Reflections Blog

Desperately Seeking Santorum

This year’s presidential campaign will be remembered principally for the Republican’s desperate search for ABR—anybody but Romney.   As I write this in March 2012, the field appears to have narrowed to four:  Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul.  But it’s not really four.  Ron Paul’s odds of winning the nomination are about as good as Jerry Sandusky’s odds at being named the next Pope.   Which leaves us with three . . .  but not really.  In the polls, Newt has had more ups and downs in the past year than the DOW, and his star is fading fast.  Republicans everywhere except in the Deep South seem to have realized that candidate Gingrich would carry more baggage than United Airlines.  This is the guy who was railing against Bill Clinton for his Monica Lewinsky indiscretions while Gingrich himself was having an illicit affair.  Moral hypocrisy doesn’t get more sordid than that.  Pitting him against Obama next fall would be like conceding the election before it’s held. 

Which leaves us with Rick Santorum as the only viable Republican candidate other than Romney.  It has been a long and lonely road for Santorum.  He lingered in obscurity for months, the barely mentioned candidate who had little presence and few followers while Rick Perry soared to front-runner status, only to be done in by his own blistering stupidity, and then Herman Cain grabbed the baton and ran with it, stumbling weeks later when one woman after another surfaced with increasingly credible claims that Herman couldn’t keep his hands (and other body parts) to himself.   Michele Bachmann fizzled after an early win in the Iowa straw polls, and Sarah Palin, Republican darling of the 2008 presidential campaign, flirted repeatedly with the press from her showy campaign bus prior to the first debates, but in the end she turned out to be a tease.

Which leaves us with Rick Santorum. 

And this begs the question:   What is wrong with Romney anyway?   Why aren’t voters in the Republican primaries supporting him in greater numbers?  Poll after poll has anointed him as the candidate most likely to beat Obama in the fall.  If people voted based on electability, he might already be the Republican candidate for president.  But voters, especially those in the primaries, tend to vote with their hearts instead of their heads, and herein lies the problem with Romney.  He’s a difficult guy to love, especially for the average, Bible-thumping conservative. 

Although Romney claims to be a conservative, many people suspect that he’s actually a moderate in conservative clothing.  And they are correct.  Despite Romney’s declarations of late, he is clearly a moderate, and a dedicated hard core of tea partying, right-wing-to-the-bone conservatives don’t trust Romney to carry out their agenda.  And they shouldn’t . . . because he wouldn’t.  Romney says whatever he thinks voters want to hear (another reason to distrust him), but if he were elected he would serve the broadest constituency (which, by the way, is what we need the country’s president to do) rather than the narrow agenda of the conservative bloc that currently dominates the Republican Party. 

If we ignore, for the moment, that Romney is not a hardcore conservative, the candidate we see has a lot of the right stuff.  He’s been both a successful businessman and a successful governor.  He knows how to run things.  He understands economics.  He’s put together an admirable machine to run his campaign.  Moreover, as far as we know, he is a dedicated family man with no moral issues that could derail his candidacy.  He hasn’t had multiple affairs and multiple wives (for that, see Newt Gingrich).  He hasn’t had a legion of women claiming that he groped them (for that, see Herman Cain).  In fact, it’s difficult to imagine that Romney has any skeletons in his closet.  If he did, surely they would have emerged by now.

But there is the Mormon thing, and this is what worries many religious conservatives.  Some of them believe that Mormonism is a cult, which makes it scary somehow.  (One can imagine that this is what the Romans thought of early Christians.)  There are fears that, if elected, Romney would be taking orders from the head of the Morman church (whom the Mormans consider a prophet), but the same fears surfaced when JFK was running for president, and the Pope, as far as we can tell, had very little to say about how Kennedy ran the country.  Some fundamentalists worry that if Romney were elected those Mormon missionaries we see everywhere would have even more success finding new followers—and Mormonism is already the fastest growing religion in the country.

The irony is that Romney displays the virtues and lives the values that most fundamentalists espouse, and compared to Newt Gingrich, Romney is a saint.  But they just can’t stomach that Mormon thing and for this reason alone won’t support Romney.

