Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Rick Santorum

The son of Italian immigrants, an in-your-face Catholic, and a staunch social conservative, Rick Santorum is certainly a unique candidate. While most of the field would rather not deal with social issues typically championed by the GOP, he embraces them and makes them the highlight of his campaign. Currently, he is battling with Romney for the lead in the primary race, while staving off renewed support for Gingrich. With that in mind, let's look at his stance on the issues.

#1: The Economy: He promises a lot. And it all makes good, old-fashioned business sense. He plans to cut the corporate tax rate in half to 17.5%. As I have asked of practically every other candidate, why? Where does the arbitrariness come from? Why not set it at 0%? The good thing about it is that he takes a cue from the best congressman in office, Paul Ryan, when he states that it will be a flat tax. No more loopholes for Big Business.

The best part of his plan is the budget cuts for the federal government:
I’ll propose spending cuts of $5 trillion over 5 years, including spending cuts for the remainder of fiscal year 2013. I will propose budgets that spend less money each year than the year before, and I’ll reduce the non-defense related federal workforce at least 10 percent, without replacing with contractors. 
That is change we can all believe in, eh? I mean, it matches Ron Paul, the extreme fiscal conservative as far as spending cuts go.

One part that should be troubling to anyone paying attention, though, is his idea of making Social Security and Medicare so that they are "fiscally sustainable." In a country where children are making up a smaller and smaller portion of the population, this is pretty much impossible. I'll be interested to see just how exactly this comes about.

#2: Immigration: Santorum takes a tough-on-immigration stance. He proposes securing the border first, asking questions later. While this is a wonderful plan as far as national security is concerned, it sort of puts a damper on our relations with Mexico, whose government we should be wholeheartedly supporting. In addition to extending the border fence, he wants to implement an E-verify system, so that companies can make sure that they are not hiring illegals, and the government will have an easier job enforcing the law. Anytime the government says it wants to increase identification measures in the interest of enforcing the laws, run. Run far, far away. At least the E-verify system has little support in Congress, so it isn't realistically going to come into being. Other than this, he pretty much states the party line on other facets of immigration.

#3: National Security: His views on national security are inextricably tied to American Exceptionalism. He takes a strong stance against the ideology of radical Islam, saying we should deal with it like we dealt with communism under Reagan, yet he acknowledges that it is perfectly acceptable to work with Muslim nations, as long as we point out their flaws.

He also takes a particularly strong position on Iran saying that if Israel doesn't remove their nuclear facilities, we'll do it ourselves. Obviously, the US hasn't been this belligerent toward a country since 2003, and this always means war. Whether or not we can launch a military strike against Iran without kicking off a  regional-, or maybe a global-war is for the experts to say, but everyone can agree it is risky at best.

There is nothing wrong with condemning war-mongering countries as long as we don't participate in it ourselves. If Iran continues on their collision course with world stability, those countries in a position to do something about it should. Until then, threats of military strikes should be left for pundits.

#4: The Constitution: While siding with the non-Paulites in the campaign by not making the Constitution an issue in his message, he has taken the wise road of encouraging a strong moral standard in culture. Too many times do politicians hem and haw over the question of morality, often taking a totally different ethical stance personally than they preach publicly (Enter Gingrich), Santorum is the exception to this rule. He bravely holds the social conservative line, defending traditional marriage and the dignity of all human life. When America's leaders are openly discussing these things, there is hope yet for the country. A belief system identical to the Founders' will mean a return to the pro-Constitution values that are desperately needed in this day and age.

In conclusion, Santorum is a candidate who easily wins the American heartland with his free-market economics and conservative ethics. The problem with this is that he can be a tad over-zealous when enforcing the law, which leads to the same thinking that lead to the Patriot Act and the NDAA. The trick for winning the nomination for him will be broadening his appeal by emphasizing his economic policy. All things considered, he probably makes the most ideal Republican candidate in the field.

7 comments:

  1. How does he compare to Ron Paul? Its been thought that Ron Paul can't get much done, but he has the moral high ground with his Constitutional knowledge. Santorum doesn't. What think?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Basically, the comparison with Ron Paul comes from his promise to reduce the federal budget by $1 trillion dollars every year, which Ron Paul also promises to do. As far as moral high ground goes, Ron Paul does not support socially conservative policies, while Santorum does.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Socially Conservative policies like what?

    ReplyDelete
  4. DOMA, Ban on abortion, Continued ban of narcotics, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ban of narcotics? How do you justify that from a moral standpoint? Soft drinks are bad for you, do you think Santorum should ban soft drinks? Alcohol? Tobacco?

    RP realizes that the role of Government is not to force everyone to have good habits. See the clip from his 1988 campaign at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi1nxu-Sy-w :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. "As far as moral high ground goes, Ron Paul does not support socially conservative policies, while Santorum does."

    Why do you equate moral high ground solely with SOCIALLY conservative policies?

    The same God who said "Thou shalt not kill" also said "Thou shalt not steal".

    Do you think that Santorum has the "moral high ground" even though he stole $528 Million taxpayer dollars to build a tunnel to two sports arenas in exchange for an endorsement from a union? See http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/santorums-tunnel-and-federal-transportation-policy/

    Speaking of socially conservative policies, what do you think of his endorsement of Spector over another much stronger pro-life Senator?

    He has justified it because he supposedly struck a deal with Spector to get pro-life Supreme Court nominees through Spectors committee, but that explanation fails when you consider that Santorum voted for Sonia Sotomayor, the liberal judge who is now a Supreme Court Justice.

    Even Romney opposed Spector, but Santorum went so far as to air TV ads on his behalf (see http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/which-republican-presidential-candidate-supported-sotomayor/ for the full story).

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Nathan: A ban on narcotics isn't important because they are bad for you, it is important because they are dangerous to those around you, the same cannot be said for soft drinks. Anything said about a politician 'stealing' money can't really stand because of (1)representation, his constituency fairly elected him and (2) it created 4,000 jobs. As for pro-life issues, RP fails to admit that the Federal government should even have a say in the matter. Finally, on the Sotomayor issue, it is ridiculously hard to predict a judge's performance before confirmation, and this was in 1998, so she has had 14 more years to show her cards.

    ReplyDelete

Hey guys! Feel free to comment, but any profane/obscene comments *will* be deleted.