Is Rick Santorum saintly or selfish?
Rick Santorum is nowhere in the polls, but everywhere on the campaign trail — even as he leaves his wife, mother of seven, at home with the kids, the youngest of whom is seriously ill from a genetic disorder.
Santorum is known as perhaps the truest of true believers in the Republican race, putting family values (of the conservative variety) and his Catholic faith (of the conservative variety) at the top of his agenda, and putting his own family and faith as Exhibit A as he tries to woo voters.
But is he sacrificing his family — especially his young daughter Bella, who is in mortal peril from Trisomy 18 — for his principles? Or is he exploiting them for his political ambitions? And does he himself know?
In today’s Washington Post, Melinda Henneberger profiles Santorum and asks the tough questions:
In a heartbreaking situation, and running near the back of the pack in the polls, Santorum said the campaign has been “incredibly hard” on his family – emotionally and financially. He’s given up all paid employment, including his work for Fox News, to make the run…
…”Life expectancy [for Bella] wasn’t particularly long, and just the idea of going off and doing something like this was something I really struggled with,” he said.
The deciding factor, he said, was that “we see with every socialized-medicine country, which is absolutely where we’re headed, those on the margins of life are treated differently. . . . They’re not given the care, the resources aren’t allocated because it is very costly, and my little girl would probably be seen as – I hear, not only from anecdotal but actual evidence from other countries – that children like this simply do not get care.”
As Henneberger gently notes, Santorum’s health care reasoning actually doesn’t hold up, and his efforts to bring Bella on the road with him have nearly led to her death at least twice, which makes his campaigning seem to be the biggest risk to his daughter.
Santorum, unlike Sarah Palin before him, has probably benefited from the fact that he is a non-factor in the race, and perhaps that he is a man, and, well, men are expected to go off an hunt and gather while the women folk mind the hearth and home.
If Rick Santorum wants his views on “socialized medicine” to be taken seriously he shoudl first give up his pension and health benefits as an ex-member of Congress and go out on the open market and try to find an insurer willing to issue a policy to a family with a child with such catastrophic and complex medical needs. Can you say hypocrite?
Is it fair to blame Santorum for anything he does? Aren’t members of Opus Dei required to follow their directors’ orders in all matters?
I would be willing to bet cash money that Santorum knows what he is doing and is intentionally making a personal sacrifice to keep alive the possibility that a person of his values is elected president or that at least that his values remain part of the overall campaign.
Having said this, he strikes me as someone who is not very bright, not because of any intellectual shortcomings but because he defends his not-very-bright positions with his rigid ethical system, as though any criticism of him must be an ethical attack.
“Aren’t members of Opus Dei required to follow their directors’ orders in all matters?”
No.
Santorum’s grossly ignorant quips about “socialized medicine” remind me of people who think flouride in the water is killing their children, or who think “prayer” is a better alternative tha blood transfusions. In other words, it’s dangerous anti-intellectual quackery.
No.
–
There are those who would disagree, of course. http://tinyurl.com/6r82roz
Even the apologists who have been given “unprecedented access” (like Chris Matthews) know better.
The founder, now a saint, makes it very clear in rule 941, page 167, that his followers must practice blind obedience to their superiors.
http://www.amazon.com/Way-Essential-Classic-Opus-Founder/dp/0385518293/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1322666648&sr=1-1#reader_0385518293
To understand Santorum’s view, the key quote from the article is his aside, in regard to socialized medicine: “which is absolutely where we’re headed”. Henneberger, in her respectful contradiction, notes that the health care legislation passed in 2009 does not amount to socialized medicine – which is true, and which Santorum seems to acknowledge. But Santorum doesn’t expect that the existing legislation will succeed, and its failure, paradoxically, makes true socialized medicine more likely.
Progressives, I think, don’t understand the depth of conservative distrust of the health care legislation. As conservatives perceive these things, the new legislation is not the end in itself for progressives. It is a means to the true end. Conservative perception is that the true end is genuinely socialized medicine.
The true end will be accomplished in one or more of several ways:
* the courts will dismantle or neuter the existing legislation, leaving gaping holes in the social safety net
* the existing legislation will prove to be an unaffordable boondoggle, and the financial sector will demand cost controls
* the existing legislation will prove utterly unworkable and ineffective in delivering health care, and so the citizens, or the health care providers, or the insurance companies, or all three, will rebel.
Any or all of these will pave the way to what has seemed inevitable since Speaker Pelosi managed to round up the House votes to pass the Senate bill – basically, an extension of Medicare to all age groups. I don’t know if that meets the strict definition of “socialized medicine”, but it seems so similar that any distinctions may not make a difference.
My apologies – the PPACA didn’t get signed into law until March 2010. It seems longer ago, for some reason.
Two quick points:
“Progressives, I think, don’t understand the depth of conservative distrust of the health care legislation.” I personally, whatever I am, don’t understand the depths of conservative paranoia about everything including health care legislation but also climate change, banking regulation, the 70-something year old NLRB, etc., etc., etc. I think it may be clinical.
And why are we looking for the speck in Rick Santorum’s eye?
Rick Santorum is a very ambitious politician. Any ambitious politician, especially if your present prospects appear bleak if non-existent, is capable of almost anything – just look at Catholic hierarchs who abet child rape and sodomy. Sadly, Santorum is the extreme that proves the norm.
