Santorum Reality Check

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Readers of this blog know I am not a Libertarian. Nor do I fully subscribe to the Austrian theory of economics. I am a Distributist, which means I believe the Austrian theory must be restrained, and the purpose of government is to support smaller government through Subsidiarity, rather than stand aside and do virtually nothing. In this respect, I find myself at odds with our Libertarian friends, even though I do find myself having more in common with them on other things. The truth is, Libertarians are people we can work with, to some degree, whereas supporters of big-government are nearly impossible to work with.

Senator Jim DeMint is right. The debate in the Republican Party should be between Libertarians and Conservatives, and I think by Conservatives he means to say those of a more Traditionalist and Distributist mindset. Or at least, that's what I THINK he means to say. Who knows?

The problem here is that the vision of Reagan Conservatism has always been an aberration in the Republican Party, one of very recent origin. Historically, the Republican Party has always been about radical Modernism and empire building. The only thing that is different about the modern era, is that in the last eighty years, the liberal Democrats have out-radicalised the radicals! The Democrats have beaten the Republicans at their own game, so in came Ronald Reagan to redefine the game based on the Barry Goldwater model. What the Reagan-Conservative Republicans seek is to turn back the clock on financial matters to the days prior to the New Deal. Personally, I don't think this goes nearly far enough, as I would advocate a more Mediaeval economic model pre-dating anything the Libertarians have to offer, but it's all a moot point anyway. The problem is, top Republicans have for the most part rejected the Reagan Conservative (Austria-Libertarian) approach to economics anyway! Leading Republicans (like Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney) have embraced the big-government New Deal model. Sorry, that's just the facts, and like it or not, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT. It is reality.

If you were looking for a fiscal conservative in this presidential election cycle, you're not going to get one. The one and only candidate that has embraced Reagan-style economics is Ron Paul, and the Republican Party has rejected him! So this is what you get. Regardless of who wins the G.O.P. nomination (Santorum or Romney) what you will get in November is a choice between two big-government politicians. Granted, I think both Romney and Santorum will likely spend less than Obama, but both of them will run large national deficits -- mark my words! Both of them, like Obama, will seek to expand the American empire overseas. Both of them are just as likely as Obama to take America into another major war. Both of them, like Obama, will look to the federal government FIRST for all the answers to America's problems. The only difference is, both of them will likely be less offensive to Christians (at home) than Obama. That's about all. Sorry, that's just the facts. Don't shoot the bearer of bad news.

Republicans now get to choose between two variations of the G.W. Bush presidency, because both will carry on the G.W. Bush legacy -- like it or not. We can choose between a Catholic version of G.W. Bush in Rick Santorum. Or we can choose a Mormon version of G.W. Bush in Mitt Romney. Take your pick! Personally my hope is the Catholic version of G.W. Bush (Santorum) might actually listen to the pope on some things. So there is a little hope there I guess.

Perhaps we will be lucky and Ron Paul will gain enough delegates to broker some kind of deal at the convention. I just find it sad that the Republican Party has rejected him outright. In doing so the G.O.P. has helped consign America to the ash heap of history. Our time is short. Americans would do wise to start thinking about what kind of nations they want to build after the fall of the United States.