Ideology and Dialectic Continued

To suggest that Santorum sees himself as a messianic figure might be to over-state the case, but it is clear enough that the values he professes are centered in a comprehensive and uncompromising world view, one complete unto itself and consequently no longer open to dialectic.  Santorum's world view is comprehensive, in part because it is uncompromising.  It is sustained by a father knows best nostalgic idealism, a desire for an America that never really existed, but even if it had, an America that could no longer exist within the boundaries of his comprehensive vision without some very broad and very obvious exclusions.  There are, of course, the exclusions that emerge out of the world view (a reduction of sexuality and of women's sexuality in particular to reproductive efficacy) and the exclusions that have emerged outside of the world view (the vilification of non-Christian religious world views but perhaps more those who resist, on secular grounds, the imposition of political theology, the "American left who hates Christendom").  As Krugman points out in a recent editorial, however, it is not only "about sex and religion."  Santorum has "also declared that climate change is a hoax, part of a 'beautifully concocted scheme' on the part of the 'the left' to provide 'an excuse for more government control of your life.'"  There is an element of conspiracy theorizing behind Santorum's denunciation of the "junk science" behind the "whole narrative," and that in itself should render the diatribe suspect, but Santorum goes on to point out that it's a "beautifully concocted scheme because they know the earth is gonna [sic] cool and warm.  It's been on a warming trend so they said, 'Oh, let's take advantage of that.  We need the government to come in and regulate your life some more.'"   I find such a dialogue improbable at best, absurd at worst, in part because, at one remove, it is difficult for me to imagine who might actually benefit directly from such government control -- the environmentalists, perhaps, but who has significantly profited from a regulatory stance to limit greenhouse emissions?  Any regulatory stance is predicated on the common good, and while it is incumbent on those who advance the regulations to demonstrate how they do serve the common good, it is equally incumbent upon those who resist regulation to demonstrate how they harm or impede the common good -- that is to say, engage in dialectic aimed at consensus.   Having said that, the list of those who might in fact profit from the contrary stance and who might want to foreclose on dialectic could be rather long.  It is just as easy, if not easier, to imagine big oil executives making contributions to a super pac in support of a reactionary cabal against the regulation of greenhouse emissions.  If Darwinian accounts of evolutionary biology must be rejected because they don't square with Biblical accounts of creation, the recent accounts of climate change caused by, or helped along by, human action must likewise be rejected because they don't square with an equally sacred notion, the self-regulatory free market.

Idelogy and Dialectic Continued

The current presidential race could hardly be called a clash of the titans.  While many of us held out great hope for Obama that he would point us toward a humbler and more rational post-partisan politics, but that hope has been frustrated again and again.  There is sufficient evidence that he is open to dialectic, but dialectic takes two, and there is little evidence that his conservative counterparts are willing to engage, as they sat, meaningfully.  Indeed, among his republican opponents, each seems hell bent on demonstrating that their unwillingness to engage is greater than the others unwillingness to engage, a posture associated with an odd notion of ideological purity in the absence of a pure ideology.  Some of the posturing is, well, posturing.  On the list of Romney howlers, however, his suggestion that he was "a severely conservative governor" stands as a case in point.  It has already been noted that "severe," as an adjective, is normally used to modify a negative condition, a disease, as in "severely depressed," and I don't want to add my voice to the chorus.  Nevertheless, "severe" is hardly a word that brings warm feelings to mind -- something more like Scrouge in his counting house -- but even setting that aside, the sense that Romney is slick, disingenuous, may well be a simple observation that Romney, despite his public statements, is much less a tea party ideologue, more a business pragmatist.  With the so-called Romney-care, he had a problem to solve, and he solved it, apparently to wide satisfaction, and if ideological purity came into the discussion, there must have been some real reluctance to sacrifice the successful solution on the alter of ideological purity.  His personal values, his religious and family values, would fall well within the comfort zone of the restorative reactionaries, those who would push the reset button and return us to Leave it to Beaver -- no one familiar with the Mormon faith would doubt his credibility in this domain -- but his public values come forward most sincerely when he stands unapologetic for his wealth and the implicit business pragmatism that created it -- "hey, it's mine, I earned it!" -- that the manner in which he earned it had little or nothing to do with Christian values is of little or no consequence.  It's a different matter altogether.

Rick Santorum, however, is a more genuine conservative, one who would sacrifice almost anything on the alter of ideological purity.  If a political gaff is a time when a candidate inadvertently speaks the truth, his remarks on JFK and the separation of church and state represent a real gaff.  As the New York Times reported it, Santorum "described how he had become sickened after reading John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech calling for the rigid separation of religion and politics," and then asked the follow on question,  "What kind of country do we live in that says only people of nonfaith can come into the public square and make their case?"   His personal values, one suspects, verges on political apocalypticism, the grand Manichean contest between the satanic forces and the good people of Christian America, a contest that can only be resolved by putting religion (and few would doubt that he is using the term generically, and even fewer would doubt that he is referring to a version of his religion) at the center of public life.  If he has reversed himself, suggesting that "I’m for separation of church and state,” it is not simply political hypocrisy at work, though one suspects some damage control in the face of criticism, but it is also a reaffirmation of his own position as the redemptive candidate, the one who would bring church and state, the one who would bring the personal values of his religion and the public values of the presidency into convergence. 

To be continued.