There hasn't been much discussion here about yesterday's New York Times Magazine profile of Rick Santorum, titled 'True Believer.' The upshot of the
article, (subscription required) by Michael Sololove, seems to be "love him or hate him, Rick Santorum is a man of religious faith and deep principles and everyone agrees on this point." Furthermore, the article infers, we should place Santorum in the lexicon of "great partisian liberals" such as Paul Wellstone and Russ Fiengold, whom Santorum "deeply respects." Men of conviction and all that.
The article even prompted our own Bob Johnson to pen a midnight diary, offering that Demos can learn from Santorum and that, indeed, we need to run candidates with "deep convictions" like Santorum.
While I concurred with Bob's idear about 'deep convictions' I took umberage with the notion that Santorum represented such a creature. I said I believed Santorum was nothing more than a political opportunist, and a shameful one at that. Bob implored me to read the article, which I did today. To which I say this:
Boy was I right!
More on the flip.
(I don't want to 'bury my lede" as they say, so let me assure you, Santorum DID LIE about Pope John Paul's position on the death penalty. A big fat whopper, coming up, on down the post.)
Having read this opus, I'm left with one overwhelming feeling: I'm not sure who was the more intellectually dishonest participant in this wet kiss, Santorum or Sololove.
As virtually all of you know, how an argument and/or a story is framed is the difference between a fluff piece and hit piece. It's the difference between Christofascist and "true believer."
In this regard, Sololove goes so far out of his way to "frame" this story as Rick The Righteous, that he subjugates his very DUTY as a journalist to provide at least a modicum of balance. Hell, even a goddam Google search would have sufficed in some instances.
Take Sololove's characterization of Santorum's relationship to Catholicism and The Vatican:
In 2002, in a little-noticed interview that took place in Rome, Santorum told National Catholic Reporter, a U.S.-based weekly, that he considered George W. Bush, a Methodist, to be ''the first Catholic president of the United States.'' (His remark was reminiscent of the novelist Toni Morrison's saying that Bill Clinton was the nation's first black president, although an obvious difference is that there actually has been a Catholic president.) Santorum explained his claim to me: ''What I meant was if you look at the two major issues of the church, it's sanctity of life, sanctity of marriage and the family -- and third is care for the poor. And you have a president who is consistent with Catholic social teaching on all of these issues.''
Okay, for the time being, I'll leave aside addressing the unsubstantiated claim that George W Bush's policies are actively engaged in "care for the poor," but now see how Sololove allows Santorum to explain away his break from the Church re: its stance on the death penalty and the Iraq war:
here is one issue, the death penalty, on which Santorum would seem to be out of step with the Vatican. Pope John Paul II declared in 1995 that
''the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral.'' (He also opposed the Iraq war.) In March, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops made a renewed call to end the death penalty. Santorum has focused on the word ''innocent'' in Pope John Paul's statement, in line with some conservative Catholic theologians who have written that the pope's statement was ''prudential,'' as opposed to a change in the doctrine of the church -- and therefore not a moral proposition that must be followed.
''I would argue that my position is not inconsistent,'' Santorum told me. ''One is innocent life and one is not. One has done harm, has committed crimes, and a person has to pay for the injustice they have caused."<snip>
Now, I have to admit, when I read that over I said to myself, hmmmm, the Pope said that? Hell, if THAT'S the church's position, I can see Santorum's point. Sololove lets the statement stand without comment.
One Problem: POPE JOHN PAUL NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT 'INNOCENT LIVES' IN HIS STATEMENT ON THE DEATH PENALTY. Nothing. A simple friggen' Google search by Sololove and he could have found this out for himself. In fact, the Pope's comment that "''the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral" was in reference to abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Here then is the Pope's actual statement on the Death Penalty:
"This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God's plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is "to redress the disorder caused by the offence."(46) Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfills the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people's safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated.(47)
It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.
In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: 'If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.'"
So let me recap: This is what apparently passes for "deep principles" these days: When there is political gains to be made by doing so, Santorum wraps himself in the dogma of the Church. But when the Church's position is politically untenable to the "religious base" that Santorum is pandering to, he distances himself from the Church and does so by LYING about what The Pope has said on the issue. True Beleiver in the 21st Century.
Sololove also allows Santorum off the hook on a myriad of other dicey issues surrounding Rick The Righteous of late. Of the Shiavo case, Sololove writes:
But Santorum does seem increasingly comfortable putting his personal faith out front. He not only pushed the Senate to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case, but he also traveled to Florida and prayed with her parents. (News reports noted that he attended fund-raisers for his Senate campaign while he was in Florida.)
So Sololove doesn't want to bother to find out whether or not those news reports are accurate?
(They are.) And by not verifying whether or not news reports on this were accurate, Sololove allows the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. Fostering, once again, the "he said/she said" mantra that The Right is attempting to hang on the media, thereby undercutting the very idea of "verifable truth."
Onward Liberal Media!
Furthermore, Sololove makes no mention either of the fact that, on the same trip, Santorum canceled some planned "town hall meetings" on Social Security "out of respect" for the Schiavo family.
This, apparently, is what passes these days for a "man of principle" in 21st Century America.
I'm frankly embarrassed that a great man like Paul Wellstone is even MENTIONED in this piece of crap. (But I digress.)
Again and again in this profile, Sololove throws wet kisses to Santorum. Santorum, a staunch proponent of so-called "tort reform," has this to say about the fact that his wife sued and was initially awarded $500,000 in a malpractice lawsuit (later lowered to $350,000):
''I'm not against all lawsuits,'' Santorum said. ''I think they're appropriate where the case warrants it, and this one did. It was not frivolous.''
Is that rich or what? I'm against frivolous lawsuits, I filed a lawsuit, ergo mine must not be frivolous. A man of principle, old Rick the Righteous is. Yes indeedy.
I could go on and on, but I won't. I won't talk about Santorum paying lip service to helping the poor, while taking $10,000 from Wal-Mart and introducing minimum wage legistlation that would ban overtime for millions of workers.
I won't talk about him talking $5,000 from Outback Steakhouse and, in the same minimum wage legislation that he introduced, including a provision that would exempt restaurant employees from adhering to it.
I'll say nothing about taking $4,000 in political donations from a top executive at Accuweather and then introducing legislation that would stop the National Weather Service from providing free weather reports.
Folks if this is what passes as Principle -- and if this is what passes as journalism at The Paper of Record -- well, we are all fucked.