There's a diary on the rec list right now that assumed Rick Santorum is not trying to win, ostensibly because of his over the top rhetoric on social issues.
Well, if Rick's not trying to win, he's doing a terrible job of it. He's leading the race nationally, you know. So there's no reason to think he's saying what he's saying for any other reason than the fact that it's working.
The aforementioned diary asserts that the culture war is basically over. Really? If it is over, don't count on Republican voters to realize that. Right now, they are on the verge of nominating someone who is almost exclusively known for his extreme culture war views. This isn't because they are angry they lost the culture war, not by a long shot. Ask anybody who's seen "Jesus Camp." These are not people who are prepared to lose, ever.
All conservative movements, causes, and candidacies are in some way grounded in a lust for the past. I'm not talking about Ron Paul's obsession with bringing us back on the gold standard, though that's an appropriate example. I'm talking culturally. I'm talking about their fantasies of returning us to the "Leave it to Beaver" world of the 1950s that never actually existed. For some, the attraction of this world was the absence of feminism, or civil rights for black people. For many others, it is the strong place of Christian values and the lack of a sexual revolution.
When Rick Santorum talks about sex, of course he's turning off lots of voters. In this sense, he's inelegant. Bush managed to fire up the fundies without sounding like this, but that was largely because Karl Rove ran his campaign. But Satorum, inelegant as he is, certainly wants to win and knows how, unlike Mitt Romney. Romney thinks he can just talk about his resume and spout off statistics. If Republicans wanted a President who could do that, they would have voted for Al Gore in 2000. They want a fire-breather who can talk to them about what they care about.
Complaining about the sexual licentiousness of a culture is a tried and true tactic that has worked throughout history to mobilize reactionary and conservative support, and Rick has a good opportunity to do it. The religious right is still much more organized than we are. The diary mentioned above points to Prop 8 as a watershed moment for the movement. I disagree. If it was a watershed moment, why did we lose the next vote, in Maine, despite the fact that we spent more money in that one, and Maine is a fairly blue, fairly secular state? Why are we afraid we might lose in New Jersey? Because, despite opinion changing in our direction, we don't organize as well. Yet.
There are probably millions of closeted gay people in this country, some of which passionately hate themselves, and by projection, other gay people. We laugh when they are revealed to be Republicans who resign in disgrace, but often they are simply GOP voters. Think of the people who are voting for Rick: this group might be a significant fraction of them. The fact that an openly gay man made fun of his name would only cement their support.
In 2004, conventional wisdom held that Bush won by "firing up the base." Rick is the only man running who is trying to copy that winning strategy. Their base is probably smaller now, I'll grant it that. And our base is bigger, and much better organized than it was in 2004. Furthermore, we have a much more charismatic person running our party than Kerry, and all the advantages of incumbency during wartime. So if Rick wins the nomination, he'll likely lose. So will Romney, for that matter. That's always been a given. But that doesn't mean it won't be close. It doesn't mean it's a 100% certainty.
Rick Santorum is playing the only card they have left. He's putting the card on the table and screaming it. A significant chunk of the US will hear his message and be very receptive to it.
That group has never been the majority, and it never will be. The religious right hasn't needed a majority of citizens to accomplish its ends. If it loses this election, their faith will not be swayed. These people are in it for the long haul. Similarly, many White people in the South don't let the fact that they supposedly lost the Civil Rights struggle prevent them from being racist.
In a similar way, the experience of being gay in the US is going to get better. The internet is a tremendous force for good most of the time, by helping people experience other communities far away from their home. But even as national rights are finally won, there will be conservative small towns that will continue to treat gays like second class citizens for generations to come. If Republicans ever find a better organized, more gullible, and larger group than the religious right to rely on for votes, I predict that they won't re-join the political process. They'll either stop voting completely, or vote for 3rd party candidates. There is no compromise with them, and, if you look at their birth rates, they aren't going to be demographically dying as fast as you might think.
It's socially unacceptable to be a racist in public in the US, especially on TV, where you will usually get fired. One day, we can cultivate a culture in which it is equally unacceptable to be a religious bigot. After that, I'd like to make religion itself socially unacceptable. Not just separation of church and state. Not just "don't oppress me with your views." Religion itself. At some point, I think we can say "Anybody that believes that the Earth is 6,000 years old is a moron."
This will not happen for a while, so while religion exists, the culture war will remain un-won (if you doubt the fact that religion motivates hate, please do me a favor and read the Bible). Pretending that the culture war has been won does us no good. Pretending Rick Santorum doesn't want to win ignores the fact that what he is doing is working. It is the only way he has a chance of winning, in fact.
So we should take nothing for granted. And when we win struggles for gay rights, as we will do, we should not forget that for decades, millions of gay youth will live in communities that will continue to hate them, long after hate goes out of fashion in the big cities.
Are they "out of control terrorists," as that other diary described? Some of them are, yes, particularly the ones that continue to attack abortion clinics. This does not mean that they are not dangerous electoral opponents. See 2010 if you forgot that. They still possess the ability to win elections, and just because the odds are against them this year, does not mean we can declare any sort of meaningful overall victory. The struggle is far from over with these people.