Mark Shields: Rick Santorum — GOP Populist, 2012 Version

Presidential candidate should stick to his roots, emphasizing his commitment to improving the lives of blue-collar Americans

By Mark Shields | Published on 01.07.2012

  • E-mail
  • Print this page Print
  • Comments (1)
    • Share

CONCORD, N.H. — During the campaign for the 1996 Republican presidential nomination, Malcolm “Steve” Forbes pushed a flat-tax plan that would have abolished all taxes on dividends and capital gains. Pat Buchanan, in characteristically understated fashion, charged that the Forbes plan was written to benefit “the boys down at the yacht basin,” because under it, “lounge lizards in Palm Beach pay a lower tax rate than steelworkers in Youngstown.” Those were the days of populist prose and open class warfare in the Republican Party.

There was more than a hint of class in Rick Santorum’s moving Iowa “victory speech.” In paying tribute to his Italian immigrant grandfather, “who worked in a mine in a company town and lived in a shack,” Santorum recalled his grandfather’s wake when he, a youngster, knelt beside the open casket and was struck by the largeness of his grandfather’s gnarled hands: “All I could think of was those hands dug freedom for me.”

For all practical purposes, Santorum, on a January night in Des Moines, was introducing himself to the nation as the proud product of a blue-collar family born, unlike the favored Republican front-runner, to neither privilege nor power.

Here in New Hampshire, post-Iowa, Santorum has been warmly received, especially by the less upscale Republicans he has met. While he concedes the loss of social mobility in the United States when compared to “socialist” Western Europe and promises to confront the historic decline of manufacturing in the American heartland, Santorum is leading no pitchfork brigades in 2012. You will hear from him no mocking of “the boys down at the yacht basin.”

But on the Thursday before this state’s first-in-the-nation primary, Santorum — the favorite of religious and social conservative Republican voters — found himself on the defensive before a Concord audience that included many students. The Pennsylvania Republican, an uncompromising opponent of same-sex marriage, was asked by a high-school senior, after he had spoken about the value and dignity of the individual person as uniquely defining the United States: “How do you justify your beliefs based on those high morals you have about ‘all men being created equal’ when two men want to marry?” Santorum interrupted, “What about three men?” Suddenly, the Iowa long-shot “winner” was very much on the defensive.

When Santorum was in the U.S. Senate, Americans by a landslide 68 percent to 29 percent margin told Gallup that “marriages between same-sex couples should not be recognized by the law as valid.” By 2011, there had been a sea-change in opinion. A 51 percent majority for the first time believed same-sex marriages should be recognized in law with the same rights as traditional marriages. Particularly telling, younger Americans — those under 35 — are the most in favor of recognizing same-sex marriage.

During his second Senate term, Santorum told The Associated Press: “In every society, the definition of marriage has not to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog or whatever the case may be.”

Upon hearing the “man on dog” line, Mark Russell, the peerless political humorist, observed, “Bestiality is never consensual.”

In fact, when compared to the man-on-dog argument, Santorum’s “What about three men?” rebuttal seems mild. One can argue that, to his credit, Santorum does not flinch from defending an increasingly unpopular position on a controversial issue. He is not a flip-flopper. But in the short time he has to make the case on why voters should choose him over Mitt Romney or, later, President Barack Obama, Santorum would be better off emphasizing his roots, coupled with his passionate commitment to improving the lives of forgotten blue-collar Americans, than by railing against the political straw man of polygamy.

— Mark Shields is one of the most widely recognized political commentators in the United States. The former Washington Post editorial columnist appears regularly on CNN, on public television and on radio. Click here to contact him.

Comments

Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.

You must be a registered user to comment. Create a user account

Log in




Auto-login on future visits

Forgot your password?

» AN50 on 01.09.12 @ 01:24 PM

Hard for a man to do what you suggest Mark, if he is going to be harpooned by a bunch of protracted puppets from the local indoctrination camp. Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. Why do these young people or 51% of the population see the need to change that definition because 6% of the population is attracted to the wrong sex?  Its stupid and no I don’t care if a gay couple doesn’t like it or sees it as unfair. Life, as it turns out, is grossly unfair.

But that doesn’t help Rick who is the only candidate thus far to actually see the demise of our country and no, it has nothing to do with homosexuality. Manufacturing is the top wealth generating sector of our economy. It is the reason we have a Lemans Brothers, an AIG or any of the other banking and finance giants government seems to think we can’t live without. Yet we continue to regulate manufacturing out of existence while the parasites that were created to serve manufacturing are coddled by GOP country clubbers and the Obama administration. The one candidate who actually realizes why we have any wealth at all in this country will be eliminated though because of a bunch of narcissistic yahoos that comprise less than 6% of the population don’t get their way. Instead they will have a choice between a man who is dedicated to our country’s destruction or a man who is far more morally judgmental than even Rick.

God help us all.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

More Local News »

Mark Shields: Facebook Co-Founder Puts Profits Before Patriotism

Eduardo Saverin makes billions in IPO, but not before renouncing his U.S. citizenship and moving to Singapore to avoid paying taxes

Mark Shields: Shortcuts for 2012 Presidential Campaign

A good slogan can define a campaign, but for some candidates, coming up with one is easier said than done

Mark Shields: Mud-Slinging Exposes the Dirty Side of Politics

There will be no shortage of negative statements in the next few months of the presidential campaign

Mark Shields: Vice Presidential Choices Do, In Fact, Matter

And what voters want to know is, 'What's she (or he) really like?'

Mark Shields: Republicans Haven’t Even Fallen ‘In Like’ With Romney

GOP presidential candidate must change voters' perception that he 'rounds the edges'

Weather: A Few Clouds 60.0º


© Malamute Ventures LLC 2007-2012 | ISSN No. 1947-6086

Web Design & Development by PixelFive