Skip to main content
Well, it sure looks like the regular folks in the GOP are lining up behind Rick Santorum. We know that I'm totally sold out on Santorum. I love him. No, seriously. You may be saying to yourself, "What would make an anti-authoritarian libertarian ideologue who couldn't even stomach McCain vote for Mr. Big Government Santorum?" I'm glad you asked. This is the best I can do, so here goes: There are two kinds of "establishment" candidates; the first kind rankles any normal person who can lay legitimate claim to having a conservative thought. He's the kind of candidate whose version of balance and electability is to capitulate to Democratic/socialist/progressive ideology only in part and in completely random fashion, such that one's own supporters want to strangle one. (McCain fits here, but in his defense, 2000 McCain was 1000 times worse than the 2008 version.) Think Nixon or Ford. People that provoke rightist third parties, and cause barely literate narcissist peanut farmers to be elected president. If you want to know which person this is, ask the voters of the Democratic party who they prefer. You don't want to be that guy. Even if you win the nomination, your supporters sit at parties saying, "Who are the stupid %^&%&! who voted for this guy?" and "This is why primaries should never be open." This year, that man is Romney. Ironically, last time, he got to be The Last-Ditch Hope against McCain. I never got that, but OK. With apologies to Tim, he may never understand how disliked McCain really is. He may even be genuine in his affection. But he's the epitome of why I am unashamed to be an ideologue. (See also Lugar, Richard; Hagel, Chuck; and Chaffee, Lincoln for some non-presidential examples.)
But there is one other type of establishment candidate who satisfies the needs of winning and governing pragmatically without alienating core supporters. You know he's not ideal or that you don't line up with him, but at the end of the day, he's one of ours. Such a man is very skilled, because he can explain himself without making you feel crazy or stupid if you disagree. This is Santorum. You tell me: Is it easier to move Santorum more conservative if the need arises, or is he at heart one who craves liberal acceptance? That's what I thought. The New Republic likes Romney. They think he'll win, too. That's all I need to know. I'll take Santorum's breaks from economic conservatism any day. In the end, he's not a statist, even if he plays the populist. And the next president gets 2 Supreme Court picks, minimum. You tell me: Would he lose re-election for the sake of defenseless babies? That's what I thought. Scalia may retire, but Breyer and Ginsburg definitely will. Justice Kennedy isn't long for this deal, either. It's 4-5 on abortion right now. Don't even try to tell me you wouldn't take a shot if it was your call. Romney's not at all certain to appoint pro-life judges. Gingrich can't win. Any questions?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un