Republican Presidential candidate and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum has declared game on. Now the question must be asked, “What is the game?” If we are to make assumptions based on Santorum’s history the game would be bigotry, religious based ideology, and a desire to usher in a new political doctrine based on outdated thoughts of socio-economic superiority. These are issues that have been debated and rehashed since his days as being an ultra conservative Bush crony representing a predominantly blue anti-bush policy state. Let’s look at what Santorum’s “game” will be based just on what he has done and said in his current campaign.
To look at Rick Santorum running for a national office instead of trying to exist in a Democratic stronghold you can see his proposed policies have somehow shifted even farther to the Right. He has made claims to audiences in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina that he should be viewed as the candidate who has the best chance of beating Obama in November because he has the ability to win in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. Yet, he has decided to embrace the Tea Party anti-worker agenda which directly negatively affects the voters he claims to be able to reach. His recent support of a federal “Right-to-Work” law is a perfect example of Santorum’s ability to contradict himself.
There are two major points of hypocrisy to Santorum’s new found stance on “Right-to-Work”, first in the fact that he claims to be for state’s rights and “Right-to-Work” has been a state’s right issue since the Taft-Hartley Act and second in that any anti-labor policy that has been implemented in the battleground states he claims to be able to win has been met with stiff resistance. It’s as if he can’t see the current situation in Wisconsin and how quickly unions are to organize against politicians willing to implement elements of the radical Tea Party/Koch Brothers agenda. In These Times writer Mike Elk pointed out this hypocrisy in a recent article titled “Why Did Rick Santorum Flip-Flop on National Right to Work Law?” From his article:
As a senator, it turns out, Santorum voted in favor of letting states decide on right-to-work laws—which outlaw "union shops" allowing nonunion workers to enjoy bargaining benefits without paying dues. But at a GOP presidential debate last weekend, Santorum said that he now supports a National Right to Work Law. The candidate said he didn't vote for one in the U.S. Senate "because Pennsylvania's not a right-to-work state and I didn't want to vote for a law that would change the law in Pennsylvania."
So why now? Probably because he needs support from the same people who fund the campaigns of anti-union Republicans like John Kasich and Scott Walker. Rick Santorum and I grew up in similar neighborhoods in Western Pennsylvania and anti-union politics does not gain support amongst middle class working whites. He can speak with passion about the work ethic and moral values installed by loving families in this blue collar region and the strength of those mill town communities, but he can’t align himself with the correct powers that be to pass laws and policies that would actually help them.
PennLive.com recently ran a story titled, “Pennsylvania GOP leaders believe Rick Santorum isn’t a good fit for the presidency” In it anonymous GOP state officials spoke about what a Rick Santorum candidacy would mean.
Influential party leaders who did not want to be identified said a Santorum nomination would doom the country to four more years of Obama.
“He’s rigid, and he’s too far to the right,” said one. “We need somebody that’s going to bring us together, not drive us apart, and Rick can be divisive.”
Added another: “If Santorum is our candidate, then that’s a sure victory for Obama, and we’ll just concentrate on other state races.”
Adding his new found anti-labor stance to his repertoire of extremely dividing social stances the concept that Rick Santorum would be popular in rustbelt states trends towards foolish.
The support that Santorum has found so far on the 2012 campaign trail has mostly been from the dwindling Bush power base that for 8 years reveled in their power in “electing’ a religious extremist to the oval office. The recent emergence of Ron Paul as a legitimate voice of the party shows the desire of Republicans to move on from their neo-conservative past. Ron Paul’s outpour of support among college students shows that young Republicans would like to see a radical change in the party’s platform moving from the “Regan era economic policies” to a new anti-war, anti-government “get the hell off my property” libertarianism that is a direct reaction to the failed policies of the Bush era. Santorum’s message does not speak to these crowds and many of the old Bush supporters have found the freewheeling “profit at any cost” Willard Romney economic vision as most beneficial for their personal interests.
Santorum’s history could have been the background of a masterpiece he repainted as a reformed Republican who got caught up in the partisan ideology of the Decade of Fear. Yet he has decided to continue on spouting out anti-gay and anti-minority monotony that only finds resonance in a small percentage of middle to lower class white voters.
If Rick Santorum was a family member he’d be the smug racist Uncle that no one wants to talk to on Thanksgiving and he seems to revel in that role, sweater vest and all. He is the unelectable candidate that Democrats can count on to embarrass the GOP and act as a reminder to many on the fence about supporting President Obama again in 2012 of what life was like under a Republican President.