Posted by
Bert Chapman on Saturday, February 18, 2012 10:27:19 AM
Rick Santorum has enjoyed a remarkable surge in the GOP presidential primaries thanks to his victories in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri although there was fairly low turnout in all of these races. There is much to admire about Santorum including his strong stands on national security issues with particular emphasis on his visionary warnings on the threat posed by Iran. I'm glad he has partially called Ron Paul to task on this. Santorum is also a staunch defender of traditional moral values including the rights of the unborn and for his vigorous defense of traditional marriage. Unfortunately, his unswerving criticism of contraception, will not go over well with swing voters who do not see women as living for the purpose of being baby factories. Mitt Romney has rightly pointed out that birth control is working and its pointless to try to reverse the Supreme Court's Griswold decision.
Santorum, unfortunately, has economic policy weaknesses which make him unsuited to be the President at this critical economic time. While he is right to emphasize the importance of manufacturing in our economic activity, he has a nostalgic and romantic view about manufacturing's preeminent role in the U.S. economy which no longer fits current and emerging national and international economic realities. Conservatives rightly criticize the Obama Administration for favoring "green industries" in their economic policymaking as evidenced by the Solyndra fiasco. We should also criticize Santorum for his giving political preference to traditional manufacturing in his economic policymaking. The government should create conditions and establish policies favorable to all sectors of economic activity without showing favor to any single sector. An article in the current National Review online also criticizes Santorum for his sentimental and nostalgic view toward working class Reagan Democrats which it contends no longer exist as they did in 1980 and have become more secularized in their values.
There is also criticism of Santorum's support for earmarks. Some earmarks can be beneficial and some are true examples of pork. One of Santorum's most troubling examples of earmark support was his encouraging Cheney University and another historically black college in Pennsylvania to come to a Department of Education seminar to learn about how to get more federal money. It is true that many of these universities, created by the 1890 Morrill Land Grant, have been financially underfunded. We must also remember though that these universities are a shameful legacy of racial segregation which was legally concluded by passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act. Since traditional public and private higher education has been desegregrated for several decades, the presence of historically black colleges remains an example of promoting ethnic separatism and they should be closed and their students, staff, and faculty absorbed into existing universities within their respective states.
You can criticize Santorum for his support of earmarks such as the Bridge to Nowhere and, in particular, his support for the unfunded Medicare Prescription Drug Act which has increased our budget deficit when prescription drug reform legislation should have been enacted that would have created more competition in the pharmaceutical industry. Because Santorum is from organized labor heavy Pennsylvania, he has opposed right to work legislation which is critically important to enhancing economic growth and prosperity. As a congressman, he opposed the NAFTA agreement which has brought significant benefits to the U.S. and has tended to favor protectionist measures in his career. More than ever, we need a President who will actively seek to promote the ability of U.S. companies to export their products and services to all countries of the world and push for more free trade agreements. Rick Santorum is not that individual while Mitt Romney is.
Santorum is also off-base in his criticisms of the Massachusetts health care plan Romney introduced while governor. Massachusetts was confronted with the problem of numerous people trying to exploit the state's health care system by not having their own health insurance by trying to get free emergency room care for non-threatening medical conditions. Romney, working with the conservative Heritage Foundation, sought to develop a plan that would fit state needs and the perceived desires of Massachusett's population. This is perfectly consistent with the federalist principles enunciated in the Constitution's 10th Amendment and is not a precursor to the one-size-fits-all monstrosity Obama is seeking to impose. One can legitimately debate how well or poorly this program has worked since Romney left his gubernatorial responsibilities, but responsibility for this program's continued performance rests on the shoulders of Deval Patrick who succeeded Romney as Massachusetts governor. Santorum and other GOP critics of Romney health care policy continually forget that he has said this program was never intended for national application and that he would repeal Obamacare if he becomes President. Santorum also needs to present credible alternatives for reducing unnecessary medical expenses which drive up public and private sector health care costs instead of sanctimoniously criticizing Romney. For instance, what is Santorum's stance on Paul Ryan's entitlement reform proposals?
Santorum does not have the executive experience and temperament necessary to be President. Although he says things that make conservatives feel good, a warm glow in our hearts is not enough to be an effective President or appeal to individuals who do not adhere to all tenets of conservative ideology. I could easily see Santorum as Secretary of Health and Human Services, perhaps Secretary of Defense, and especially as a director of family policy within the White House. His personality, character, and professional connections would all serve him well in those positions.
The next President must be a strong and decisive leader with executive and managerial experience who can reach beyond the conservative bedrock to offer pragmatic and principled solutions to pressing national policy programs and to emerging threats to U.S. national security interests. Unpopular though this may be in Michigan, Romney was right to criticize the federal bailout of General Motors and Chrysler because those two companies had become bloated and inefficient and needed to go through normal bankruptcy procedures. The next President must also be, in the words of the late William F. Buckley, the most electable conservative and someone who can repair the damage done by Barack Obama and begin the long and painful process of restoring American exceptionalism. Mitt Romney is that individual and I urge Michigan primary voters to support him on February 28.