I could go on-and-on denouncing Santorum,but I will let him damn himself.Objectivists should have no problem grasping the nature of his evil.Those who are not Objectivists should familiarize themselves with Ayn Rand's writing to understand the nature of my opposition. Here is a link to Santorum's book:
Amazon.com: It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good (9781932236293): Rick Santorum: Books
http://www.amazon.com/Takes-Family-Conservatism-Common-Good/dp/1932236295
RRD:A review of Santorum's book
Goodbye to Goldwater - Reason Magazine
http://reason.com/archives/2005/12/01/goodbye-to-goldwater ...."Above all, it [the book]is worth noticing because, like Goldwater's Conscience, it lays down a marker. As Goldwater repudiated Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon, so Santorum repudiates Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.... ....."Or, to put it differently, there are two kinds of freedom. One is "no -fault freedom," individual autonomy uncoupled from any larger purpose: "freedom to choose, irrespective of the choice." This, he says, is "the liberal definition of freedom," and it is the one that has taken over in the culture and been imposed on the country by the courts. Quite different is "the conservative view of freedom," "the liberty our Founders understood." This is "freedom coupled with the responsibility to something bigger or higher than the self." True liberty is freedom in the service of virtue --not "the freedom to be as selfish as I want to be" or "the freedom to be left alone" but "the freedom to attend to one's duties --duties to God, to family, and to neighbors." ...... Thus "selflessness in the family is the basis for the political liberty we cherish as Americans."....
.... "Freedom is not self -sufficient," writes Santorum. "....
....." Where Goldwater denounced collectivism as the enemy of the individual, Santorum denounces individualism as the enemy of family. "In the conservative vision," he writes, "people are first connected to and part of families: The family, not the individual, is the fundamental unit of society." Those words are not merely in tension with the individual-rights tradition of modern conservatism. They are incompatible with it.".... ...." In an August interview with National Public Radio, he acknowledged his quarrel with "what I refer to as more of a libertarianish Right" and "this whole idea of personal autonomy.".... ...."A list of the government interventions that Santorum endorses includes national service, promotion of prison ministries, "individual development accounts," publicly financed trust funds for children, community investment incentives, strengthened obscenity enforcement, covenant marriage, assorted tax breaks, economic literacy programs in "every school in America" (his italics), and more. Lots more. ".... ...."He has no use for a constitutional (or, as far as one can tell, moral) right to privacy, which he regards as a "constitutional wrecking ball" that has become inimical to the very principle of the common good. Ditto for the notions of government neutrality and free expression. He does not support a ban on contraception, but he thinks the government has every right to impose one. ".....
Here is a link to the NPR interview mentioned in the Reason piece:
Rick Santorum, 'It Takes a Family' : NPR
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4784905 Here is his,(literal) attack on the Pursuit of Happiness:
YouTube - Santorum: pursuit of happiness harms AmericaYouTube - Santorum: pursuit of happiness harms America
Rick Santorum Blames Social Security Problems on 'Abortion Culture' - Politics News - ABC News Radio
http://abcnewsradioonline.com/politics-news/rick-santorum-blames-social-secur...
YouTube - Santorum: birth control harms women and society
From the website Santorum Exposed: http://santorumexposed.com/pages/ontherecord.php
"I don't think it works. I think it's harmful to women, I think it's harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated, particularly among the young. I think it has, as we've seen, very harmful long-term consequences for society. So birth control to me enables that and I don't think it's a healthy thing for our country." --Saying that birth control is harmful to women, society and our country. CN8's "Nitebeat with Barry Nolan", July 28, 2005. "The notion that college education is a cost -effective way to help poor, low-skill, unmarried mothers with high school diplomas or GEDs move up the economic ladder is just wrong." --Arguing that poor, unwed mothers don't really need college educations. It Takes a Family , Pg. 138, July 2005.
"Many women have told me, and surveys have shown, that they find it easier, more “professionally” gratifying, and certainly more socially affirming, to work outside the home than to give up their careers to take care of their children. Think about that for a moment…Here, we can thank the influence of radical feminism, one of the core philosophies of the village elders." --Blaming "radical feminism" for making women want to work outside the home. It Takes a Family , Pg. 95, July 2005.
"But unlike abortion today, in most states even the slaveholder did not have the unlimited right to kill his slave." --Comparing a woman's right to choose to slavery. It Takes a Family , Pg. 241, July 2005. "In far too many families with young children, both parents are working, when, if they really took an honest look at the budget, they might confess that both of them really don’t need to, or at least may not need to work as much as they do… And for some parents, the purported need to provide things for their children simply provides a convenient rationalization for pursuing a gratifying career outside the home." --Questioning the needs and motives of families in which both parents work. It Takes A Family , Pg. 94, July 2005.
"In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post -pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it." --Regarding Catholic Priests who molested children. Associated Press interview, April 2003. [RRD:Has Santorum heard of Statutory Rape,or the term "Consenting Adults"] "And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society ? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold —Griswold was the contraceptive case —and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you —this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family." --On his belief that there is no right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution. In the Griswold case, the U.S. Supreme Court found that married couples had the right to use birth control. Associated Press interview, April 2003. RRD:Additional quotes from the article:
USATODAY.com - Excerpt from Santorum interview
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm
...."The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we[RRD:The States] absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire."....
