Friday, January 6, 2012

Paul's Predictions and Santorum's no Savior

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." --Ron Paul

This is so much more than politics, people, or any kind of culture war.

Oh, and if you're interested, I'm against Rick Santorum. He's a big government fool who happens to be Catholic:

I'll be writing later on my immense displeasure of CatholicVote endorsing Santorum. A good man is hard to find? Naw. Just one who isn't going to disrespect our country's laws and documents for his own personal belief system. It's just as wrong for conservatives as it is for liberals to do so.
“The Constitution is a great document,” [Paul] has said. “I have personal beliefs. I believe that individuals should have the right to their life, the right to their liberty, and also the right to keep what they earn. Fortunately for me, the Constitution and my personal beliefs come together. Because the oath of office doesn’t say, ‘Well, I’m going to go to Washington and I’m going to fulfill my personal beliefs.’ It says that we go to office and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.” -- Ron Paul, as quoted in The NYT
Stop the Nanny State 2012!

Addendum: The Rick Santorum Says Horrible Things tumblr is pretty hilarious. (h/t @klfredrich)


  1. Hi I'm a new follower from the #BrightMaidens on twitter and facebook. :o) I love your writing!

    I'm not for big gov't either... so are you for Ron Paul then? I need to do more research before the primaries get to me.

    Thanks for posting this; I assumed Santorum was a good one.

    Feel free to stop by my blog! <3

    For Love of Cupcakes

  2. I am interested, though ... where did you get the idea that Santorum would "disrespect our country's laws and documents for his own personal belief system"?

  3. Jamie- Yes, I am for Ron Paul. I believe he is the only candidate who views the issues from within the proper alignment of government powers. This is the reason why Paul is able to appeal to both the right and left sides of politics.

    In that same vein Tony, I believe Santorum does the opposite. Santorum is a very appealing candidate because he is a family man, pro-life, has 7 kids and is a good man with good intentions. Well, so is Paul: married for 54 years to the same woman, has 5 kids, many grand kids and a few great-grand kids! He is not only pro-life, but is an ob-gyn and has delivered over 4,000 babies, including the stillborn baby of a mixed race couple, whom no other doctors would take care of and never sent a bill.

    Santorum is a Catholic, as am I. But I can't agree with his want of federal marriage mandates any more than I can agree with a same-sex marriage mandate at that level. It is not in the sphere of the federal government. That is a state issue and Santorum has come out and said that the 10th amendment has run amok; well, so has this country, but we can't have blanket laws just because the federal government can. That is wrong, even for good intentions. That is where I have the idea that Santorum will disrespect our country's laws and documents; moreover, I think he will give rise to more anti-Catholicism in the country by projecting.

    A traditionalist clings to the proper process; Santorum goes into the progressive policies with conservative claims. He would also not reduce the defense debt and would more than likely begin a war in Iran, which contradicts his pro-life beliefs. Real change happens person to person, in communities. Santorum's blanket policies are just a perpetuation of the status quo, and I frankly am boggled at why Catholics are so behind him, minus the fact that he too is Catholic and pro-life. His actual politics and voting record is atrocious.

  4. Now wait a minute, before you write off Rick Santorum about what he says about Libertarianism (actually he has a problem with its origin and abuses) perhaps you should listen to what John C. Medaille writes about it:
    'One of the more egregious examples of Liberalism masquerading as “conservatism” is known as Austrian Libertarianism, an economic and social philosophy that traces to Ludwig von Mises and his student Murray Rothbard. It is not an idle charge that Mises considered himself a product of the Enlightenment, a “man of 1789” (the French Revolution); this he says himself. The question, therefore, is not whether Mises is the very embodiment of Liberalism; Mises did not dispute this and in fact boasted of it. The real question is whether the philosophy he represents can in any way be reconciled to the Catholic faith and serve as a basis for the understanding of Catholic Social Teaching, or indeed of anything Catholic or even Christian.

    As one who has studied Mises and his work, I find his economics useless and his philosophy jejune. But the academies are full of jejune and useless doctrines, and it just doesn’t do to get too upset by any one of them. So why should a book dedicated to refuting his work and Austrian libertarianism in general be of particular interest to Catholics? Because Austrianism has insinuated itself into the struggle over the interpretation of Catholic Social Teaching, in ways that in fact subvert that teaching, even to the point of rendering the Gospel null and void.

    That, of course, is a serious charge, and should only be made on serious and overwhelming evidence. That is the burden of Christopher Ferrara’s book 'The Church and the Libertarian', and it is a burden that he has met and even surpassed. Those who find Austrianism a useful interpretation of the Church’s teaching should give careful consideration to Mr. Ferrara’s presentation. He has done the Church a great service with this well-researched and well-reasoned discussion.'
    What we really need is a politician who is brave enough to stand up for the economic and social philosophy that Pope Leo XIII wrote about in his encyclical: Rerum Novarum which has a third way: Distributism which is basically Capitalism with morality, and not just Capitalism on a runaway to train to greed.

  5. Hi Anonymous! I'm going to have to disagree with you on Mises, as I have also studied him. Rothbard may have been his student, but he and Mises do not see eye-to-eye. Rothbard is an Anarcho-Capitalist, for one, which is not Austrian economics.

    I think you're really missing big points if you're comparing Austrian economics to Catholic Social Teaching; they really do not overlap at all, minus natural law theory usage. You're accusing Austrian economics of gnosticism, essentially - this is false. This is a school of economics that does not touch the Gospel teachings; which are, by the way, not their own school of economics either.

    The thing about some Catholics in politics that I can't stomach is how they disregard free will and the democratic process of government. It is wrong for good intentions masquerading as public policy to be worked out at the federal level just as much as bad ones. Most issues "championed" by Catholic politicians should be done at the local level, just as families are governed within house and not by the state.

    I am not familiar with either of the books you've mentioned, but I will look them up. In the meanwhile, I suggest you read "The Constitution of Liberty" by Hayek and "Interventionism" by Mises - you might be surprised how much you agree with, opposed to merely listening to "jejune" scholars.

    Thanks for the conversation!