The prime suspects on the Department of Homeland Security's domestic watchlist—that is to say, Americans who revere their founding documents, love their God-given liberty, and cherish their constitutionally-protected right to defend those documents and that liberty by any civilized means at their disposal—have had it tough recently. One of their nation's two leading political factions has made plain its intention of destroying those documents and rescinding that liberty.
(And yes, I know Gingrich has advocated and voted for many conservative policies; constitutionalism is not about policy advocacy—it is about judging all policy ideas in the light of the constitution's limitations on government, which Gingrich manifestly does not do.)
RPE and its media wing then carpet-bombed the Gingrich camp to pave a clear road for Romney
Having successfully used Gingrich to wedge out the more genuine constitutional conservatives in the race, the RPE and its media wing then carpet-bombed the Gingrich camp to pave a clear road for Romney. Job well done—assuming the job was to save the careers of Washington insiders, and to keep the ersatz aristocracy's social calendar clear of those icky non-Ivy Leaguers who might embarrass everyone by not knowing which fork is for salad, and which is for stabbing Jim DeMint and Michele Bachmann in the back.
Hence, the aforementioned cloudy sky. Add to that the establishment-produced irredeemable debt; the trillions owed to China; the military hierarchy that refuses to speak the name of the avowed enemy that is killing and maiming its members—not to mention innocent civilians on five continents—on a regular basis; an executive branch that is using its various departments and agencies to override the constitutional balance of power in favor of regulatory control over every aspect of human life; and a judiciary one of whose nine foremost members has just
warned the Muslim Brotherhood not to model the Egyptian constitution on the U.S. Constitution, as the latter is out of date and lacks provisions protecting "basic human rights." Suddenly, that cloudy day starts to look downright apocalyptic.
In this climate, what is a sincere freedom-loving U.S. patriot—er, I mean domestic terror threat—to do? Curling up in a ball and hoping it all goes away is one alternative, and not an unreasonable one under the circumstances. Some, however, will object to this option on the grounds that they are prone to back pain after lying in one position for too many centuries. Is there any recourse for them? Sure enough, there is, although if the RPE and its media lackeys have anything to say about, this last recourse will not be around much longer, so they had better clutch at it now, and hold on tight. In short, they can vote for Rick Santorum, and encourage their friends to do the same.
Normally, one argues in favor of a candidate, and then takes a moment to defend him against one or two anticipated objections. In Santorum's case, defending against the objections seems to be the first task, rather than the last. There are two reasons for this, one legitimate, one not so.
The legitimate reason is that Santorum was not the first choice of many potential voters. Perhaps you preferred Bachmann's solid individualism, feisty Tea Party demeanor, and blunt seriousness about America's economic catastrophe. Perhaps you liked Herman Cain's mellifluous charm, business acumen, and straight talk. Perhaps you appreciated Ron Paul's anti-Fed advocacy and forceful warnings against unconstitutional government encroachments into personal liberty. Or perhaps you liked Gingrich's attempts to explain an issue to its historical roots, or his you're-in-our-sights admonitions to the liberal media.
Fine. Bachmann and Cain are gone. Paul's blind "spot" on the long-term existential threat of radical Islam is the size of a crater, and grows every time he speaks about foreign policy, as does his childish "I'd like to teach the world to sing" fantasy picture of foreign relations in a time of broad, international authoritarian alliances. As for Gingrich, as I have explained ad infinitum, the ability to defend him against every stupid or big government-oriented thing he has said or done by pointing to a time when he said or did the opposite is not, if you think about it, a mark in his favor. Neither is his I'm-bigger-than-all-of-this attitude towards his fellow candidates, critics, and humanity in general. Nor his expressed preference for both Presidents Roosevelt—especially, in fact, Teddy, as Gingrich has explained that his sympathy here is with the idea that private enterprise ought to be "allowed" to produce prosperity (as though that were its function), but only under an umbrella framework of government regulation (as though the free market were merely a government program).
