A Stitch in Haste

I've blogged before that I generally try to avoid concerning myself with the muck of micro-politics, so my dot-connecting skills in this arena may be somewhat lacking. But:

--Pennsylvania Republican Senator Rick Santorum continues to bash gays. No surprise.

--Santorum subsequently finds himself vulnerable in his upcoming re-election bid. No surprise.

--Santorum now is proposing a hike in the minimum wage. SURPRISE!

Since when do Republicans ever propose raising the minimum wage? (Oh, right, never mind...) Make that, "Since when do real Republicans ever propose raising the minimum wage?"

Is this as blatant a quid pro quo to Pennsylvania's liberals as it appears -- "I'll give you a minimum wage hike if you let me off the hook for all the gay-bashing..."? And if so, does it mean that anti-gay positions and voting records can be "bought off" with liberal tchotchkes and political indulgences?

I hope not.

UPDATE: More fun stuff from Santorum here.

At the end of the day, one might be saddened, or perhaps entertained, by the silly, disturbed rantings of extremist conservative figures such as James Dobson, Maggie Gallagher, Pat Robertson and Phyllis Schafly. But for the most part, you don't really worry about them — they proselytize to their drones while mainstream America sits back and observes — but does not wholeheartedly participate in — their respective freak shows.

But Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is different. He skillfully walks the line between mainstream and fringe while quietly rising up the ranks in the Republican Party (he is currently Number Three in the Senate Republican hierarchy, behind Majority Leader Bill Frist and Majority Whip Mitch McConnell).

And let's face it, he looks and acts "presidential."

So the question becomes increasingly urgent: Is Santorum a moderate or an extremist?

Perhaps his latest manifesto sheds some light:

Intellectual conservatism was once defined by two clear goals — the defeat of communism and the reduction in the size, scope and sweep of government.

So far, so good — conservatism used to be (but of course no longer is) fundamentally libertarian. No argument there.

While purpose, objective and hope have been the hallmarks of conservatism's past, they also should be the defining characteristics of conservatism's future. What I call "Compassionate Conservatism" has something unique to offer to the shaping of our future.

Of course, there is little if any evidence of "compassionate conservatism" in today's Republican Party. Moreover, "compassion" is a transitive concept — it suggests action. For the government to be compassionate, it must actually do something. This contrasts with the libertarian worldview which prefers individual compassion over government compassion (which, try as you might, can never escape the very compassionless side effects that inevitably come with politics and power).

But it not new news that libertarianism has been almost completely purged from today's Republican Party. Let's focus on Santorum's suggested replacement, "compassionate conservatism" --

There are four cornerstones to compassionate conservatism. First, compassionate conservatism is founded on the family because the family is the foundation of a healthy civil society.

This is, of course, utter nonsense. The cornerstone of society is by definition the individual, not the family. Without individuals there can be no families, without individual rights there can be no "family rights," and without individual prosperity there can be no family prosperity.

And of course Santorum leaves out any specific definition of "family," but we all know what he means (and does not mean) by "family."

Second, Compassionate Conservatism believes in the transformative power of faith and the integral role of charities, houses of worship, and other civil institutions.

Welcome to Santorum's conservatism — atheists need not apply (nor, in reality, need Jews or Muslims — but you won't see that here; conservative Christian politicians know the important difference between "keeping God out of the public square" and "keeping Christ out of public speeches").

Third, Compassionate Conservatism is founded on an inviolable belief in humanity's inherent dignity.

Except for gays.

Fourth, Compassionate Conservatism targets the poor and hurting for help, whether they are across the street or across an ocean.

Funny, I didn't think "charity" was a conservative versus liberal versus libertarian wedge issue. It's one thing to say "conservatives can be compassionate too" but quite another to say "conservatives are better at compassion than everyone else."

If "compassion" is to be the new strict scrutiny by which laws and policies are to be evaluated, then fine. Perhaps Santorum would like to explain how the "Bridge to Nowhere" is "compassionate"? Or condoning torture? Or McCain-Feingold? Or National Security Letters? Or cronyism in Supreme Court nominations? Or the Federal Marriage Amendment? Because they are today's "conservatism."

On the one hand, it looks like Santorum might not even win re-election to the Senate in 2006. On the other hand, would that necessarily preclude him from running for president in 2008?

So I ask again: Is Rick Santorum the most dangerous man in America?

We need to defend traditional pets!


Senator Rick "Tortoise-on-Dog" Santorum was unavailable for comment -- he was too busy defending traditional polar bears instead (with $500,000 of your federal income tax dollars, of course -- because he's a "fiscal conservative").