vast swatches of "conservativism" are subjected to this insular line of thinking that stands on "principle" and yet avoids "realpolitik". You need both in the world as it is today. To paraphrase Steve, "they're not playing tiddly-winks out there".

* * *

Craig then posted the following video of Judge Napolitano and David Boaz of the Cato Institute. It opens with a quote from Santorum from a recent radio interview:



Here's the quote that appeared at the beginning of the video. In criticizing "the libertarianish right," Santorum says:

They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I am aware of, where we've had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.

Napolitano then says, "There is such a society, it's called the United States of America". He goes on to call Santorum "No friend to those who believe in the constitution. No friend to those who believe in fiscal conservativism. No friend to those who believe in small government."

Boaz then goes on to say that "Rick Santorum dislikes the fundamental idea of America".

We can all discuss "the fundamental idea of America" until we're blue in the face, but it won't win an election. And the kind of kind of over-the-top criticism in this video may be good TV for "libertarians and tea partiers and constitutionalists", but it is not going to win a Presidential election in a country that has two highly-populated left coasts.

First, this kind of language is just hyperbole. It is hurtful. It's impossible to say that Santorum is "no friend" to any of these groups. I doubt that any of these groups, "those who believe in the constitution, those who believe in fiscal conservativism, those who believe in small government" will not, in the real world, find a politician in power who's more sympathetic to their concerns than is someone like Santorum.

He is certainly more of a friend than Obama would be, and probably much more of a friend than Romney.

But Santorum adds a dimension that individuals like Napolitano and Boaz don't have: he is in this to win. He knows what it takes to get elected, and once elected, he knows what it takes to get things done. He is engaging in politics at the highest political level.

A president isn't elected in a vacuum. He's got to jostle with the other "powers that be" both in Washington and in the broader world.

I think it's fair to say that, especially among readers of this blog, we all want to limit the role of government, to lower taxes, and to have a secure national defense. How you actually accomplish those things is another story. Santorum is not necessarily going to echo your concerns precisely in this area. I'd venture to say that, as similar as readers of this blog may be in their sentiments, no two of them will agree precisely in everything.

But if you want to move in a particular direction, having a sympathetic President in power will do more for these causes than having either Obama in power, or a Ron Paul figure out of power.

* * *

Craig then went on to say:

Santorum has voted in favor of gun control legislation, he has voted to increase taxes, he has voted to expand the government (in favor of establishing the Department of Homeland Security, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D), he has voted numerous times in favor of foreign aid, and of course, he voted for the Iraq war.

This is evidence of a person who knows how to work within the Washington system and to get things done.

President Santorum would not address the debt crisis and would continue to spend us into oblivion, and he will take us into war with Iran. I don't see how this will help our country, and personally, I will stay home on election night before casting my vote for Rick Santorum if he is the Republican nominee.

Politics, it has been said, is "the art of what's possible". Look at some of what Santorum is campaigning for:

As he campaigned in New Hampshire, which holds its GOP primary Tuesday, Mr. Santorum spoke of plans to revive blue-collar communities. His speeches were peppered with memories of his coal-miner grandfather, along with details about his plans to revive U.S. manufacturing. For many voters, it added a new dimension to a candidate known as an opponent of abortion and gay marriage.

"A lot of blue collar workers have been left behind in America," Mr. Santorum said Thursday in Manchester. Later, at a campaign event in Tilton, he said his family and his friends' families had worked in factories. To a man who asked about manufacturing workers "sitting at home,'' Mr. Santorum replied: "My plan is 'Made in America.'"

To spur job growth, he would not only cut corporate tax rates in half but eliminate the tax entirely for manufacturers, as well as for corporations that use overseas profits to buy manufacturing equipment. At a diner in Tilton, N.H., Mr. Santorum said Thursday his goal was to resuscitate Rust Belt communities like the one where he was raised in Western Pennsylvania.

"People say, 'Well, you are just doing it for political purposes.' But no, I'm doing it because that's where I grew up," he said.

Mr. Santorum's economic message was aimed at the type of Republican voters who were Democrats until former President Ronald Reagan drew them into the GOP. And his proposals resonated with some voters.

That's not a program that's going to please everybody. But it's one that would move things in the right direction. And unlike some of Ron Paul's vague economic proposals, at least we know that Santorum would know how to work to implement these sorts of things.