Search This Blog

Friday, November 10, 2006

Rick Santorum

PEGGY NOONAN
We Need His Kind In praise of Rick Santorum. Friday, November 3, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
It has been hard not to experience the election as a brute-force clash between two armies struggling over terrain their soldiers have come to see, inevitably--they are at war, they are exhausted--as the location of the battle, but not its purpose. The nation is where the contest takes place; you can forget, in the fight, that its actual future is what's being fought for.
But here's an exception: the state of Pennsylvania, which has been this year a bright patch of meaning. Its U.S. Senate contest has been the great race of the cycle, the one about which conservatives in their hearts most care. And not only conservatives, but those who know, for whatever reason and in whatever way, that there is something truly at stake here, something beyond mere red team and blue.
That would be Sen. Rick Santorum. The sense among so many people--including politicians and journalists--is that the Senate needs his sort, his kind.
The other day I called a former senator, a crusty old moderate Republican, and asked him if he liked Mr. Santorum. "No," he said, "I love him." When Mr. Santorum was new to the Senate, in 1995, he, the elder, seasoned legislator tried to mentor him. He wanted to help him survive. Mr. Santorum was grateful and appreciative, "but he kept speaking his mind!" The former senator: "The political scientists all say to be honest and stand for principle, that's what people want. And he was exactly that, and he's about to get his head handed to him." He chuckled then with what seemed the reflexive pleasure of one pol about to see another take a tumble. Then he stopped. It was sad, he said.

Being a U.S. senator is a hard job. I mean this not sarcastically. John F. Kennedy once observed that it carries within it an always potentially conflicting dynamic. He was a senator from Massachusetts, he said, there to look after the needs and interests of his state. "Who will speak for Massachusetts if her own senators do not?" At the same time, look at his title: United States senator from Massachusetts. He was a member of a deliberative body whose duty it was to look, always, to the national interest. Senators could not only be "special pleaders" for "state or section." He was there, in the end, to speak for America, to address issues greater and higher than those of region, state and party.
Rick Santorum's career (two Senate terms, before that two in the House) suggests he has thought a great deal about the balance, and concluded that in our time the national is the local. Federal power is everywhere; so are the national media. (The biggest political change since JFK's day is something he, 50 years ago, noted: the increasing nationalization of everything.) And so he has spoken for, and stood for, the rights of the unborn, the needs of the poor, welfare reform when it was controversial, tax law to help the family; against forcing the nation to accept a redefining of marriage it does not desire, for religious freedom here and abroad, for the helpless in Africa and elsewhere. It is all, in its way, so personal. And so national. He has breached the gap with private action: He not only talks about reform of federal law toward the disadvantaged, he hires people in trouble and trains them in his offices.
Santorum issues are hot issues, and raise passions pro and con.
His style has been to face what his colleagues hope to finesse. His opponent, reading the lay of the land, has decided the best way to win is to disappear. He does not like to debate. Mr. Santorum has taken to carrying an empty chair and merrily addressing it.
Mr. Santorum has been at odds with the modernist impulse, or liberalism, or whatever it now and fairly should be called. Most of his own impulses--protect the unprotected, help the helpless, respect the common man--have not been conservative in the way conservative is roughly understood, or portrayed, in the national imagination. If this were the JFK era, his politics would not be called "right wing" but "progressive." He is, at heart, a Catholic social reformer. Bobby Kennedy would have loved him.
This week I caught up with Mr. Santorum by phone as his van drove east along the Pennsylvania Turnpike toward Philadelphia.
He sounded joyful. He said this campaign was "the hardest and most wonderful ordeal I've ever been through." He said he's been taken aback by all the prayers, by all the people who've come from so far to help him. "I've never had that before. I've never had it. I met a guy from Seattle, and a guy from Waco, Texas--they came in for a week just to help me. We have 14 kids coming in from Great Britain!" He said, "Wonderful things are happening."
He sounded startled. And moved. And hopeful. Which is a funny way for a guy down 10 points to feel.
He told me something is happening. And I hope he's right. Because the U.S. Senate is both an institution and a collection of human beings, and it needs his kind.

I end with a story too corny to be true, but it's true. A month ago Mr. Santorum and his wife were in the car driving to Washington for the debate with his opponent on "Meet the Press." Their conversation turned to how brutal the campaign was, how hurt they'd both felt at all the attacks. Karen Santorum said it must be the same for Bob Casey and his family; they must be suffering. Rick Santorum said yes, it's hard for them too. Then he said, "Let's say a Rosary for them." So they prayed for the Caseys as they hurtled south.
A friend of mine called them while they were praying. She told me about it later, but didn't want it repeated. "No one would believe it," she said.
But I asked Mr. Santorum about it. Sure, he said, surprised at my surprise. "We pray for the Caseys every night. We know it's as hard for them as it is for us."
Personally I'll shed no tear for the careerists of either party who win or lose, nor for the BlackBerryed gargoyles in the second row of the SUV who tell them how to think and where to stand. That means this election night will be, for me, a dry-eyed affair.
But if Rick Santorum goes down to the defeat all expect, I will feel it. Like the crusty old moderate Republican, I know a national loss when I see one.
Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father" (Penguin, 2005), which you can order from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Fridays on OpinionJournal.com.