Which leaves us with Rick Santorum.

But Santorum is also problematic as a challenger to Obama next fall.  His strongest platform is social conservatism—and here he has shown himself to be radically out of touch with mainstream America, particularly on the issue of contraception.  He opposes birth control on moral grounds, presumably because of his Catholicism, although a recent poll showed that 92 percent of Catholic women use some form of birth control.  He doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state, which was one of our nation’s founding principles.  He believes that God’s laws are more important than man’s laws (a form of government called a theocracy and no different from the way Iran is governed).  And his stance against homosexuality is ugly and intolerant.

It’s not clear that Santorum knows anything about the economy (he rarely talks about it).  He has no foreign policy experience.  He doesn’t have extensive government experience (neither did Obama).  The only thing that qualifies him to run the country, at least from his perspective, is that he thinks he has better ideas about how Americans should live their lives than most Americans do.  Santorum appeals to religious conservatives, which is why he does well in states with many religious conservatives among the Republican primary voters, but it’s doubtful that he will appeal to a broader spectrum of voters in the general election, especially the moderate and independent voters who constitute the largest bloc of swing votes.  If he does become the Republican nominee, you can bet that his socially conservative views will be highlighted not only by negative ads from his democratic opponent but also by political action committees run by Americans who don’t want to their country to be led by a religious zealot intent on imposing his moral views on everyone else.

As the Republican nominee, Santorum would be a bigger political liability than many Republican voters, in their zeal to nominate ABR, appear to realize.  Santorum’s social conservatism, as out of touch as it is, would derail his candidacy and give Obama a second term, particularly if the economy continues to improve in the next eight months.

Which leaves us with Mitt Romney.

Other than the Mormon thing, his biggest liability as a candidate is himself.  He tries to be like the rest of us but can’t pull it off.  His jokes are lame.  He has that odd robotic smile.  And he often makes comments that lead people to suspect he has no clue how the 99.999 percent of Americans who are not in his income bracket actually live.  But he tries to remain focused on the right issues (the economy) and he would not be as threatening a candidate to moderate and independent voters as Paul, Gingrich, and Santorum would be.  For that reason, he is the Republican’s best shot at gaining the presidency next fall.  But the hardcore conservatives who are shaping the Republican race may not give him that chance.   By desperately seeking Santorum—or anybody else but Romney—they may be handing a second term to Obama.

Comments

RJ429

I don't agree with everything you said, but you were right about Santorum not becoming the candidate. So when you compare Romney with Obama who do you think has the best shot in November?

May 24, 2012, 1:16 PM
Terry R. Bacon

I think it's too early to tell at this point. Among a candidate's greatest sources of power is reputation, and reputation is a complex stew in a national election like ours. Among the factors that affect it are the electorate's views of the candidates' stance on important issues, their public service record, their voting record, and many personal characteristics. But one of the most important factors is how voters feel about their own lives--their financial situation, their sense of well being, their prospects for the future, and so on. If the economy turns sharply upward before November, Obama's chances of winning will be strong; conversely, if the economy slumps, if unemployment remains high, if people lose confidence in the future, then Romney is virtually a shoo-in. Romney is gaining power, but Obama is more formidable at this point than many people realize. He has a large base of supporters and a vast war chest. Romney will need to make few mistakes and continue to build people's confidence in his ability to solve the nation's debt woes and stimulate the economy enough to bring back something close to full employment.

