Santorum the Underestimated

Rick Santorum deserves high praise for his massive victory in Iowa last night. He proved that values conservatisim is alive and well--at least in Iowa, and that there is a strong current in the Republican base pulling for an alternative to the so-called establishment moderate, Mitt Romney. The question now is, "Is he a legitimate contender for the nomination, or simply the last man standing in Iowa?"

The problem is, both the labels of "Constitutional Conservative" as applied to Santorum and "Establishment Moderate" as applied to Mitt Romney are misnomers.

Despite his protestations to the contrary, Santorum appears to me to be a big government conservative. He would likely be as aggressive pursuing his values agenda at the federal level as modern liberals are at pursuing their redistributive collectivist "morality." It would merely be an exchange of one set of values for another. True, Santorum's principles are likely more attractive to a broader swath of center-right Americans, but that misses the point. Values legislation does not fall within the enumerated powers of the US FEDERAL government. These are issues for the several states to decide. Even Santorum's manufacturing jobs initiatives at the federal level, represent over-reach into the free market. That said, he is likely to be more fiscally responsible than the left under any Democrat administration. But he's no anti-Federalist! Further, Santorum has been a Washington "insider" and professional politician since he was elected to the US Congress at the age of 30. He would also likely extend the US military presence around the globe, the wisdom of which is highly debatable.

Romney, on the other hand, is mischaracterized in the media on both sides of the aisle as a "moderate;" a virtual RINO. This is wildly overstated when objective measures are applied. Despite his notorious "flip-flops" on abortion and gay rights, and his use of a mandate at the state level to provide private health insurance for all MA citizens, Romney is far more conservative than the media would have you believe and his actual policy positions more consistent. Similar to Ronald Reagan, Mitt's position on choice, has evolved (though I wonder why it had to) and he has a strong pro-life record--including opposition to public funding of embryonic stem cell research. Not only does his personal life reflect an exemplary fidelity to family and faith, he defended traditional marriage in a state that changed the definition of the term to include same-sex unions, while also supporting appropriate civil rights for gay couples. (In fact, his public policy ACTIONS mirror Santorum's rhetoric.) Romney's defense of the public healthcare mandate in Massachusetts as an appropriate solution for the state but not for the nation, while disconcerting to conservatives, also demonstrates a commitment to state-centered solutions. Romney is a state's rights champion--not a big government Federalist. He appears to believe in free market solutions and has spent most of his life in the private sector as a maestro of "turn-around" management. Unfortunately, he too, may have a more "imperialistic" view of America's role in the world than that established by the Founders.

Although you can see my leaning, I'm still wide open to both of these guys, as well as to Ron Paul, Newt, Perry and Bachmann although the latter 4 appear significantly less electable to varying degrees. Time will tell whether Santorum can stand the heat in the kitchen and arise as a legitimate contender, but for now he deserves kudos for peaking at the right time and winning his share of the Iowa electorate at about one-tenth the cost of Romney's expense. Now THAT's rational!

Above all, remember who they're running against; arguably the most partisan, divisive, radical, collectivist, anti-capitalist, big-spending, incompetent, misguided activist ever to occupy the Oval Office. A conservative of any degree will be light years better than the travesty that is Obama.