RRD:Back to Santorum exposed.
“Marriage is not about affirming somebody’s love for somebody else. It’s about uniting together to be open to children, to further civilization in our society.” --Showing his romantic side. “Fox News Sunday”, Fox News Channel, August 3, 2003. " "It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning "private" moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm." --From Fishers of Men, an opinion piece about child molestation scandals involving Catholic Priests. Catholic Online, July 12, 2002.
RRD:Santorum promises Pork Rick Santorum: Left, Right, and Wrong | Cato @ Liberty
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/rick-santorum-left-right-and-wrong/ Let me pick out the following quotes for emphasis:
..." True liberty is freedom in the service of virtue --not "the freedom to be as selfish as I want to be" or "the freedom to be left alone" but "the freedom to attend to one's duties --duties to God, to family, and to neighbors." ...
RRD:This is a view that the Mullahs of the Islamic Republic of Iran would readily embrace.
...."The family, not the individual, is the fundamental unit of society."
I,(or perhaps I should say "this sub-unit of his family unit") regard Santorum as the Christian Right's version of Obama.Both want to kill this country's Libertarian soul & replace it with a collectivistic,statist vision.Both attack the FUNDAMENTAL principles that this country was founded upon.There are only three real differences:
1.Santorum is a religious fanatic,Obama is a leftist statist.
2.Obama rarely,(if ever) tries to claim that the Founders would support his position.Santorum by contrast wishes to bury the Founders under the revisionist lie that they would have embraced his theofascism.
3.Santorum is potentially more dangerous than Obama.Why?Because his nomination (& particularly his election) would mean,NOT the triumph of Social Conservatives(by which I mean anti-abortion & anti-gay marriage,& whom I will not smear by indiscriminately lumping them in with this maniac),but that the most statist & totalitarian--in philosophy if not always policy-- wing of the Social Conservatives would triumph.Were this to occur it could wreck any chance of getting the GOP on the track of defending individual rights for years.All this while the Democrats cement their policies into place.
Though I am skeptical of Dr.Peikoff's statement regarding the 2004 election(fn1), if there was ever someone who epitomizes what he warned about,it is Santorum.
There are very few people whom I could not support against Obama.Santorum is one of them. fn1
Because Dr.Peikoff seems to lump all Social Conservatives together,but even more so because he argued that not voting was not a rational option.
See here:
Peikoff on the coming election - THE FORUM for Ayn Rand Fans
http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=4756&st=0&p=41457&#entry41457
Amazon.com: It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good (9781932236293): Rick Santorum: Books
http://www.amazon.com/Takes-Family-Conservatism-Common-Good/dp/1932236295
RRD:A review of Santorum's book
Goodbye to Goldwater - Reason Magazine
http://reason.com/archives/2005/12/01/goodbye-to-goldwater ...."Above all, it [the book]is worth noticing because, like Goldwater's Conscience, it lays down a marker. As Goldwater repudiated Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon, so Santorum repudiates Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.... ....."Or, to put it differently, there are two kinds of freedom. One is "no -fault freedom," individual autonomy uncoupled from any larger purpose: "freedom to choose, irrespective of the choice." This, he says, is "the liberal definition of freedom," and it is the one that has taken over in the culture and been imposed on the country by the courts. Quite different is "the conservative view of freedom," "the liberty our Founders understood." This is "freedom coupled with the responsibility to something bigger or higher than the self." True liberty is freedom in the service of virtue --not "the freedom to be as selfish as I want to be" or "the freedom to be left alone" but "the freedom to attend to one's duties --duties to God, to family, and to neighbors." ...... Thus "selflessness in the family is the basis for the political liberty we cherish as Americans."....
.... "Freedom is not self -sufficient," writes Santorum. "....
....." Where Goldwater denounced collectivism as the enemy of the individual, Santorum denounces individualism as the enemy of family. "In the conservative vision," he writes, "people are first connected to and part of families: The family, not the individual, is the fundamental unit of society." Those words are not merely in tension with the individual-rights tradition of modern conservatism. They are incompatible with it.".... ...." In an August interview with National Public Radio, he acknowledged his quarrel with "what I refer to as more of a libertarianish Right" and "this whole idea of personal autonomy.".... ...."A list of the government interventions that Santorum endorses includes national service, promotion of prison ministries, "individual development accounts," publicly financed trust funds for children, community investment incentives, strengthened obscenity enforcement, covenant marriage, assorted tax breaks, economic literacy programs in "every school in America" (his italics), and more. Lots more. ".... ...."He has no use for a constitutional (or, as far as one can tell, moral) right to privacy, which he regards as a "constitutional wrecking ball" that has become inimical to the very principle of the common good. Ditto for the notions of government neutrality and free expression. He does not support a ban on contraception, but he thinks the government has every right to impose one. ".....
