Thu, 04 Aug 2005 22:03:36
Santorum needs a good beating
Jeff Jarvis listened so you wouldn’t have to:
This whole idea of personal autonomy — I don’t think that most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. And they have this idea that people should be left alone to do what they want to do, that government should keep taxes down, keep regulation down, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, that we shouldn’t be involved in cultural issues, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world. And I think that most conservatives understand that we can’t go it alone, that there is no such society that I’m aware of where we’ve had radical individualism and it has succeeded as a culture.
He actually said that out loud? In public? That’s...that just wrong on so many levels that I’m a little confused on where to start. The very foundation of this country was rugged individualism. Our entire system is predicated...no...make that WAS predicated on it.
Ugh. I’ve always disliked Santorum. Anyway, in talking about where the crazy left and the extreme right meet, Jeff says:
Ah, but conservativism isn’t the thread that ties these guys — and their odd, mutated form of conservatism together: It is control. That, you see, is where these two fringes really meet: At the desire to control us, the way we live, the way we talk, the way we think. That is radical. It’s not true conservatism. It’s not true liberalism, either. It’s not true Americanism, as far as I’m concerned. Valuing the individual is American.
Couldn’t have crystallized my feelings on the matter any better than if he were in my head. Shame on Rick Santorum.
Hat tip: Daily Pundit.
Posted by JimK at 10:03 PM on August 04, 2005
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend |
Categories: News, Politics
Tags:
Comments:
#2 Posted by PatMeebles 
on 08/05 at 01:02 AM -
I’m not sure that I actually agree with the idea that the country started out with complete personal autonomy. Sure, it was a lot closer in the beginning, but you still had racist laws and sodomy laws.
Another point is that Santorum tried to connect personal freedom from the government with personal freedom from society. While someone should be free to isolate themselves from society (Thoreau, anyone?), to say that being free from the government will lead to a spite and general “fuck you” attitude towards other people is pretty naive, in my opinion.
One more point. I hate the “it’s never succeeded in society before” argument. Well, genius, that’s because IT’S NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. The same goes for gay marriage. I hear all the time about “I can’t name one society where they’ve allowed gay marriage and that society lasted.” Gee, I wonder why…
#3 Posted by Sean Galbraith 
on 08/05 at 01:14 AM -
How do these people keep getting elected?
#4 Posted by JimK on 08/05 at 01:45 AM -
He talks as if the American Experiment is not a unique form of governance. It;s just baffling to me that our elected officials knwo so little about thsi country. Sean’s Canadian and he’s more frigging qualified to be a Senator.
#5 Posted by Sean Galbraith on 08/05 at 02:19 AM -
I’m holding out for King. Senators don’t get to put people against the wall.
#6 Posted by gcanter on 08/05 at 04:00 AM -
There is lot’s of buzz here in PA about Bob Casey Jr. If he runs, Santorum won’t have a chance.
This is the one time I will consider voting for a dem.
#7 Posted by Resro on 08/05 at 11:22 AM -
“I can’t name one society where they’ve allowed gay marriage and that society lasted.” Gee, I wonder why…
Actually they have gay marriage in Holland and Canada, and it’s working just fine. They haven’t fallen into the ocean yet.
#8 Posted by Sean Galbraith on 08/05 at 02:30 PM -
Not to mention that it is ridiculous to suggest that gay marriage was the cause of societal downfall when there are plenty of societies who did not allow gay marriage and still collapsed. I would like to hear his list of societies that allowed gay marriage and collapsed. I can’t personally think of any that allowed them (until very recently).
Roman Empire: No gay marriage
British Empire: No gay marriage
Ottoman Empire: No gay marriage
Every Chinese dynasty and feudalistic Japan: No gay marriage
Babylon: I don’t think they allowed gay marriage, but I could be mistaken.
Aztecs, Incas, Mayans: No gay marriage
etc
#9 Posted by Drumwaster on 08/05 at 03:57 PM -
“In principle, there are only two fundamental political viewpoints. That is, two contradictory ends of the ‘political spectrum.’ Those two principles are freedom and slavery.”—Mark Da Cunha
“The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom.”—Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
#10 Posted by Drumwaster on 08/05 at 04:56 PM -
One more great quote on the subject:
“Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
-- Robert A. Heinlein
#11 Posted by JimK on 08/05 at 10:34 PM -
Drum that is so awesome a quote I can barely contain my awe at the words therein. I’ve always felt like a surly, suspicious curmudgeon, although I don’t think I lack in altruism.
On a basic level, that’s all it comes down to, control versus liberty. Nanny state versus self-governance wherever possible. And it seems that gulf is growing wider and wider.
This is all going into the podcast this week, likely in the two minute rant segment…
#12 Posted by Drumwaster on 08/06 at 01:11 AM -
Santorum may only be a part-time idiot.
RSS (Subscribe)
Tip jars (Donate today!)
... He actually came out and said he believes the government should have the right to control what goes on in your bedroom? And that, essentially, the idea of personal freedom is wrong?
... What. The. Fuck?