The last presidential election cycle, I was heavily commenting on all the minutae of the race. More so on the later phases than the primaries, but I had watched the primaries. I’m not wasting as much time on it this time around.
Perhaps I’m a bit jaded after the experience of paying closer attention. I did not particularly like John McCain as a candidate. Contrary to what his ditzy daughter keeps saying on every talk show she can get on, “moderate, sort-of Republican on… um… most issues” is not really inspiring. Let’s face it; most conservatives and/or Republicans (the groups do not entirely overlap) were more inspired by Sarah Palin, and the volunteering rates and donations showed it.
In short, the primary process is a bit short on principles. It’s very long on guessing what the hypothetical swing voter will go for. “Well, Candidate X is nice, conservative, and photogenic, but he isn’t electable.“ It’s great for torpedoing candidates without having to really explain why, I suppose, but it really guts the process of any principles it may have had. Candidates aiming for the electable middle ground don’t have to think too hard on principles, just say something vaguely pro-Constitution, add some “this country is great” stuff, and sway with the pubic opinion polls.
It looks like Mitt Romney is going to win the Republican nomination. Why? “Oh, he’s electable,” the pundits gush. Apparently, “electable” means “passed a failing state-run mandatory health care program, but he’s got great hair.” Oh, yeah, and during the debate, Romney said he’d just write presidential orders to stop Obamacare. And Romneycare is ok, because the state is forcing people to buy health care, not the federal government.
Problem 1: Any pro-lifer can tell you presidential orders are fairly useless, as they are trumped by actual law. We learned that painfully in the health care bill passage, when the pro-life Democrats defected because, “Oh, Obama wrote a presidential order, so this bill won’t fund abortions!” How’s that presidential order thing working out for you? It took a while, but the Catholic bishops’ conference just recently woke up to the fact that abortion is going to be shoved down their throats by the law, promised conscience protections be damned. Hate to say we told you so, but…
Problem 2: We’re trying to get rid of an over-reaching president with a loose grasp of “checks and balances”, why do we want another one? When Virginia elected a Republican governor the last time around, one of the big issues first on his plate was the re-regulation of abortion clinics as ambulatory surgery centers, not just doctors’ offices. Some people argued that the governor should just sign an executive order right away. Governor McDonnell insisted that no, this needs to be done the right way, through the General Assembly. Otherwise, the next governor could just overturn the regulations again. He was right, the regulations were passed, and the abortion clinics are scrambling, because many of them don’t meet the requirements. If our problem is overreaching government that pushes things through against public or legislative objection, then I don’t want someone abusing the system for causes I believe in, either.
Problem 3: I don’t want any level of government telling me what I have to buy. From where I sit, it’s about the same level of interference if the federal government tells me I’m required to buy health care or if the state government tells me.
So, Romney may win, but I can’t say I’m thrilled. He wins on the politics, but fails on the principles.
Personally, from the beginning, I was rooting for Rick Santorum. Yes, he played politics some as a senator, but so did everyone else (including Ron Paul, so don’t write to tell me he’s pristine!). Yes, he worked for lobbyists and made money (do we have a problem with making money? did he do something unethical?). More importantly, Santorum understands and clearly explains principles. Welfare isn’t problematic because of cost, but because its structure does a poor job of encouraging people to take back responsibility for their own lives. Health care reform isn’t problematic because we’re all snotty rich types who pay for our own, but because government does a poor job at micromanaging, and it shouldn’t be doing it. And, more than anyone else running, Santorum believes in encouraging and supporting the family and the unborn.
Former senator Rick Santorum at the annual March for Life in DC, 2011.
Santorum also walks an important line: where should government end? Ron Paul would tell you the federal government should shrink to nearly nothing. Other candidates would shrink some areas but grow many others. Big government with a Republican flavor just becomes big government with a Democratic flavor when the winds shift. Shrinking government for the purpose of shrinking ignores the question entirely. The real question is, “How big is just big enough?” Our Constitution laid boundaries for the federal government, many of which have been extended to curb the states’ powers as well. At the same time, however, precedent has been used over and over to extend government’s reach, often on the excuse of “regulating interstate commerce.”
Santorum espouses more of a “we need to right-size government,” which is a much sounder principle to argue on. I would also point out that it is a very Catholic principle. Catholic social teaching is rooted in the idea of subsidiarity, that the lowest possible level should handle problems. The national government should not interfere in what the states can handle, the states shouldn’t step on the cities and counties unless necessary, and, if the family can handle it, no government should interfere. Much of our problems with government stem from the accretions of unwarranted interferences from more distant levels into more local decisions. In so many departments, money flows from the states to the federal government, just to have some skimmed off by the DC bureaucracies, then handed back out to the states with strings attached. At the same time, some things are so foundational, like equal rights for all races and the right to life, that they have to be federally enforced. (Ron Paul is pro-life, but says the states should decide if people in the womb are yet people. That’s better than a pro-abortion federal government, but not much. I seem to remember we had a bit of a problem with some states declaring that certain people were not, in fact, people, based on the color of the skin. “In this state, you’re a person, but in that state, you’re just property.” Are we really ok with that?)