Here is a link to the NPR interview mentioned in the Reason piece:
Rick Santorum, 'It Takes a Family' : NPR
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4784905 Here is his,(literal) attack on the Pursuit of Happiness:
YouTube - Santorum: pursuit of happiness harms AmericaYouTube - Santorum: pursuit of happiness harms America
Rick Santorum Blames Social Security Problems on 'Abortion Culture' - Politics News - ABC News Radio
http://abcnewsradioonline.com/politics-news/rick-santorum-blames-social-secur...
YouTube - Santorum: birth control harms women and society
From the website Santorum Exposed: http://santorumexposed.com/pages/ontherecord.php
"I don't think it works. I think it's harmful to women, I think it's harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated, particularly among the young. I think it has, as we've seen, very harmful long-term consequences for society. So birth control to me enables that and I don't think it's a healthy thing for our country." --Saying that birth control is harmful to women, society and our country. CN8's "Nitebeat with Barry Nolan", July 28, 2005. "The notion that college education is a cost -effective way to help poor, low-skill, unmarried mothers with high school diplomas or GEDs move up the economic ladder is just wrong." --Arguing that poor, unwed mothers don't really need college educations. It Takes a Family , Pg. 138, July 2005.
"Many women have told me, and surveys have shown, that they find it easier, more “professionally” gratifying, and certainly more socially affirming, to work outside the home than to give up their careers to take care of their children. Think about that for a moment…Here, we can thank the influence of radical feminism, one of the core philosophies of the village elders." --Blaming "radical feminism" for making women want to work outside the home. It Takes a Family , Pg. 95, July 2005.
"But unlike abortion today, in most states even the slaveholder did not have the unlimited right to kill his slave." --Comparing a woman's right to choose to slavery. It Takes a Family , Pg. 241, July 2005. "In far too many families with young children, both parents are working, when, if they really took an honest look at the budget, they might confess that both of them really don’t need to, or at least may not need to work as much as they do… And for some parents, the purported need to provide things for their children simply provides a convenient rationalization for pursuing a gratifying career outside the home." --Questioning the needs and motives of families in which both parents work. It Takes A Family , Pg. 94, July 2005.
"In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post -pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it." --Regarding Catholic Priests who molested children. Associated Press interview, April 2003. [RRD:Has Santorum heard of Statutory Rape,or the term "Consenting Adults"] "And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society ? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold —Griswold was the contraceptive case —and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you —this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family." --On his belief that there is no right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution. In the Griswold case, the U.S. Supreme Court found that married couples had the right to use birth control. Associated Press interview, April 2003. RRD:Additional quotes from the article:
USATODAY.com - Excerpt from Santorum interview
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm
...."The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we[RRD:The States] absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire."....
RRD:Back to Santorum exposed.
“Marriage is not about affirming somebody’s love for somebody else. It’s about uniting together to be open to children, to further civilization in our society.” --Showing his romantic side. “Fox News Sunday”, Fox News Channel, August 3, 2003. " "It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning "private" moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm." --From Fishers of Men, an opinion piece about child molestation scandals involving Catholic Priests. Catholic Online, July 12, 2002.
RRD:Santorum promises Pork Rick Santorum: Left, Right, and Wrong | Cato @ Liberty
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/rick-santorum-left-right-and-wrong/ Let me pick out the following quotes for emphasis:
..." True liberty is freedom in the service of virtue --not "the freedom to be as selfish as I want to be" or "the freedom to be left alone" but "the freedom to attend to one's duties --duties to God, to family, and to neighbors." ...
RRD:This is a view that the Mullahs of the Islamic Republic of Iran would readily embrace.
...."The family, not the individual, is the fundamental unit of society."
I,(or perhaps I should say "this sub-unit of his family unit") regard Santorum as the Christian Right's version of Obama.Both want to kill this country's Libertarian soul & replace it with a collectivistic,statist vision.Both attack the FUNDAMENTAL principles that this country was founded upon.There are only three real differences:
1.Santorum is a religious fanatic,Obama is a leftist statist.
2.Obama rarely,(if ever) tries to claim that the Founders would support his position.Santorum by contrast wishes to bury the Founders under the revisionist lie that they would have embraced his theofascism.
3.Santorum is potentially more dangerous than Obama.Why?Because his nomination (& particularly his election) would mean,NOT the triumph of Social Conservatives(by which I mean anti-abortion & anti-gay marriage,& whom I will not smear by indiscriminately lumping them in with this maniac),but that the most statist & totalitarian--in philosophy if not always policy-- wing of the Social Conservatives would triumph.Were this to occur it could wreck any chance of getting the GOP on the track of defending individual rights for years.All this while the Democrats cement their policies into place.
Though I am skeptical of Dr.Peikoff's statement regarding the 2004 election(fn1), if there was ever someone who epitomizes what he warned about,it is Santorum.
There are very few people whom I could not support against Obama.Santorum is one of them. fn1
Because Dr.Peikoff seems to lump all Social Conservatives together,but even more so because he argued that not voting was not a rational option.
See here:
Peikoff on the coming election - THE FORUM for Ayn Rand Fans
http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=4756&st=0&p=41457&#entry41457
No comments:
Post a Comment