Santorum

The New Politics of Birth Control

Published on February 24, 2012 by KVSloan

By Kelly Sloan

If last fall someone had mentioned that, in a few months, American Presidential politics would be focused on the issue of contraception, I doubt very much whether that person would be asked to offer odds on much else. And yet, here we are in February, and the main topic of concern seems to be – birth control.

The issue is, of course, a contrived one, a fairly deliberate misdirection of the conversation by the Democrats, who were terribly uncomfortable with where the real conversation was heading, and the media, who craved the entertainment value.

And what was the real conversation? Well it was never about the merits or deficiencies of birth control exclusively. It arose from very well-founded concerns over a previously little-known section of the Affordable Care Act, in which the Department of Health and Human Services mandated that all health insurance plans include coverage for contraception and abortifacients. At issue was the fact that a business owned and operated by (to use the predominant example) Catholics, would be forced to purchase and offer health insurance plans which provided services to which they had serious moral and religious objections.

There are larger issues at stake here than ones opinion on contraception. The HHS mandate represents a direct affront to the perhaps most distinctly American virtue, freedom of religious expression, by dictating that the state can force one to violate his or her own most closely held moral convictions. There are instances where societal laws necessarily trump personal religious codes – prohibitions against female genital mutilation, administration of sharia-inspired punishments, and polygamy, for example; but the protection of individuals and the maintenance of established social order is a far cry from the state intervening to mandate moral transgressions. No one – at least not on the right — is talking about outlawing birth control, but about opposing its imposition.
The argument takes a couple twists. The first really goes beyond the particular issue of mandating contraceptives and abortifacients, and speaks to the general issue of government mandating much of anything. The core contention with Obamacare is the proposition that the government feels entitled to direct the decisions of individual businesses, the market, and individuals. In strictly economic terms, it is precisely the imposition by government in what should be market based decisions, of mandates on individual businesses and industries telling them what they need to provide, that has most directly contributed to the unnaturally high costs of health care. In broader terms, it is this sense of plenipotentiary authority on the part of the government that is at the heart of the Constitutional question that will ultimately place the fate of Obamacare into the hands of the Supreme Court.

Secondly, the HHS debacle, coupled with the ascendency of Rick Santorum in the GOP primary, has given rise to the whole question of the role of social issues in politics. Many of the so-called “social issues” — that the left keeps earnestly striving to proclaim dead, only to resurrect as a weapon when a conservative dares mention them – are inextricably linked to the wider conservative message of limited government. Aside from the crushing national debt that it has helped spawn, one of the most tragic products of the toxic marriage of moral liberalism and state compassion over the last half-century has been the creation of the closest thing to a static underclass that America has known since abolishing slavery – the very type of underclass that the policies that encouraged it were designed to eradicate.

The statistics bear out the reality – the poorest neighborhoods in the nation are the ones where the federal government has taken on the role of the family – parent, provider, educator, nurse. It is a role at which it is singularly unfit, and which in its execution serves only to perpetuate the misery it seeks to ease.

It is incumbent on conservatives to not pretend that these problems do not exist, or to deny their provenance. The insistence on a respect for the proper roles of the family, religion, and the state are not, as some would try to paint it, a call for a theocracy, but an appeal to keep government from exacerbating social problems, by preventing it from absorbing what ought to be the responsibilities of those segments of society best suited to both preemptively and reactively deal with them.

And this does not include a debate over the relative merits or evils of birth control. But it does involve a debate over what has been the result of several generations of enforced secularization and concurrent government expansion.

The Meaning of the Caucuses

Published on February 10, 2012 by KVSloan

By Kelly Sloan

It is easy to write caucuses off as irrelevant in the Presidential nomination process – and in a strictly practical sense they are, as no actual delegates to a national convention are actually secured. But caucuses and other non-binding referenda do nonetheless have a role to play, even beyond their much-acclaimed assignment as popular political barometer.

Rick Santorum dominated the stage Tuesday night, gathering victories in Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado, three states which hold caucuses; or in the case of Minnesota (a state known as much for its quirkiness as its excellent freshwater fishing opportunities and phenomenal snowdrifts), a non-binding primary.

