ON SANTORUM

Another emailer reaches that asymptotic bloggy synthesis:

I agree with your last emailer that Santorum’s comments aren’t exactly a harbinger of the apocalypse (which seems an apt analogy when dealing with the good senator), but, like you, I found his commentary on the role of women and the importance of education highly troubling. The reactions that neocons like you and I are feeling probably have less to do with the factual accuracy of what Santorum said (of course kids would be better off with stay-at-home moms) and have more to do with our ability to view his attitudes against the backdrop of what we know Santorum believes about society. Santorum is a paleocon in the truest sense. He’s the latest incarnation of Pat Buchanan. In fact, he may be more accurately described as a paleoliberal of the pre-1960s variety. The man reminds me of many older folks back in the small midwestern town in which I grew up. He thinks that gender roles should have greater societal definition. He scoffs at the need for the universality of higher education, even in this post-industrial age. He considers the pursuit of happiness to be ultimately selfish. Santorum is the opposite of a forward-thinking conservative. To the contrary, he is perpetually rooted in a time gone by, convinced that if we just bring back antequated mores and close the doors to trade and feed organized labor, the desolate factory-towns and emptying churches of Catholic Pennsylvania will boom once again and the age of innocence will return.
Rooted in 1930s economics and 1950s social norms, Santorum is the past, not the future of the conservative movement.

Here’s hoping.