It has nothing to do with his social conservatism, or his record, or that people find it easy to portray him as a scold. There are things that I like a lot about Rick Santorum. There’s one thing that really throws me off, though.
In the debates, when Santorum is sticking it to somebody—and he’s usually done his homework—he doesn’t look them in the eye. I want a President who will level his gaze at his opponents when he stabs them.
It bothers me about Romney, too, that he’d rather have his unaccountable SuperPAC minions do the cutting for him, and it bothers me that Newt could be goaded into attacking Romney’s work at Bain. It was foolish of Newt to push so hard for Romney to release his taxes, when it gave Romney the opportunity to re-introduce the issue of Gingrich’s work for Freddie Mac.
When one of Romney’s rivals is criticizing him or he’s dishing it out, Romney’s got his whole body pointed in that person’s direction. Same with Newt, who also directs himself towards his opponent when delivering blows. Ron Paul will at least turn his head. But when Santorum unloads on someone, he keeps himself oriented toward the moderator, and only turns his head glancingly when he’s getting dumped on.
I know that some of you are going to say that this reaction to Santorum’s posture in the debates is far overblown, and not far from David Brooks’ hanging an entire epistemology on the perdurable unfalsifiability of trouser creases, but this matter of orientation and proxemics gives me a gut reaction that I don’t like. It’s almost as though Santorum is squeamish about telling the unpleasant truth about his rivals. And that may make him a kinder and more shamefast person, but it is worrisome in a candidate.
If you’re reading this, Stacy, you might want to pass this along: some weird, testosterone-poisoned people would like to see him physically square off more often.
- Excited
- Angry
- Not as Angry
- Bored
- Indifferent
- Sad
I’d never really realized it until you mentioned it, but it is a huge factor in my discomfort with Santorum.
It’s as if he’s being forced to hurt someone’s feelings, and he really doesn’t want to do that. I don’t want a President who tries to avoid stepping on the necessary toes because he is somehow bothered by doing so.
If they deserve to be whacked upside the head, or elsewhere, you grin and look them in the eye while you are doing it. Recall Butch Cassady’s discussion with Harvey (Lurch) about the rules pertaining to a Knife Fight.
If you feel guilty about being right, you probably aren’t going to believe you are often enough when the rubber meets the road.
You are right about this. I have been trying to figure out what it is about Santorum that rubs me the wrong way. I want to like the guy. This is definitely part of it.
http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/01/what-is-matter-with-rick-santorum.html I did a post on this and linked Frank Luntz’ interview. Check out what Luntz says.
Thanks, EBL!
I think you are spot on. And that sort of gut reaction absolutely matters.
Republicans want someone to take on this guy…
Look. The problem is that right now this country is in dire economic straits, and there’s no point in addressing any of our cultural problems until we stop the financial bleeding. So the Santorum-ites propose to fix this by . . . nominating a social conservative/fiscal liberal?
The prescription is 180 degrees removed from what we need, which is a libertarian-leaning person who can still back public-private partnerships that will help with infrastructure and energy security, and believes in an assertive defense posture/foreign policy.
I want the person, ideally, to be someone of faith, or at least someone who understands the Judeo-Christian principles that undergird our country. But I don’t want a zealot, and I don’t want someone who’s going to micromanage the country’s church-going.
And for sure I don’t want someone who’s going to take the focus away from the economy, and get us deep into the weeds of homosexuality and birth control . . . that is a sure-fire prescription for four more years of Obama.
Joy, you are correct in what is important right now. But Santorum does address fiscal issues, but he has been “branded” as a Gay hating so-con and that is all the media seems to care about when it comes to Santorum. Some of this is Santorum’s own fault in that he lack a nuance in dealing with these issues. But I think Dan is right that one of Santorum’s faults is his demeanor in debates. And it is not just debates, it is public speaking in general. He did manage to get elected in Pennsylvania. He also managed to lose badly in PA (although he had a pretty good explanation why in the debate tonight).
His approach to economic issues is to pick winners in the marketplace, same as the President. I mean, maybe he’d make better picks, but it’s the same philosophy.
I think an important distinction is that he is favoring entire segments, families and manufacturing industries, and not picking individual winners and losers.
And as importantly, is using the tax code to do so; which is not the same as bestowing government money on them-except to those who buy into the notion that tax reductions are really “expenditures in the tax code”
I personally agree with Richard, and believe that he wouldn’t proritize imposing his personal morality, or codify his social agenda as law, any more than, say, GOProud would choose to.
I get the impression that he would “play” it like Ronnie Reagan did back in the 80s; talk about these things from the bully pulpit, but not use the power of government to impose them on anyone.
My Regards
So good to see you back, Rocket. Stay a while!
As to the subject matter:
Well, I’m unsure whether one can actually engineer a renaissance in manufacturing by taking the actions he suggests. I mean, it’s probably worth trying, but it’s extremely interventionist, and therefore troubling–and my real preference is that the government just stay the hell out, so the players can find their own level.
And, well–at the level of an existing business, a tax break is a sort of subsidy: if we say they have to pay less this year by x dollars, they have x more dollars to spend next year. And the debt-ridden government gets x fewer dollars. That’s just a fact. And making an entire sector tax-free is a heavy decision.
“I get the impression that he would “play” it like Ronnie Reagan did back in the 80s; talk about these things from the bully pulpit, but not use the power of government to impose them on anyone.”
Aw, come on: Reagan talked about normal things, like reducing abortion and respecting faith. He wasn’t talking about the evils of birth control or homosexuality. Santorum’s brand of social-conism gets pretty fringey.
Joy, I know you don’t roll with Santorum’s social-con positions, but I’ve heard him speak, I’ve posted videos of him speaking, he addresses economic and political issues and he addresses them well. The fact that the pundits and media would rather throw you red meat instead of facts is Santorum’s problem, but it ain’t his fault.