There are a couple of reasons for Santorum’s strong finish; first, many rank and file Republicans are itching for a solid conservative to throw against Obama, in the mold of a Reagan or a Goldwater; Santorum seems to have successfully defined himself as that more conservative option to Mitt Romney. Newt Gingrich had, of course, tried to claim that mantle, but his unfiltered habit of communicating every thought that enters his (admittedly exceptional) mind, has most likely cost him that opportunity.
The main reason for Santorum’s victories stems from that; Republican voters in non-binding contests, such as caucuses, tend to choose the most conservative candidate on the menu. The nature of such contests afford voters the luxury of prioritizing principles and convictions over more strategic qualities which tend to fall under the umbrella category of “electability”.

Of course, conviction and electability are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and historically actually complement one another; nevertheless, voters, whose fear of a second Obama term may have otherwise trumped their concerns over Romney’s fealty to conservative principles, tend to feel more liberated to put their hand up for a candidate on strictly ideological grounds when they know in the back of their minds that their decision carves nothing in stone.

So what, then, might last Tuesdays events, commonly derided as “beauty contests”, actually accomplish, beyond consigning newly selected delegates to state and county conventions to a merciless deluge of haranguing by various candidates and candidate committees?

Non-binding or not, the caucuses serve as a campaign’s evaluation tool; a way for a candidate to officially ask “how am I doing?”

The answer, in Mitt Romney’s case, is “you could be doing better”.

Tuesday’s results show that many Republicans are not yet fully convinced of Romney’s conservative bona fides. And given his overly-cautious approach to the issues, it is difficult at times to blame them.

The lesson Romney ought to absorb from this is that an enthusiastic projection of core conservative principles is required to earn the nomination. The results should force Romney to adopt a much bolder platform, one that offers comprehensive and systemic entitlement reform, specific program and departmental cuts, aggressive tax overhaul, and a clear program for dismantling the administrative state that has developed over the past 50 years, and restoring the systems of checks and balances and federalism upon which this country was designed.

Romney also needs to assure Republicans that he really is a conservative on other fronts as well. His silence on one of the most potent issues of the day – the HHS mandate forcing individuals and organizations (most notably Catholics) to offer and purchase health care plans that violate their most closely held moral and religious codes – is not helping in this regard. This is a defining issue, which can unite conservatives, and others, in principled opposition; while the specifics of this case are socially moral questions – revolving around services such as abortion and contraception – the overarching offense transcends one’s personal views on those matters by attacking a fundamental pillar of the American system – the freedom of religion, and the right of an individual not to be forced to do something which violates his or her faith. It is an issue which a conservative ought to be chomping at the bit to engage.

Similarly, the 9th Circuit Court’s recent usurpation of the voters of California affords Romney the opportunity to address the topic of judicial activism – a critical subject since one of the most enduring and consequential responsibilities of the post he is applying for involves nominating supreme Court Justices.

In short, the primary system, including the caucuses, is performing as it should, shaping and honing the candidacies of those who would aspire to be entrusted with the chief executive position in the entity that remains civilizations greatest political and economic achievement. Should Romney choose to learn from the results – and I believe he is capable – the nomination can still be his. If not, Santorum has emerged as a worthy alternate.

Santorum Takes Energy-Conscious Mesa County

Published on February 8, 2012 by ReaganGirl

Former Senator Rick Santorum soundly beat Mitt Romney in the Mesa County Republican caucuses on Tuesday night with roughly 50% of the overall vote. At last count around 10 p.m. Romney was in second place with around 30% of the vote. Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich, at last count, were a distant third and fourth place within a close margin of one another.

Western Colorado enjoyed a whirlwind of presidential primary activity when, on Saturday, February 4th, Rick Santorum visited Montrose County, and on Monday the 6th, Mitt Romney held a rally in Mesa County. Both events were packed with enthusiastic crowds who listened intently to the remarks of the respective candidates.

Rick Santorum appears to have had an edge with Western Colorado voters because of his familys' roots in the mining industry. Santorum's father was a coal miner in the hills of Pennsylvania, and that background rings true with many in Western Colorado who have familial and economic ties to the mining industry, and other facets of the energy sector.

Timing and demographics may also have helped Senator Santorum to secure a win in Mesa County. The national news this week has been headlined by the Obama Administration's assault on the rights of Churches. The mandate coming from the White House which forces religious organizations to provide contraception in medical insurance plans to employees has fired up social conservatives across the country. And Rick Santorum is the quintessential social conservative candidate of 2012. Santorum is Catholic, and many of the more moderate and socially liberal Republicans have been reluctant to back him. But he appears to be the conservative champion of the moment, having a long history of opposing policies which intrude upon religious liberty, and which weaken families.