2 comments:

Gerry S said...

Pro-Life Loses in Pennsylvania

How did Catholics vote in the race for Senate pitting pro-life leader Rick Santorum vs. Senator-elect Bob Casey Jr.? Why did they vote that way?


November 19-25, 2006 Issue


Posted 11/8/06 at 8:00 AM


Pennsylvania is a rare state that votes Democrat in presidential elections but is more solidly pro-life than any state in the northeast. On Tuesday, however, pro-lifers in Pennsylvania took a beating, and so did the Culture of Life.

One of the top pro-life Catholics in the U.S. House of Representatives, Congresswoman Melissa Hart, was defeated, as were pro-life Congressmen Curt Weldon and Don Sherwood. Weldon and Sherwood, both pro-life Protestants, lost to pro-choice Catholics, Joe Sestak and Chris Carney, respectively.

Of course, the most important contest for pro-lifers was the Pennsylvania Senate race, between incumbent Republican Rick Santorum and Democratic challenger Bob Casey, Jr., both pro-life Catholics, but with important differences:

Santorum is almost certainly the strongest pro-life member of the Senate, a fierce opponent of abortion and a stalwart defender of life issues generally, particularly matters like embryonic stem-cell research.

His dedication to the cause was typified by an unforgettable moment on the Senate floor one day in October 1999, when he confronted Senator Barbara Boxer, D-Calif, on the issue of partial-birth abortion.

What if, Santorum asked Boxer, almost facetiously, in the course of the partial-birth abortion, the baby’s foot was inside the mother but the rest of the baby was outside — “could that baby be killed?” He repeated the question from the vantage of different body parts, prompting Boxer — caught in the absurdity of her position — to snap, “I am not answering these questions.”

Santorum did, however, get an answer from Boxer on this one: “[D]o you agree, once the child is born, separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed?” Boxer replied: “I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born … the baby belongs to your family and has rights.”

This was Boxer’s standard for when life begins — the frightening contradictions of which do not bother pro-choicers, so long as she supports legalized abortion. Her thinking illustrates the jaw-dropping moral relativism that Rick Santorum fought against.

Bob Casey, Jr., like his late father (a former two-term governor of Pennsylvania), opposes abortion, but, unlike Santorum, is hardly an across-the-board champion for life.

Especially worrisome is how Casey will vote for pro-life judges nominated by President George W. Bush. A very likely scenario would be that Bush announces a pro-life, strict constructionist judge only to have Casey reject the judge for a myriad of reasons separate from the justice’s position on abortion. This is a crucial point, since President Bush will likely get one more pick for the U.S. Supreme Court, and that pick will be the swing vote in a pro-life or anti-life court, where the future of Roe v. Wade is in the balance.

On Tuesday, challenger Casey crushed Senator Santorum in a landslide, 59-41%.

It will be said that Santorum lost on Tuesday because Casey overwhelmingly won moderates and independents, which is true, and because of opposition to the war in Iraq. The exit poll data on Iraq and terrorism generally is a bit confusing. What is clear, however, is that an unappreciated factor in Santorum’s crushing defeat was the failure of the 2004 “values voter.” Consider these telling statistics from CNN exit polling:

Those Pennsylvania voters who said that abortion should be legal voted for Casey over Santorum by a stunning margin of 77-23%, and those who believe that abortion should be “always legal” under any circumstance went for Casey 84-16%. These numbers are extremely significant.

We can also learn a lot from the data on religious voters:

Pennsylvanians who attend church weekly (41% of voters) went for Santorum by 53-47%, whereas those who attend only occasionally (40% of voters) went for Casey by a two-to-one margin, 65-35%. Those who attend church more than weekly (12% of voters) went for Santorum 65-35%, whereas those who say they never attend church (16% of voters) cast ballots for Casey 78-22%. In the Pennsylvania Senate race, secularists and atheists trounced the devout.

The breakdown among Catholics and Protestants is also interesting:

Casey easily won Pennsylvania Catholics by 59-41%, identical to the overall statewide vote. Those Catholics constituted one-third of all voters. Casey narrowly won Protestants by 51-49%. Protestants comprised 47% of Pennsylvania voters.

The Catholic Santorum, on the other hand, handily won Pennsylvania voters who describe themselves as “born-again” or as evangelicals, by 59-41%, and swept white born-again evangelicals 71-29%.

Overall, Tuesday, November 7, 2006, was not a good day for pro-life Pennsylvanians. Whether it is a terrible day ultimately depends on the state’s newest senator-elect, Bob Casey, Jr. We will get our answer if and when President Bush forwards his next candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court.



Paul Kengor is author of The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism (2006) and associate professor of political science at Grove City College.

Gerry S said...

gerry: will casey follow in his fathers footsteps and be truly pro-life.remember the dems would"nt let him speak at their national convention many years back......santorum on the other hand turned many pro-life people off when he came and promoted arlen spector for his reelection a couple of years ago....gerry we must all remember that its all about politics.....these people are all on ego trips.....and would do anything to keep their jobs....
bob