Pause and reflect for a moment. This guy, Richard Sharia Santorum,
was just crowned co-leader of the Republican presidential race by Iowa voters:
Rick Santorum reiterated his belief that states should have the right to outlaw contraception during an interview with ABC News [Monday], saying, “The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statues they have.”
This isn't the first time Santorum has said this, so it's not exactly a slip of the tongue. He's been firmly on board with the notion of government closely regulating the sex practices of Americans:
One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea ... Many in the Christian faith have said, "Well, that's okay ... contraception's okay."
It's not okay because it's a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. [...]
Again, I know most presidents don't talk about those things, and maybe people don't want us to talk about those things, but I think it's important that you are who you are. I'm not running for preacher. I'm not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues.
Now that's big government. Under a Santorum government (just let that sink in, for a moment—it easily competes with the best horror films ever made, in raw ability to send chills down your spine) whether you die when you get sick may not be something government should be worrying about, but just try to buy a condom: that'll get the hammer of justice to come crashing down on you, yes indeed.
This is what we mean when we invoke phrases like American Taliban. Rick Santorum is quite certain his religious viewpoints are right, especially in the realm of sexual activity, and he has no qualms whatsoever about bending the laws of the state to codify his particular religious interpretation as the required one, for all citizens. Birth control or other naughty practices are simply "counter to how things are supposed to be," period, full stop. It is therefore the perceived task of authority to regulate that behavior, to prevent "contrary" behaviors, and, most ominously, to punish violators.
That is a hell of a thing. But at least in one particular state, that viewpoint came within a minivan of being the viewpoint held by a majority of voters—or at least, one they were willing to endorse rather than go with anyone else. His brand of religious intolerance is popular, at least among those caucus-goers. His notions of government as tool for punishing the immoral: popular. His assertions that government should not just be regulating against abortion and gay marriage, but go farther, and outlaw sexual activity that he deems immoral (condoms, birth control pills, the "rhythm method", alternate, er, positions): it all has a strong base of support among a certain segment of the American public.
If you called it Sharia Law you would have most of the same crowd willing to take up arms to prevent it. All it needs to be popular with those very same people is a different name. (This is not a subtle crowd, or one that cottons to deep thinking, or apparently any thinking at all.)
So the next Not Mitt Romney is a full-fledged voice for instituting religious rule. We tried the conspiracy theorist, the other conspiracy theorist, the vaudeville businessman, the Bush impersonator, the disgraced ultra-insider, and probably a few others already forgotten, and the newest choice is an aspiring mullah who has dedicated himself to the notion that he is God's personally appointed inquisitor into the sexual mores of the populace. The push to institute explicitly religious rule has always had conspicuous supporters in America; I can hardly wait to hear which words they will use to describe it this time around.
Blast from the Past. At Daily Kos on this date in 2009:
At this point, even the most casual reader of Daily Kos has probably heard of the Employee Free Choice Act. Labor unions are pushing Congress to move on it quickly, big business and its astroturf front rackets are spending untold millions to kill it, and in general, the atmosphere surrounding the bill is more akin to that of a nasty political campaign than a policy debate. But why do labor organizers care so deeply about Employee Free Choice? Why are astroturf groups funded by some of the worst employers in America popping up everywhere purporting to be deeply concerned about the rights of employees? Why is the Chamber of Commerce spending $20-30 million to poison the minds of Americans against the bill?
Why? Because the Employee Free Choice Act is, quite simply, not only the most necessary and important labor law reform in 75 years -- it's the cornerstone of any serious effort to reestablish a real middle-class in the United States.
High Impact Posts are here. Top Comments are here.