RICK SANTORUM’S continuing success in the Republican race, with his victory in primaries in Mississippi and Alabama yesterday, is remarkable. Though Romney is still significantly ahead and took more delegates last night, Santorum has gained momentum. A candidate who has said that artificial contraception is harmful to women and society at large, who homeschools his large family, who is a devout Catholic and who receives an A plus [correction below] from Numbers USA on immigration policy has captured national attention and is holding it. If Santorum ran against Obama, opinions rarely voiced by major public figures would be aired.  That alone would be a great thing.

Truthfully, I am stunned by Santorum’s limited success. Santorum elicits intense hatred from liberals in Pennsylvania, where he lost the Senate race in 2008. But he also managed to alienate Republican centrist voters with his support for the war in Iraq. He is a flawed candidate, lacking in charisma, boyish in demeanour, but he is a man of principle. He will be hated – absolutely hated – by those on the left. But anyone who could change this country for the better would be despised.

— Comments —

Clark Coleman writes:

Santorum is currently rated A-minus, not A-plus, by NumbersUSA. This rating is on the basis of campaign speeches. At the beginning of the campaign, his rating was based on actual votes taken in Congress, and he was rated a D. Many of us are unsure that his recent enlightenment can be taken seriously, as it came only after Mitt Romney was the only candidate with a decent (B) rating and all other GOP hopefuls were in the D/F range after Michele Bachman withdrew. While in the Senate, Santorum actually voted against a bill that would have permitted private corporations to use the E-verify system on a voluntary basis to screen illegal immigrants from hiring. He was one of only a handful of Republican senators to vote against the bill. Until the last two months, his statements on immigration have all been of the sappy-sentimental-Christian variety that we so often get from misguided Christian leaders. Can he really be trusted on immigration matters?

Laura writes:

Thank you for the correction.

Yes, the concerns you raise are important. His recent statements on immigration have been encouraging but his past record is not.

Jesse Powell writes:

One thing I find amusing is that the commentators are loathe to attribute Santorum’s political success to his social conservatism; it is instead due to his down home folksy personality, his authenticity, his “true conservatism” credentials.

I think something surprising, even historic, is happening. That feminism is losing its “consensus support” in American politics. The fact that “male headed household” theology is gaining popularity in the Christian Church is pretty well known but the assumption has been that this is a “Christian only thing” or a “religious thing”; that it was something that would stay contained to the religious ghetto and would not “infect” mainstream culture or politics. The Tea Party surge in 2010 actually inserted a lot of anti-feminism into the Republican Party and Santorum’s success in 2012 is a continuation of this anti-feminism momentum. There does indeed seem to be a real secular counterpart to the Christian Patriarchy Movement and it is showing up in the Republican Party.

Santorum’s success is not the only evidence of anti-feminism in the Republican Party. At the state level a record number of laws were passed in 2011 whose purpose was to restrict abortion; a total of 92 laws in 24 states. This level of new anti-abortion laws is completely unprecedented going back to 1985. I recommend looking at this chart showing the number of such restrictions passed each year from 1985 to 2011. In the chart you can see just how dramatic the increase in 2011 was.

In addition to the renewed efforts to restrict abortion the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011 just barely passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 10 to 8 vote where all the Democrats voted in favor and all the Republicans voted against. In prior reauthorizations of VAWA both Democrats and Republicans supported the legislation by consensus. This is the first time VAWA has become a partisan issue. Phyllis Schlafly and Concerned Women for America seem to be the ones leading the charge against VAWA reauthorization. The complaints against VAWA are that it funds feminist organizations and that the definition being promoted of domestic violence is too broad. Also, of course, public debate about the merits of contraception is new to mainstream American politics. Contraception was supposedly a “settled issue” that no reasonable person could be against.

Times seem to be changing. Republicans are no longer giving into feminist bullying without a fight.

Paul writes:

Although I think the irrevocable consequence of immigration is the critical problem facing America rather than Obamacare (which can be ignored, as the immigration laws are, or repealed), I think a true conservative is more trustworthy about immigration restriction than a moderate such as Romney. Romney is an establishment Republican, and after Ike, they always take one step forward and two steps backward: Nixon and the Bush duo. Reagan, a true conservative, wanted to end and thought he was ending illegal immigration; but he was wrong. The others never wanted to end it. It is going to take steadfast conservative leadership, and Romney is not a steadfast conservative relative to Santorum.

I have not researched Clark’s interesting contentions or the entire immigration-related records of both candidates, so I cannot rebut or refute his contentions with concrete facts.

Paul adds:

Romney is blatantly misleading. All the candidates fib, but Romney goes beyond the pale. He says he will repeal Obamacare because he knows that evokes a knee-jerk reaction among Republicans. Yet he says the decision should be left to the states. He enacted Obamacare in his state. Obama will murder him about this, and the conservative commentators are ignoring it or just don’t get it.

I’ll bet he will do the same with illegal immigration. He will take some federal action, but in the end, he will say that each state should have the right to decide what to do about illegals.

If I recall accurately, Romney did not take significant immigration-restriction action until he was ready to leave his governorship with an eye to national power.

Please follow and like us: