Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Rick Santorum will never be President.

George Gallup, pride of Jefferson, Iowa, virtually invented modern political polling. So, perhaps one should take heed of the recent Gallup/USA Today poll, which found that former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum leads President Obama 49%-46% in a national poll and leads 50%-45% in a survey of the swing states of Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Despite this survey, I am going to go ahead and call it. Rick Santorum will never be president of the United States of America. There are 4 reasons why Senator Santorum’s campaign is doomed to failure.


First, Senator Santorum has a Google problem. In 2003 Senator Santorum told the Associated Press that homosexual acts were akin to bestiality and pedophilia. This angered, among others, sex-advice columnist Dan Savage. Savage sponsored a contest with his readers to use the word to define santorum as something sex-related. Almost 9 years later, if one googles santorum, one fo the first, if not the first hit, one gets is the definition. Because he is apparently unable to figure out another way around this Google problem, Santorum begged Google to remove the definition (thereby inspiring more stories about the problem). Google said no. As far as I know, America has never elected a president whose name is associated with a sex act or, in the case of Senator Santorum, the by-product of a sex act.

Second, Senator Santorum's own state doesn't like him. It really, really, doesn't like him. As mentioned above, Pennsylvania is a swing state. When Rick Santorum ran for re-election in 2000, he won but received less than 50% of the vote. When Senator Santorum ran for re-election in 2006, he was trounced. He lost to Bob Casey by nearly 18 percentage points. This disparity is the largest margin of defeat of a sitting Republican senator in history.

Granted, 2006 was a down year for the Republican Party. However, consider that in the 2006 Pennsylvania GOP primary both Santorum and the gubernatorial candidate were running unopposed. Santorum received 22,000 fewer votes that the gubernatorial candidate. Put another way, 22,000 Pennsylvania Republican voters declined to vote for him when he was the only candidate. Candidates who can't get re-elected in their own statewide elections are highly unlikely to get elected to higher office.

Third, Senator Santorum doesn't understand what parents want for their kids. This week, Senator Santorum called President Obama a “snob” because, according to the Senator, “President Obama said he wants everybody in America to go to college.” As an initial matter, as the Washington Post points out, the President didn’t say he wanted everybody to go to college. Instead, in 2009, President Obama suggested that people should get at least one year or more of “higher education or career training. This can be community college or a four-year school; vocational training or an apprenticeship.” So, the President was not saying that he wants everyone to go to college. Moreover, when he was in office, Senator Santorum was “committed to ensuring the every Pennsylvanian has access to higher education.” Some might suggest that lying about what the President said, and perhaps downplaying one’s prior commitment to higher education is shameful. It seems fairly standard politics to me.

In any event, the reason the statement shows Santorum won’t be president is I doubt there is a parent alive who doesn’t want their kids to go to college or at least get some form of job training beyond high school. That isn’t being a snob. Wanting better for one’s kids is an essential part of the American dream. The reason that people are concerned about the high cost of higher education is because they think the high cost might make part of the American dream unobtainable. Making suggestions that is snobbish to want kids to go to college isn’t a viable path to victory.

Fourth, Senator Santorum apparently thinks a theocratic state is a good idea. Senator Santorum told ABC News that then presidential candidate’s John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech where he tried to reassure protestant voters that as president, he wouldn’t take orders from Rome made Senator Santorum want to “throw up.” According to Senator Santorum, President Kennedy’s speech was:
trying to tell people of faith that you will do what the government says, we are going to impose our values on you, not that you can’t come to the public square and argue against it, but now we’re going to turn around and say we’re going to impose our values from the government on people of faith, which of course is the next logical step when people of faith, at least according to John Kennedy, have no role in the public square.
As David Greenberg at Slate points out, Senator Santorum misunderstands what President Kennedy. However, if this was all about not understanding a speech I could have labeled the point “Senator Santorum is an idiot.” That isn't my point and this is the part of Senator Santorum’s remarks that caught my eye:
I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.
One might contrast this view with those of Pope John Paul II whose 1980 decree that Catholic priests could not serve in elective office ended the congressional career of Massachusetts congressman Fr. Robert Drinan and derailed the return of office campaign of former Wisconsin congressman Fr. Robert Cornell. This suggests that the Pope thought there was at least some limit to the influence and involvment of religion on the operation of the state.