Although he wouldn’t be the first politician to do so, it is outrageous that Santorum would try to exploit his children for political gain. His daughter, Bella, deserves more respect and dignity. Santorum’s ability to hypocritically dichotomize his politics from his moral integrity has always been operative for a very long time in his career.
We shouldn’t be surprised: Santorum has railed against abortion rights his whole career but that didn’t stop him and his wife from terminating an ectopic pregnancy. [Personally, I am relieved and thankful that the other Santorum children were not made orphans.] Apparently for the Santorums, choice is bad for women with at-risk pregnancies, but choice is good for him and his wife. Go figure!?!?
I was unaware of the Opus Dei connection for Santorum. But, it fits. Apparently being the modern Christian fascist permutation, Opus Dei needs recruits with the requisite weak mind and a fragile grip on reality if Opus Dei is to propagate its hold on the Roman hierarchy. Santorum certainly fits that bill. [Opus Dei certainly understands that when it comes to power, "He who has the gold, rules!"]
Is Santorum and his campaign being supported by Opus Dei money? It would help explain how he is able to maintain himself and his family with no visible income to speak of while he campaigns? Some intrepid journalist should look into this – it would represent a new level of foreign political infiltration and intrusion into American elections. [Enough conspiracy fantasies for today!]
Don’t you people have anything better to do, like empty a suffering soul’s bed pan?
Frankly, I am more concerned with how Rick Santorum’s policies would affect MY family life, and that’s why I would not support him as a political candidate.
I don’t care how he runs his own family life; in fact, I think focusing on the personal circumstances of our politicians distracts us from a candidate’s effectiveness as a policy maker and compromiser.
I gave up trying to figure out conservative Catholic, Opus dei types after reading about the FBI, Opus Dei guy Hanson who spied for the Soviets. I try to imagine what their prayers are all about.. and I shug and give up.
I’m no fan of Santorum’s but this piece strikes me as a bit malicious. Is there no limits to the ways we’ll now go to discredit those with whom we disagree with politically? Then on top of this we get castigations of his intelligence and bizarre conspiracy theories.
I can imagine the cries from liberal Catholics had National Catholic Register written something similar about, say, Ted Kennedy. You know like maybe his calls for social justice rang a bit hollow in light of leaving an innocent girl to drown in his car in a cold river. Or being caught in flagrante delicto on a restaurant floor with a girl and his other Catholic buddy Chris Dodd. But he worked for health care reform so all is forgiven, right?
But, but, but — he’s anti-abortion! That makes EVERYTHING he does OK, even in the eyes of God (or so I have been told in some circles.)
Public political Catholicism is doing more to keep people away from church than a lot of other silly things. Just look into Callista Gingrich’s disgusting behavior with him while he was married – and she gets credit for his conversion!
Lordy, lordy, Miss Scarlet! Lordy, lordy indeed.
“Public political Catholicism is doing more to keep people away from church than a lot of other silly things.”
By this, I assume you really meant REPUBLICAN political Catholicism.
The relevant issue is accessibility for health care for all the Bella’s out there. I read the article and Santorum claims that in countries where there is socialized medicine that those on the margins are treated differently.
I don’t agree but it is an important issue to unpack because it is reality and health care strikes very close to home when you have a sick child. I also wonder how his health insurance is paid. If it is paid through being a former member of Congress, then obviously he has a lot of explaining to do. What about people who cannot afford that, or employers and small business people who cannot afford benefits? What is the solution for them and for their Bella’s.
Relevant also is Catholic teaching around access to health care. I think the Church would support, obviously, the right and duty of all people to health care and the obligation of the state to ensure that it is provided for all of its citizens.
I find that odd. I would be asking specifically about all the Bella’s out there and concretely how this is going to work for them.
George, I do think you’ve framed the health care issue correctly. I wish someone would be able to ask him about it from your point of view.
A little more background here: Trisomy 18 is usually fatal before birth. Only fifty percent of those who make it to birth live more than a week. A few live into their teens; a very few live longer.
How do I know this? I know a brave Catholic mother who carried her T18 child to term. He lived less than two months, thanks to a team of doctors and some wonderful people from a neonatal hospice program. During that time, he had two major surgeries, which were paid for by the health insurance from his father’s job.
Interestingly, people with T18 live in England and have survived into their teens. It seems socialized medicine has done quite well by them. What chance do you think such a child would have if his or her family lived in the US and had no health insurance?
catrinasdaughter: but it’s God’s will, remember?
So, speaking of the Republican nomination … now that Newt has virtually sewn it up (cf this analysis: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/12/01/has_romney_been_preoccupied_with_the_wrong_rival__112240.html)
… can we start thinking about who his running mate will be? Here are my initial thoughts: as a Southern Catholic with Washington Insider stamped all over him, plus Wall Street connections, he needs someone who will balance the ticket in order to shore up the conservative base. The fewer Washington connections, the better (sorry, Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachman). Geographic balance would mean someone from the West (Sorry, Mitt.) And an Evangelical is pretty much mandatory (Sorry, Jon Huntsman). Even though he has made a concerted effort to minimize the damage from his marital past, the most charitable adjective still seems to be “checkered”, so having a woman would be a real plus.
Say, there is a former governor of Alaska …
Jeff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YNAn09T9jM
Well done, Jim…..love your thinking. And his “checkered” past would meld perfectly with her “checkered” past. Together they could “crown” Obama.