Bigots in a Blanket
by Anna Schwartz
In the wake of Senator Rick Santorum’s (R, Pa.) remarks equating gay sex with bigamy, polygamy, incest, and adultery, Democrats have practically lined up to assert how politically correct and open-minded they are. Surprisingly, Republicans have not. After Trent Lott’s bigoted remarks late last year, which were denounced all the way up the chain of command, it would seem that at least one of the Republican higher-ups would attempt to distance the party from Santorum’s hateful views. Does the fact that no major players have come out against him indicate what Republicans really think?
The party is not winning any popularity contests with minorities – in fact, some of the strongest opposition to the war came from African Americans. Perhaps the intent of Santorum’s remarks was to further alienate minority groups in order to recover conservative confidence. The New York Times practically accused Santorum of strategic bigotry, saying that he may have used his remarks as a way to “reach out to conservatives.”
Whatever Santorum’s intent, his comments were not just inappropriate but also divergent from the mainstream Republican ideology of “compassionate conservatism.” But as conservative pundit Andrew Sullivan points out, Santorum’s remarks are even more radical than they seem at first: Santorum is advocating that the federal government police morality in the bedroom. Isn’t that kind of… un-American?
While the Constitution does not outline explicitly the right to privacy, major cases such as Roe v. Wade have set the precedent that it is implicit in the 14th Amendment and elsewhere. Most states have dropped their anti-sodomy laws, and Santorum’s comments were in response to a pending Texas case. The problem is, you can’t have it both ways: a limited government cannot police moral norms, nor should it have the power to do so. Perhaps Mr. Santorum is correct in that sexual rights should not be included in the constitution or laws of a state – that is, after all, what his spokeswoman claims in defense of his comments. That being the case, neither should sexual mores.
Liberals agree that what Santorum said is disgraceful. Mr. Santorum is not some random backwoods kook – he is third in line in the Republican hierarchy. Given his status, Republicans should come to this conclusion as well. Santorum’s remarks are a poor reflection on him; the fallout is a poor reflection on his party.
by Anna Schwartz
In the wake of Senator Rick Santorum’s (R, Pa.) remarks equating gay sex with bigamy, polygamy, incest, and adultery, Democrats have practically lined up to assert how politically correct and open-minded they are. Surprisingly, Republicans have not. After Trent Lott’s bigoted remarks late last year, which were denounced all the way up the chain of command, it would seem that at least one of the Republican higher-ups would attempt to distance the party from Santorum’s hateful views. Does the fact that no major players have come out against him indicate what Republicans really think?
The party is not winning any popularity contests with minorities – in fact, some of the strongest opposition to the war came from African Americans. Perhaps the intent of Santorum’s remarks was to further alienate minority groups in order to recover conservative confidence. The New York Times practically accused Santorum of strategic bigotry, saying that he may have used his remarks as a way to “reach out to conservatives.”
Whatever Santorum’s intent, his comments were not just inappropriate but also divergent from the mainstream Republican ideology of “compassionate conservatism.” But as conservative pundit Andrew Sullivan points out, Santorum’s remarks are even more radical than they seem at first: Santorum is advocating that the federal government police morality in the bedroom. Isn’t that kind of… un-American?
While the Constitution does not outline explicitly the right to privacy, major cases such as Roe v. Wade have set the precedent that it is implicit in the 14th Amendment and elsewhere. Most states have dropped their anti-sodomy laws, and Santorum’s comments were in response to a pending Texas case. The problem is, you can’t have it both ways: a limited government cannot police moral norms, nor should it have the power to do so. Perhaps Mr. Santorum is correct in that sexual rights should not be included in the constitution or laws of a state – that is, after all, what his spokeswoman claims in defense of his comments. That being the case, neither should sexual mores.
Liberals agree that what Santorum said is disgraceful. Mr. Santorum is not some random backwoods kook – he is third in line in the Republican hierarchy. Given his status, Republicans should come to this conclusion as well. Santorum’s remarks are a poor reflection on him; the fallout is a poor reflection on his party.
