Santorum Supporters Should Switch to Ron Paul

By Roger F. Gay

I was aghast! There I was, innocently spending a bit of time in an online discussion on the topic of the Republican primaries, when a Santorum supporter likened the Rickster to John Adams. It is apparent, that in general, his false argument is one that Rick Santorum needs to maintain his level of support. As the argument (rather than the man) indicates what people really want, I must present the case that the majority currently giving support to Rick Santorum should, for the sake of their very souls, switch to Ron Paul.

The trick of his argument was that Adams, a major contributor to thoughts on the American style of government and descendent of puritans, said; "We have no government armed with the power capable of containing human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made for the governance of a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the governance of anything else." This was part of a case, in the mind of the poster, for portraying Santorum as an “original intent” type political conservative, dedicated to the task of restoring Constitutional rule.

The founders cared a great deal about religion. In the first evolution of the Constitution, in the form of the first 10 amendments, the very first clause of the first amendment deals with freedom of religion: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The fallacy of the argument lies in the fact that Rick Santorum is no John Adams, or Ben Franklin, or Thomas Jefferson, or any of the other founding fathers. His perspective on the relationship between the people, morality, and government are entirely transposed from the positions established by those men.

Adam's statement, applied to the act of governance can remind us that the designs of corrupt and immoral political players can be thwarted if we play by the rules. The limitations to power in the design and the goal of liberty and justice for all are of little use to them. By recognition of these same virtues, it is obvious that it does not in any way support the case for a big government “establishment” presidential candidate with designs for intrusive "right-wing social engineering." Nor do I believe that on the basis of Adam's logic, could we conclude that it would ever be a useful course; especially because it is not the one that Adams chose.

His statement does focus on ideas that became central to the left-right political debate in the US and elsewhere. American conservative guidance holds that the people are to be trusted to govern themselves, which actually makes "right-wing social-engineering" an oxymoron. The international left takes it as first principle that whatever collectivist vision they choose should be imposed upon the people. In a purely political analysis, it doesn't matter that the vision may be said to have a basis in religion.

Some of the founders had God in their hearts and may have seen their work as divine, but they understood that governments are not churches and politicians are not clergy. Our presidents have by and large been unaffiliated with specific religions or Protestants (except Kennedy, who in response to his membership in the Catholic Church, vowed publicly to serve faithfully in his presidential role). The choices tell us what the American people have consistently required from our political leaders; a world view that rejects the imposition of an hierarchical power structure upon our personal lives.

Regardless of the role of religion in our nation's development and success; it is impossible for someone whose policy preferences are broadly and zealously driven by religion to be a defender of the Constitution. Even if you consider yourself to be equally zealous in your desire to impose Rick Santorum's lifestyle on others, consider this. How would it be then, when a country on the rebound elects the next would-be atheist or Muslim dictator from the other party? Will you be equally pleased as they work, with all the power and force at their disposal, to impose their will upon you? (Dude! It's not a liberal trick. It's the Golden Rule applied to a concrete case in the real world.) If your personal answer is no, then you must recognize that the correct political answer is to deny such power to government.

It's about liberty. The good argument, which does not apply to Rick Santorum, is one in which religion and liberty, for all, are compatible. Because liberty is moral. And because liberty is moral, the so-called “right wing social engineers” are no more moral than social engineers from the left. Their political goals, which require expansions of government power and reductions in civil rights, are directly incompatible with the goal of maintaining liberty, and there is no logical argument that will correct that flaw.

There is only one acceptable candidate, one for which there is no incompatibility between religion and liberty, who knows that liberty is the highest goal of his political career, and who has consistently acted faithfully in that cause. You know who he is.
.