Rick Santorum's "It Takes A Family"

[studiodekadent]

In this post I wish to discuss one of the most hideous works of political philosophy ever published; Specifically, former Senator Rick Santorum's "It Takes A Family."

I honestly have not read the book in full form. I'd rather spend my money on the pursuit of happiness. So in order to be fair, I will use a sympathetic review of the book as my primary source as well as the preface (which is free online). The preface can be found at the book's original website, and the review (by the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Albert Mohler) can be found at http://www.crosswalk.com/1343334/page1/ . In addition, I also used the Reason magazine article for some of the quotes from the book.

The first problem I have is that Santorum commits the package-deal fallacy with regards to liberal individualism (or Libertarianism or Classical Liberalism) and modern liberalism (i.e. liberalism in the 'progressive' sense). Santorum alleges that both of these ideologies are based in individualism, or "liberals see the individual as the basic unit of society" (Mohler). It is true that classical liberals see the individual as the basic unit of society. However, 'modern' liberals do not see the individual as the basic unit of society. If they did, their politics would be libertarian and based on individual rights. However, the politics of the 'progressives' treat humans as products of a collective: their race, their culture, their nation, their economic status, whatever is trendy amongst leftists at the time. As a result, they advocate group rights as superior to individual rights, they trample on the rights of individual free speech (see University speech codes) and conscience (related to the former via the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis). As for their stance on property rights and laissez-faire, I offer as evidence anything said by Nancy Pelosi. As such, Santorum is making a very obvious mistake, and given that Santorum obviously is familiar with political philosophy, I find it hard to believe this mistake is innocent in nature. The so-called "liberals" of the Democratic party are not under any circumstances "liberals" in the "classical" sense that Santorum defines the term.

The second problem I have is that Santorum alleges that the leftist elites (i.e. the social engineers) actually want individualism. The reason why is "because a society composed only of individuals responds better to 'expert' command and control" (Santorum, quoted in Mohler). This is obviously false. To simplify the argument, it states collectivists desire individualism and thus the only way to individualism is collectivism. This statement is so illogical that it falls flat on its face, but its also false empirically. For one, if collectivists desire individualism, why do they spend so much effort on victim group politics? Why do they spend time on collective consciousness raising? Why do they advocate economic collectivism? Why are all their theories based on the idea that how someone thinks is socially constructed? Santorum's answer is obviously "blank-out." In addition, its empirical falseness can be demonstrated in the economic realm: see the Mises-Hayek argument against socialism's viability (the Economic Calculation argument). The ECA operates under the assumption that market prices reflect individual consumer attitudes (i.e. economic subjectivism). It follows that if Santorum is correct, then this kind of system should respond well to centralized

control of production and exchange. Reductio ad Absurdum.

The third problem is that Santorum is, unsurprisingly, a raging altruist (unsurprising given he is manifestly a

social collectivist). As he writes, correctly, in his polemic, if same-sex marriage is allowed then "Society will

teach the next generation that marriage is a self-centered endeavor primarily about adult satisfaction, not children's well-being." In other words, you must sacrifice yourself to the next generation. I will not even begin to go on about the moral perversion that is altruism, that position should be well known to anyone on this website. However, let me remind you how the modern liberals as well as every leftist dictator in history have all invoked altruism as their moral justification.

The fourth problem is that Santorum strongly misrepresents the Founding Fathers. It is well known that the Founding Fathers were of the classical liberal political tradition, were followers of John Locke, and as such acknowleged the rights of individuals, including the right for each human to the pursuit of happiness (i.e. they had the right to be selfish (in the self-interested sense of the term)). Santorum however has other ideas; "the liberty our Founders understood..." is not "the freedom to be as selfish as I want to be" or "the freedom to be left alone" but rather "the freedom to attend to one's duties to God, to

family, and to neighbors." In other words, Santorum's definition of freedom works out to the freedom to do what Santorum would allege to be one's duties. Since Santorum is obviously not above using legislative compulsion to make these duties compulsory, his definition of freedom works out to the freedom to do what you are told to do. This is a total misunderstanding, if not outright distortion, of the kind of freedom that the founders of the US intended. The kind of freedom that the Founding Fathers intended was precisely the freedom to be selfish, to be left alone, and to completely ignore any duties, with the only restraint being to not deny others these equal rights and hence to respect their individual rights.

Any additions, comments etc. appreciated.

[Chris Grieb]

My favorite word in your description is the word "former". The last election was a mixed blessing but Santorum's lose was not.

Edited July 29, 2007 by Chris Grieb