As an aside, one surprising thing that I learned from researching this post is that Republican pundit John McLaughlin of the McLaughlin Group is a former Jesuit priest. He left the priesthood rather than give up a job writing speeches for President Richard Nixon when ordered to do so by the Jesuits. I will leave it to others to ponder the fact that the two Democratic priests complied with the Pope's order while the Republican priest left the priesthood.

In any event, from his quote I take it that Senator Santorum believes that religious groups or officials should have influence and involvement in the operation of government. He says this, of course, because he wants his religious group to have influence and involvement in government. Imagine, however, the protests that would take place if, for example, a Muslim candidate for president took that position. Such a position would doom that candidate’s electoral chances. It is the same here. After all, the various schisms in Christianity exist because someone got tired of another religious group telling them what to do.

Given these four issues, I think it is safe to put Senator Santorum in the same box as Herman Cain, Thaddeus McCotter, and Newt Gingrich.

4 comments:

  1. Mr. Torvik, your argument was well rounded but I disagree w the conclusion. What country do you think Ricky espouses to be president of? Yes, the US of A. Where Mr. Santorum's Puerto Rican mistress can get an abortion & his constituents in PA can poison the acquifers so that they can have 4 ATV's and a vacation home in F-L-A as well as Branson, MO. Do you think he'd betray his true alliances & his brethren?
    The coll-itch argument doesn't sit well w most of America. After all, would YOU want to forgo retirement so your kids can eat get their groceries at Whole Foods and blow a couple grand every spring break in Vegas? Let the kids work their way through college just like we did back in the day. And make Pell grants available for those poor kids from the Hamptons. Theres only so many fin/corp atty positions open w JP Morgan. How will little Madeline support her 2K a week heroin habit on a Starbucks salary?
    And your reference to that Kennedy and Rome. Where do I start w THAT one? Rome, she was tame compared to our girl Lady Liberty. Finally, priests. Need I say more? Abject debauchery is the underbelly of politics, and it makes for a well run America. Ricky well may be our next president my friend. See you at the polls.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just to be clear, anon, this post is Mr Gillette's handiwork. I believe Ricky will not only be president, but eventually emperor of the intergalactic federation of planets.

    By the way, anon: your writing style has a signature quality that I can spot from a mile away.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Now to respond to Mr. Gillette. Given tonight's results, I agree that Santorum may never be president. (I'm not giving up on emperor. But that's a much longer term play.) Still I did want to respond to some specific points:

    1) You say you are unaware of anyone being elected president who has a sex act named after him. I take it you've never been tafted, then. Your loss.

    2) Regarding the college/snob thing. I think Santorum articulated this about as badly as he possibly could have, but there are good arguments against government policies that push post-high school training the way Obama has been doing. For one thing, government subsidies for post-secondary education increase the sticker price of post-secondary education. And there's a good argument that government is creating a "higher education bubble." I recently read an interesting book on this general topic: "In the Basement of the Ivory Tower" by "Professor X." It's a book length treatment of an anonymous article that appeared in The Atlantic Monthly a while back.

    My basic question is -- in our society, what is high school for? Seems like it is for college prep or nothing. Why can't we just turn high schools into places where people actually get the tools to make a living? Basically, the people who end up going to community college to get an associate's degree probably would be better off doing it at 16 instead of 18 or 19.

    3) Part of me wishes that Santorum would win the nomination so that the Republican party could just have a burnout and rebirth.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If tafted means somehow getting stuck in a bathtub, then I have never been tafted.

    I find it interesting that Professor X has time between to write books when not training mutants and fighting Magneto. All I will say about higher education is that one reason that post-World War II America experienced tremendous economic growth was because so many veterans took advantage of the GI Bill and got college degrees. As economics reporter Adam Davidson has discussed, a person with a college education will almost always earn much more than a person with only a high school education.

    I don't feel up to discussing the purpose of high school tonight. I'll save that for another time.

    Be careful what you wish for. You don't know what will come out of the burnout and rebirth.

    ReplyDelete

Comments on posts older than 30 days are moderated because almost all of those comments are spam.