Stand up for what you believe in, even if it goes against the current status quo.

Posts tagged ‘Mitt Romney’

A New Social Agenda

One of my professors sent the class this article in an email. It pertains to some of the material we are learning about. The author, David Brooks, is supposedly a conservative writer for the NY Times. However, he starts the article with how he is “to Rick Santorum’s left on most social issues,” including same-sex “marriage” and abortion. So he supports gay “marriage” and is pro-Choice. Doesn’t sound like a conservative to me, but y’all can decide.

 

A New Social Agenda

By DAVID BROOKS

I’m to Rick Santorum’s left on most social issues, like same-sex marriage and abortion. I’m also put off by his Manichaean political rhetoric. He seems to imagine America’s problems can best be described as the result of a culture war between the God-fearing conservatives and the narcissistic liberals.

Like most Americans, including most evangelicals under 40, I find this culture war language absurd. If conservative ideas were that much more virtuous than liberal ideas, then the conservative parts of the country would have fewer social pathologies than the liberal parts of the country. They don’t.

But having said all that, I’m delighted that Santorum is making a splash in this presidential campaign. He is far closer to developing a new 21st-century philosophy of government than most leaders out there.

One of Santorum’s strengths is that he understands that a nation isn’t just an agglomeration of individuals; it’s a fabric of social relationships. In his 2005 book, “It Takes a Family,” he had chapters on economic capital as well as social capital, moral capital, cultural capital and intellectual capital. He presents an extended argument against radical individualism. “Just as original sin is man’s inclination to try to walk alone without God, individualism is man’s inclination to try to walk alone among his fellows,” he writes.

Communities breed character. Santorum argues that government cannot be agnostic about the character of its citizens because the less disciplined the people are, the more government must step in to provide order.

His political philosophy is built around the Catholic concept of subsidiarity — that everything should be done at the lowest possible level. That produces a limited role for Washington, but still an important one.

Over the years, Santorum has sought to use the federal government to nurture healthy communities. Welfare reform, which he helped lead, was a paternalistic way to use state power to encourage hard work.

He seeks to triple the size of the child tax credit, to make families more financially secure. He has supported flex time and transportation policies to make life easier for working parents. After initial opposition, he came to support AmeriCorps, the federal community service program.

Santorum believes Head Start should teach manners to children. He has supported efforts to police the airwaves and corporate marketing campaigns. He believes that felons should recover the right to vote if they stay out of trouble for five years after their release from prison.

Santorum’s policies on tax reform, entitlement reform and the other big issues are similar to Mitt Romney’s and most of the other Republican candidates. But he seems to understand that simply cutting is not enough to build a healthy society. To avert decline, America has to restore its values.

Santorum understands that we have to fuse economics talk and values talk. But he hasn’t appreciated that the biggest challenge to stable families, healthy communities and the other seedbeds of virtue is not coastal elites. It’s technological change; it’s globalization; it’s personal mobility and expanded opportunity; it’s an information-age economy built on self-transformation and perpetual rebranding instead of fixed inner character. It is the very forces that give us the dynamism and opportunities in the first place.

Santorum doesn’t yet see that once you start thinking about how to foster an economic system that would nurture our virtues, you wind up with an agenda far more drastic and transformational.

If you believe in the dignity of labor, it makes sense to support an infrastructure program that allows more people to practice the habits of industry. If you believe in personal responsibility, you have to force Americans to receive only as much government as they are willing to pay for. If you believe in the centrality of family, you have to have a government that both encourages marriage and also supplies wage subsidies to men to make them marriageable.

If you believe social trust is the precondition for a healthy society, you have to have a simplified tax code that inspires trust instead of degrading it. If you believe that firm attachments and stable relationships build human capital, you had better offer early education for children in disorganized neighborhoods. If you want capitalists thinking for the long term and getting the most out of their workers, you have to encourage companies to be more deeply rooted in local communities rather than just free-floating instruments of capital markets.