May 30, 2012, 9:44 PM
Mert

john f.:If I was still an active mebmer of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I would indeed be averse to him becoming the most recognized public face of the faith. First, he would further reinforce the stereotype that LDS are, as Seth so well put it, narrow-minded conservative throwbacks. Given that I did not fit that stereotype while I was an active mebmer of the LDS church, I hate to see that stereotype reinforced on a rather grand scale. Second, he has repeatedly changed his publicly-stated views on a variety of issues, each time conveniently to fit the demographic wherein he is running for office. He has done this so often, that I am unable to conclude that he is an honest man. I would be concerned that he might commit an unethical act, which would, due to his position, reflect badly upon the LDS church.Third, he has made more than one public statement which I would frankly expect faithful LDS to find offensive. Take, for example, his public joke that he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, and another woman, etc. Take, for another example, his recent comment that he couldn't imagine anything more awful than polygamy. I don't care that the majority of modern LDS would probably leave the church if plural marriage came back. Romney has shown, by his words, that he is completely willing to mock and/or repudiate principles which have been sacred to mebmers of the LDS church, not to mention his own ancestors. This one makes me angry even as a FORMER mebmer of the LDS church.Fourth, Romney represents the so-called gospel of prosperity, which is already far too rampant in LDS culture. Seeing an extremely wealthy mebmer of the church elevated to such a position would only exacerbate that problem, I believe.Fifth, Romney's political views are, in my opinion, incongruent with those of a person who allegedly believes the U.S. Constitution was divinely inspired.I could go on, but this should be enough to make it clear that I'm not making a mere knee-jerk reaction here.

July 30, 2012, 9:52 PM
Kina

I think the problem with Palin was not that she was Palin, but she beacme too much like McCain. She was also an easy target for dim witted female front runners who love to criticize others until they think their thighs are thinner. I cringed every time I had to listen to her take up for one of McCain's big government ideas. I wonder if she would say she would have voted for McCain or against Obama prior to her nomination.

July 31, 2012, 1:01 AM
Walid

I doubt any Republican will seek McCain's endorsement in the 2012 cycle for President exepct maybe a RINO. I am not saying McCain is a bad guy however he did not represent the heart and soul of Republicans. I am certain the push for a McCain nomination got traction in 2008 because many believed Hillary would win the Dem nomination. I suspect McCain would have beaten Hillary.McCain's campaign was over when Obama won the Dem nomination and Palin merely gave hope to make the race closer.

July 31, 2012, 1:48 AM
Kimberley

Romney is savvy and scripted. Sometimes that's a plus and sotiemmes it's a minus. I like to see evidence of spontaneity, self-confidence, sincerity, personal values these days campaigns are so highly-funded and carefully plotted out that it's hard to tell what we are actually seeing. I think in some ways that is very detrimental. But it may be unavoidable, to a great extent. I've brought this up before, but I'll never forget attending a George Bush (the first one) event at Brigham Young University (during his campaign) and being hugely disappointed. Here was a man who had been a pilot in WWII, a diplomat to China, the head of the CIA, etc. and etc., and instead of teaching us anything or sharing any personal wisdom he had gained over time, he served us up political twinkies that were calculated to please the local audience. It was a total joke and for some reason the audience was cheering the whole time. It felt like I was at an early Beatles rock concert with a couple of thousand brainless 14-year-old girls (not a good thing, at all).Politics really interests me but the process can be quite a disappointment sotiemmes.

September 8, 2012, 7:59 PM
Susan

I wrote a blog post some months ago (on my patvrie blog) comparing a Romney speech with an Obama speech saying I thought Obama spoke well and Romney not so well. I think I also wrote at the time that we had little to gain or lose from Romney being in office.I've since re-thought that last part I think we have a lot to gain or perhaps a lot to lose, with Romney in office. It's a huge opportunity, in many ways, for one of our own to demonstrate that a Mormon can be a capable leader, a good person, intelligent at the same time, there is the very real potential risk that a majority or sizable minority of the country's population (or even the world's population) could come to dislike a Mormon president for a variety of reasons.So I take back my idea that we have little to gain or lose if Romney runs well or even wins the election. There is a lot going on here and we may not be able to foresee many of the potential implications good or bad.

September 9, 2012, 3:46 PM
Leave a Comment

Required Field

 

image of a penHow to contact me...

Email: terry@terryrbacon.com
Websites: www.terryrbacon.com, www.theelementsofpower.com

You can also find me on Find Terry R Bacon on Facebook, or Terry R Bacon's LinkedIn Profile. Follow me on Terry R Bacon on Twitter