Western Colorado historically is more conservative in character than the Front Range, so Rick Santorum's win over the more moderate Romney is not terribly surprising to those who live on the Western Slope. However, political pundits seem to be quite surprised, having claimed just days ago that Mitt Romney's win in Nevada signaled an inevitable Romney nomination.

The primaries and caucuses in Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado are a game changer for Rick Santorum. Any way you look at it, the Republican primaries are wide open. Mesa County is full of free-thinking, independent, self-reliant voters who can be unpredictable at times. It appears that the entire primary process of 2012 has a lot in common with Mesa County.

New Hampshire and the Evolving Role of the Candidates

Published on January 15, 2012 by KVSloan

Mitt Romney’s grip on the Republican nomination for President tightened a bit more last Tuesday with his solid win in the New Hampshire Primary election. This was somewhat historic, as many have pointed out, in that this is the first time in many years that a candidate has won both the Iowa caucus and the nation’s first primary. Completing the political Triple Crown by winning South Carolina may be tougher, but all indications at this early stage are of a virtual Romney sweep.

While it remains too early to officially bestow the “nominee” title to Romney, and too naïve to suggest that his candidacy has earned widespread acceptance (much less garnered excitement) among Republicans, it is worth noting that he won all demographic groups in New Hampshire, with the exception of the hedonistic 18-29 year olds who, bristling as they do at the thought of any moral constraints, supported libertarian Ron Paul.

The theme now mostly revolves around the disposition of the “second tier” (meaning “Not Romney”) candidates. All will stay in the race for the time being, banking their hopes on South Carolina, which will be the next sieve they go through. But barring a major development that propels one of them into actual contender status, the role of the other candidates has shifted somewhat from trying to capture the nomination, into one of shaping the narrative and the eventual nominee.
Take Rick Santorum for instance. He had a real chance at one point; had he taken the opportunity early on to assure himself that his social conservative reputation ably preceded him, and had come out strongly, almost exclusively, on foreign policy and economic issues, chances are fair to middling that the nomination could have been his to lose.. It was a unique luxury afforded nearly to him alone among the candidates.

It may be too late for that now. But Santorum still has a role to play in the process, in ensuring that one of the legs of the conservative triumvirate are not lost — namely that which deals with the social and cultural situation. With the other front runners duking it out over the economy and (to what little extent it is allowed) foreign policy, the process needs Santorum to keep these issues on the table.

“What for??”, I hear you cry. After all, didn’t we declare a “truce” on social issues?

Perhaps, but if so it was a recklessly precipitate declaration. The social, traditional, cultural aspect is indispensable to a truly conservative philosophy. The primary distinguishing feature of conservatism is its prudent recognition of the realities of the human condition, based on inherited wisdom and experience. Among these truths is the recognition that a self-governing society that lacks moral order cannot long survive itself. As Robert Bork wrote, “The government ought not try to impose virtue, but it can deter incitements to vice”

Free markets and limited governments require a firm moral base in order to succeed; as social order breaks down, the temptation to accept ever more authoritarian government to replace lost security becomes increasingly irresistible. It falls on the conservative to preserve this base, and also to counter the efforts by liberals, in their quest for an artificial egalitarian utopia, to tear it down and replace it with their own, one that mandates sensitivity training and speech codes. There is, after all, more than one road to serfdom.

This is why social conservatism is, and always will, remain an imported member of the conservative trinity, along with economic libertarianism, and a strong, realist foreign policy that seeks to defend both the United States and the civilization that gave her form.

Part of the tragedy of Ron Paul’s candidacy, in fact, is that he could have been in position to play the same role of shaping the party’s message when it came to the critical discussion of economic liberty. Unfortunately, his Noam Chomsky approach to foreign policy and sheer nutty conspiracy-infused positions on many issues renders him less credible as time passes.

The GOP needs to re-fuse, to borrow from the term used by the architects of the modern conservative movement from the 1950′s, whose “fusionism” congealed economic libertarianism, traditional conservatism, and anti-communism into a single, coherent political movement, which bore fruit by eventually electing Ronald Reagan, and shifting the societal paradigm to the right. The GOP needs as its candidate, one who represents, and offers to the nation, a conservatism on all fronts – economic, foreign policy and cultural.

Mitt Romney can, if he chooses, be that candidate. At this point, let’s hope he is capable of it.