I doubt Santorum is going to win the nomination. Main Street Republicans like Romney usually beat social conservatives like Santorum because there are just so many more of them in the Republican electorate. But social conservatives and libertarians often provide the ideas that Main Street leaders co-opt.

America is creative because of its moral materialism — when social values and economic ambitions get down in the mosh pit and dance. Santorum is in the fray.

 

When I sent it to my Grandfather, he told me that he didn’t think Santorum could win the Presidential nomination. Unfortunately, I have to agree with him. I strong believe, however, that he is way better than Gingrich or Romney.

This is my response to my Grandfather’s email (sorry for the weird formatting):

I really like Santorum. A lot of people (**cough** liberals) dislike him because he has a very strong, Catholic faith and he lets people know that. He doesn’t separate his faith from his politics, because it is essentially impossible to do so. What kind of Christians would we be (would Santorum be) if we practiced our faith in private but acted differently once in the public sphere? Santorum would be a horrible Christian and wouldn’t be able to be taken seriously. He has my vote. I pray that America wakes up. I pray that conservatives realize what a risk it is to nominate Romney or Gingrich. Neither of them have great track records, nor are they true conservatives. Look at Romney… legalized gay marriage in Mass. Passed a pro-choice bill, was pro-choice but now realizes he’s Pro-Life? How can we trust him? He passed RomneyCare, but disliked ObamaCare which was influenced by his health plan in Mass? It would be an illogical decision to nominate him as a Pres. candidate under conservative values. And Gingrich just has a lot of personal issues. Too much baggage, too much uncertainty.

Time to pray folks. Pray for the candidate that is going to help restore conservative values to this great nation!

~Lucy

What’s Actually Going On?

Is she alive?

Yes, folks. I, Lucy, am still living. I realize that I haven’t blogged in FOREVER. My deepest apologies. I don’t know where the time went…

One minute I’m driving home for Christmas break, baking Christmas cookies and opening Christmas presents with my family…

The next I’m sitting in my research methods class falling asleep. What in the world…?

But no, really. That’s exactly how it happened.

So I guess it’s back to reality. Back to life. Back to work. Back to school. Back to schoolwork. Back to politics. Can I get a whoop whoop?

Apparently I’ve missed some things while I’ve been out in LaLa land. Bachmann dropped out of the race. Romney won New Hampshire (apparently by a landslide). Ron Paul still thinks he has a chance. (Let’s hope not. What a disaster.) My hopes are still on Santorum. I refuse to give up hope. 🙂 POWER OF POSITIVE THINKING.

Man, I’m telling you, there is no good news. I sitting here skimming the front page of the Washington Post… Here are some of the headlines.

Voters unswayed by attacks on work at Bain — This has to do with Romney, if you were interested. I’m not.

Two Army brigades to leave Europe — Eh. A little bit more interesting… Not particularly.

Billion-dollar candidate? Not likely. — Of course Obama’s on here. And of course it’s a trivial subject… We all know he’s going to save his money and waste the taxpayers on lavish parties and campaign funds. We all know he’s doing it.

He’s 5’7”. And the next big thing? — Some basketball thing. Not sure why it’s important. Maybe because the dude teeny?

More older Americans are working — And… It’s because the retirement age is like 70 now. Of course older Americans are working; they don’t have a choice!

Colbert transfers super PAC to Stewart — I just don’t even know…

I have no interest in any of these articles. Shall we move onto the New York Times? Things look a little bit better here. At least some of them have a dash of relevance.

U.S. Sends Top Iranian Leader a Warning on Strait Threat — I would at least READ this article.

Danish Squatters Want to Buy but Not Own — Hmm. Sounds like people wanting others to give them stuff… Typical.

PACs’ Aid Allows Romney’s Rivals to Extend Race — Good to know, especially since I don’t really prefer good ole Romney at this point in time.