This leaves Romney and Santorum. On my view, the RPE's chosen man is, for that very reason, with everything it implies, the wrong man. Romney has done nothing to distinguish himself as one who understands or cares much about constitutional matters. He is a policy guy, pure and simple, which means he could be right sometimes, and he could be wrong sometimes, but he will be principled no times—and that is just not enough to bet the free world's future on.
Ergo, it must be Santorum. Not exactly a campaign slogan, you say? We'll get there, don't worry. But first, the second, illegitimate, reason that Santorum must be defended against objections before he can be touted for his virtues: He has been thoroughly abused and downplayed by the RPE media throughout this process, and will, if he does well this week, be subjected to a Gingrich-scale shelling from the Romney surrogates and supporters (which means from the RPE itself). Already, we have Tim Pawlenty
denying that Santorum is a true conservative in an attempt to short-circuit his Minnesota campaign. (Yes, that's the same Pawlenty who accused Bachmann of being unfit to govern because she gets headaches—just like Thomas Jefferson.)
So what about this "true conservative" criticism? It is, after all, one of the reasons many people were more comfortable with one of the other candidates early on in the process. Does Santorum have some votes in his past that a constitutionalist might wish he had not cast? Absolutely. Has he, on occasion, adopted the "compassionate conservative" label that makes constitutionalists cringe? Yes, unfortunately. And, I might add, does he still share with Romney and Gingrich a tendency to equate defense spending with the military as such, and hence to oppose cuts in such spending as though they bespoke a lack of patriotism? Frustratingly, yes.
In a nutshell, is he, or has he been up to now, the "perfect" conservative? No. But consider this: Throughout the Gingrich moment in December and January, Newt's defenders were so fond of the "no one's perfect" mantra that one started to imagine they would paint it on his campaign bus. As a few of us pointed out during that time, however, saying that no one is perfect is no argument for choosing one of the least perfect options. One must go with the best—the most perfect, if you will—of what is available. In this case, that does not, and must not, mean the "best debater," the "best funded," or the "most electable." Given the stakes—nothing less than the survival of America as an economically viable, morally sustainable, and liberty-loving nation—those business-as-usual markers will not do.
What is needed is a statesman: a candidate who has a sufficient combination of moral character, respect for the value, dignity, and intelligence of his fellow citizens, and appreciation for the freedom secured by the Founders and the documents in which that freedom is guaranteed, to lead an articulate, principled battle against the very dangerous, supremely well-funded, amoral force that President Obama will be leading.
What is needed is someone who can speak without a skeleton-filled closet about the immediate perils of allowing the government to take over the healthcare decisions of the nation. Death panels are real—and they are nothing compared to the across-the-board transfer of power from individuals to the state that is implied by government healthcare. The transfer is fundamental, has proven irrevocable throughout the world, and would render all questions of constitutional liberty invalid for all time. A man who lacks the perfect will, and the constitutionalist substance, to destroy—not modify, but destroy—Obamacare within months, will render all the rest of his proposals, however nice they may be, irrelevant in the long run.
The recent fight over Catholic hospitals and abortion: Santorum has been in the moral lead from the very beginning
The recent fight over Catholic hospitals and abortion is a perfect test case of a candidate's mettle on these issues; and Santorum has been in
the moral lead here from the very beginning—not only presenting the constitutional case against Obama's assault on religious freedom, but even, and more importantly, admonishing religious leaders about the perils of playing footsie with the Left.
By taking such a principled stand on the latter part of this issue, he has opened the debate that must be at the heart of the 2012 presidential campaign: Where does the moral high-ground lie, with leftism or with conservatism, i.e. with those who seek government authority to coercively impose their notions of "fairness" on others, or with those who believe that freedom is the fundamental condition that makes moral action (of any sort) possible?
Rick Santorum is the only Republican candidate left in the race with the seriousness, character and dedication to lead this fight. Without winning this cultural and philosophical battle, all constitutionalists can hope for is simply to defeat Obama. And as the 2010 elections showed with startling clarity, merely winning an election is nowhere near enough. The RPE guarantees that.
"Anything but Obama" is a slogan for the status quo, and a lullaby for the final stages of decline. "Nothing but the Constitution" is the slogan that makes sense now. Paint that one on a bus, and drive it as far as it will carry you.
