On Rick Santorum...

My Mother sent me an email and asked what I thought about Rick Santorum as a candidate.  She saw the hype in the news about Santorum's sweeping caucus victory in MN, and knowing I live in PA (where he is from) I guess she thought I'd have some insight.

Well, I was living here only about 6 months when he left his Senate seat in Jan. '07... so I'm not an expert.  I'll just list what I like (and don't like) about Rick, and leave it at that.

Santorum has placed the American "family" at the heart of his presidential platform.  Every issue, topic and debate item he can be asked to address, he does from the view point of the "family".  I like this.  His Catholic faith and his pretty "traditional" position on marriage and morality mean most liberals take this to mean he is rooted in a white, male-oriented, nuclear family sort of operation... but I don't see it that way.

When the American economy as a whole is seen as centered on the American family, then the most people possible benefit from the paradigm.  Structuring policy and goals to offer the best opportunities to that "family unit" ensures that the primary focus of his campaign (and, presumably, his administration should he win) is with the single, largest consumer group in the nation... the family unit.

For example, his position on taxes clearly places an emphasis on ensuring that each family unit keep as much of its income as possible.  Family-owned businesses would benefit by gaining some tax incentives via their owners that larger, corporate businesses would not share... thus providing a means by which the largest portion of our nation's employer base is not only maintained but encouraged to grow.  A top taxable rate on income of less than 26% would mean that 72% of all taxpaying American families would get a tax cut (the rest would either pay NO taxes or, like Romney, a lower un-earned income rate).  If the family in question owned a restaurant, for example, and a large portion of their "wealth" was tied up in it, then that tied-up wealth could be added to their deduction schedule so that MORE spendable income remains in their hands.  he seems to recognize that owners of such businesses as this very often work longer hours and take less pay due to the demands of running a small business... and he seems to feel this should be rewarded rather than taxed.  I like this, too.

Santorum is repeatedly asked to defend his positions on "morality"... and I find this unfortunate.  He is a Catholic, so I share much of his understanding of what is "right and wrong", and I understand that there are literally MILLIONS of people that do not share this view... but that is NOT because of his Catholicism!  The same is true should he claim to be Buddhist, Mormon, Hindu or a devotee of the Norse god Odin.  As President, it is NEVER going to come about where he will have the power, voice or deciding vote in the determination of whether a marriage is between two consenting adults of any sex, or only between a man and a woman.  That power rests solely with the Congress of the United States... as any fifth grade student in this nation should be able to explain to you.  The same is true for abortion, capital punishment, Federal speed limits, and the cost to utilize visitor parking at the White House... it is all up to Congress ALONE.  He can veto, but he can't do it alone, one way or the other.

This does, however, touch on something I don't like about him.

He seems to think that it is the role of the government (or, at least, the President) to champion the "traditional" way of life here in America.  I couldn't disagree more.

The president has only ONE role as champion and defender... and that is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States as the primary organ of government.  By promising to defend and support "traditional" issues of morality and ethics in the country, he is placing himself in an untenable position.

Without going too far to the extreme, let me offer these examples:

Less than eight Presidents ago (within my lifetime), the "traditional" lifestyle of much of America included an institutionalized bias against women, blacks, Latinos, homosexuals, mentally and physically handicapped citizens and the poor.  Free and equal access to education did not exist in this nation.  There was no guaranty of equal opportunity in the work place.  "Separate but equal" was still seen as a viable, Constitutional option for more than 1/3 of the 50 States in the Union.  Why is THAT "traditional" lifestyle any less valid that the one championed by Santorum?

I want someone to recognize that it is NOT the role of the President of the United States to define, or contribute to the definition of, such terms as "marriage", "morality", or what does or doesn't constitute being "American" in this day and age.  I want a President that leads by example in such areas, but that doesn't expect or require the rest of the nation to follow simply because he is President.

As long as every American has the same access to services and opportunities to excel in this nation, and as long as his or her sex, race, creed, physical ability and sexual preference is not a determining factor in that access or opportunity, then the "traditional" in America is whatever America as a whole determines it should be.

I'll probably have to continue this later, since there are other areas in his platform that I want to touch on... but to sum up, let me say this:

I can't vote Democrat.  I'm registered Democrat, but can't vote in the general elections as such because the Democratic Party is no longer the party that advocates for equality and equal opportunity.  It is the party that promotes and defends the disparity that still exists in our culture, and they do it to build their support base.  Promising money for the poor, jobs for the unemployed, benefits for being black/Latino/Asian/et al, and all by taxing the very people that provide the most opportunity and benefit to society as a whole seems antithetical to everything that people like Truman and Kennedy so represented.

I really don't care who Obama (or anyone else) thinks is to blame for the fiscal mess that is our national economy... all I care about is what it is going to take to fix it.  If we get it fixed, then we must have recognized what went wrong and we can work to make sure it doesn't repeat THEN, but talking and planning on that NOW is both counter-productive and detrimental to the greater effort.