Colbert for President: A Run or a Comedy Riff? — Seriously? Of course it’s a comedy riff. Get real. This is as bad at the Post’s about Colbert and Stewart. Ding dongs.

No Snow, but a Wintry Mix of Opinion — Buurrrrr… Who’s opinion? Political opinion? Economic opinion? Student’s or adult’s opinions? Is it interesting enough to consider reading?

Video Multiplies U.S. Difficulties in Afghanistan — We do not need any more difficulties anywhere. We’re up to our ears in difficulties.

Synthetic Windpipe Replaces a Cancerous One — Whoa. That’s cool.

Ok, so, not only does the New York Times have more article options on their front page, but they’re better articles (I can’t really believe I’m saying that… Oh well.) This is going to be the moral of this story… Since I don’t feel like blogging about a particular article at this point.

There is not a single news source that a person can look at for all their information. There are days where NY Times has zero on their home page and Washington Post has something relevant. Sometimes neither of them have anything and I look on CNN and Fox News.  Don’t look at one news source and call it a day. It takes a lot of research and digging to really become informed and education. Plus, when people say stupid crap such as… “You’re a conservative! You only watch Fox News. You watch biased news sources and only look at the one conservative view-point on issues…” YOU can say… “I read Fox News, I read CNN, I read the Times, I read the Post…” Educate yourself! Be better than everyone else! Know the opposing viewpoints and their arguments. That’s the only way you can formulate your arguments effectively.

Can you imagine how silly liberals would sound in they only watched CNN all day? Oh, wait….

~Lucy

Mitt Romney So Good?

I’m sitting here at my desk, in my dorm room, listening to the girls in the rooms surrounding me shriek, struggling with the age old question… What am I going to do when I graduate college?

It’s a tough-y.

And I had this overwhelming urge to write, so I decided, Hey. Let’s blog. Lucky you.

Mitt Romney came to mind. Not quite sure why, but it might have to do with the Republican Presidential Candidate discussion I had in my Problems with American Democracy class today. Quite surprisingly, it seems that most of the class would classify themselves as Republicans (or at least don’t like Obama). That put quite a smile on my face, I must admit.

Anyways… Mitt Romney. Interesting little article in the Washington Post on him today. It’s about him changing his ideology about abortion.

This is one of the problems that I have with Romney: he can’t seem to make up his mind. OR. He is just a crowd pleaser. Either one is negative in my eyes.

Massachusetts, normally, tends to be more liberal than the whole of American. Massachusettian Republicans are more liberal than, lets say, North Carolinian Republicans. So, it would only make sense that their governor would be on the more liberal side because he would be forced to try to connect with the issues the people care the most about.

But the ideals that he stood for in Massachusetts, more liberal or not, are not the ideals that most Republicans stand for.

Here are a few examples: RomneyCare, gay marriage, abortion.

As Governor, Romney established state-run healthcare (no thank you), stood for Pro-Choice values (although the article says that he later became pro-life; however, he did not try to pass pro-life legislation), and advocated for gay marriage (he is STILL pro-gay marriage).

But now, as a Republican Presidential candidate, he has become Pro-Life and has backed away from his state-run health care (even if minimally).

I don’t know y’all. I just get a bad feeling from him. I’m not sure why he is so popular. I’m not sure why people like him. Yes, the polls are showing that he might be more popular than Obama. But will our country really be in better hands with Romney as our President? I think if people paid enough attention to his past, they would see that he is not the conservative leader we need.

Just my opinion.

The top RPCs (abbreviated) that we guessed would receive the nomination in my class today were (shockingly!) Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich (I threw that one in there. He’s rising in the polls!). The candidates people would like to see receive the nomination were Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Rick Perry. Personally, I don’t know if I really care for any of them. I’m pushing for Rick Santorum, but he’s not doing so hot. We shall see.

Have a great week!!! 😀
~Lucy

Tag Cloud