In an election year, I'm always inclined to think about the Founders' hopes for the kinds of citizens that would fill our elected offices. When one studies the Founders, we discover what they really wanted in our leaders is usually a far cry from what we get. The founders wanted statesmen: people who looked beyond political pandering to our best virtues and stood firmly, yet prudently, by national principles in spite of any political opposition. The founders hoped that future generations of Americans would be blessed with a high degree of statesmanship that shared their caliber, along with a firm understanding of right and wrong.
As history has unfolded, however, we have found these statesmen to be more like diamonds in the rough than amidst an embarrassment of riches. As a result, many of our fundamental virtues, usually based on a degree of common sense for the majority of us, are eroded in the name of political correctness, "tolerance," "open mindedness," and doing whatever you want , without worrying about being "judged." This isn't something political; it's not a liberal/conservative debate. It is an uncomfortable recognition going on by Americans of all political stripes that today's society is making it harder for ordinary citizens and leaders to uphold the values and virtues of society. We, as Americans, united by a common heritage, need to ensure that those public officials who receive the public trust understand these values and the need to be the founders' statesmen and adhere to those principles, even to the detriment of their popularity.
At this point, many of you have ruled me out as an idealist, cynically wishing I come back to earth. I won't dispute that our government doesn't contain too many of these stewards. Yet , there are some, and they are worth defending, not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans. Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania is one worth defending.
Senator Santorum's career in public service has always represented his belief that government is "a stewardship of patrimony," meaning it is his task to carry on the social, economic, and educational values this country has inherited from its previous generations and traditions. Those values are rooted in a certain vision of liberty : exercising freedom responsibly to pursue happiness whilst, in the words of our President, "serving a cause larger than your wants, and greater than yourself."
This sort of liberty is at odds with our society's current definition of it. We see freedom and liberty as one and the same : the unrestricted ability to do whatever you want providing you don't hurt anyone else in doing so. Oh, and there's one more condition; you can't judge what anyone else is doing either. There is no right and wrong, there is simply "different strokes for different folks." If you proclaim an action as wrong, you're bigoted, dogmatic, closed-minded, etc. The irony of this form of freedom is believing in a policy of "non-judgment" while judging the social institutions that limit freedoms as "bad". What's worse, this form of freedom takes away the ability of society to establish norms for its protection and continuation. Citizens then become disillusioned with the society they live in and reject the notion of serving it or the fellow citizens who reside in it. Society and government become nothing more than a tool to ensure that everyone can be entitled to happiness.
This is clearly outside of the intent of the Framers, who believed government should "promote the general welfare," not "provide" for it , as it does "the common defense." It's up to local institutions, and most importantly the family, to provide the general welfare. In an era of ever- expanding government, this philosophy is needed to starve the beast and limit government bureaucracy. Senator Santorum has worked for these reforms by being a major player in authoring the 1996 welfare reform legislation and pushing for anti-poverty legislation , known as the CARE Act.
The CARE Act promotes America's charitable communities by providing citizens incentives to make charitable contributions to faith and community based organizations working on issues such as drug counseling, family counseling, and ensuring that the poorest of our society has access to society's essentials. It's also for this reason that Senator Santorum fought to protect the food stamp program from budget cuts and believes that ex-convicts should be allowed to vote in elections if they have not committed a crime for five years after being freed. Santorum's policies have encouraged individual responsibility and created incentives for other members of society to work together in business and in the community , which would pour more of what Santorum calls "capital," or strength, into the greatest social institution: the family.
Santorum has pushed for legislation and advocates in his book, "It Takes A Family", for responsible fatherhood. He cites that those children without responsible parents are, on average , five times more likely to use drugs, to experience educational health, emotional or behavioral problems, and to engage in criminal behavior. As a society, we have a responsibility to promote policies that will discourage such behavior, not reward it. Therefore, it makes common sense to support the family and reject the behaviors which would threaten the institutions that secure the family, namely marriage.
There has been much disingenuous criticism regarding Senator Santorum's comments on homosexuality and homosexuals within society, especially in relation to preserving the family unit. In an interview with an Associated Press reporter, Santorum commented on a Texas court case issue regarding privacy in the bedroom. Santorum said "And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."
Santorum also said in the interview that "I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships." This isn't all that radical, and it prescribes to the Christian tradition of loving the sinner but hating the sin.
In order to see what Santorum said as worthy of losing his job, one would have to believe that practicing Christians are not fit for public office. Santorum's legal point isn't off the mark either. If a court is allowed to strike down laws against one sexual act, there is nothing stopping it from doing it to others, especially if we live in a society where we can no longer judge what behaviors are right and wrong. Others have made this point, including liberal Justice Byron White in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986).
Santorum's comments were in line with his central principle that American society's virtues and values come from a long tradition of selfless individual fulfillment. In order to preserve them, we must preserve the social institutions that allow us to pass them on. It takes a family to do just that, and it takes a statesman to stand up for such beliefs. Rick Santorum is that statesman, and is a rare commodity among politicians who, in the words of Bradley Whitford, "spend more time worrying about how something will play than its substance." Santorum has been more concerned about our principles as a nation, because he knows that is what we elect our officials to uphold. Santorum has kept that public trust, and Pennsylvanians should keep him for that reason alone.
Will Haun is a freshman in the School of Public Affairs, and a conservative columnist for the Eagle.
