So my two year old daughter and I watched most of a Santorum town hall event from New Hampshire (start them early I say.)
1. He actually talks to people. I’m sure he falls back on some pat phrases, but there is a sense that he is actually talking to his questioner.
2. He doesn’t just preach to the converted. This isn’t Gingrich talking about how Obama is immensely stupid and how he will reveal it to America and the world in a three hour debate. This isn’t Herman Cain doing a softball interview about 9-9-9 and how his peace through strength clichés are more important than actually knowing anything about anything. Santorum actually engaged people who (quite moralistically) disagreed with him on the issues. I don’t think he is especially persuasive, but he does actually try to persuade.
3. He is good at talking about entitlement and energy policy. Once again, not great, but America would benefit more from listening to him than from Gingrich’s Medicare nonsense, Mitt Romney’s canned talking points (though Romney has a pretty good plan entitlement plan but chooses not to talk much about it) or Perry talking about making Congress part time. If we can get American listening to Santorum talking about that stuff, we might make it easier for some later politician to talk about and implement entitlement reforms.
4. Towards the end of the event, a lady told Santorum that she hoped he respected her pro-choice (on abortion) principles. Now, maybe I missed something, but I never got the impression that Santorum did anything but articulate his own pro-life principles and argue that abortion policy should be settled by democratic deliberation. My sense was that she meant that tolerating his continued existence in society while he held his opinions constituted respect on her part, and his silent acquiescence in a radical pro-choice policy regime ought to constitute respect on his part. I thought Santorum handled that question pretty well.
January 7th, 2012 | 7:09 pm
Pete, I’d like to know your daughter’s reaction. Talk about starting them early!
You say–”I don’t think he is especially persuasive, but he does actually try to persuade.”
As Peter noted, perhaps Santorum’s rhetoric about the dignity of all human life and the dignity of work all the while talking “to” people instead of “at” them makes him more persuasive than Romney, as well as pointing to his immigrant/Pennsylvania miner background gives him greater believability on these matters.
You continue–”If we can get American listening to Santorum talking about that stuff, we might make it easier for some later politician to talk about and implement entitlement reforms.”
Do you see Santorum as ultimately losing (whether in the primaries or the general election), and as therefore serving the role of preparation for a serious capacity to bring about entitlement reform? I can’t see this happening by 2016 if the president gets re-elected, but I guess if one more serious person is added to those who speak intelligently on the issue, it couldn’t hurt.
You conclude–”My sense was that she meant that tolerating his continued existence in society while he held his opinions constituted respect on her part, and his silent acquiescence in a radical pro-choice policy regime ought to constitute respect on his part.”
This is an important point and deep problem, and it relates to Jason Joseph’s post below.
January 7th, 2012 | 7:38 pm
She stared at the television some. Looked through her books some. Hugged some dolls some. Stared at the TV some more.
“As Peter noted, perhaps Santorum’s rhetoric about the dignity of all human life and the dignity of work all the while talking “to” people instead of “at” them makes him more persuasive than Romney”
I want to think that is true and 35 years ago it might have. The message is almost there. The messenger isn’t that far away, but he isn’t there. I don’t think it is for lack of trying either. I don’t think that I get across how much I respect Santorum’s approach (though aspects can be critiqued.) Maybe the best way I can put it is that he is a little (but decisively) short in the forensic talent department.
“Do you see Santorum as ultimately losing…” Of the people currently running for President, he is my first choice, but yes. I agree that there is no chance of serious right-leaning entitlement reforms in 2013-2016 if Obama is reelected. If we have a Daniels or Jindal or Christie as President with a Republican Congress maybe. If we have Romney with a Republican Congress, I fear less likely. I think that the more people who know about premium support Medicare and changing the indexing of Social Security benefits for high earners, the easier it will be for future politicians to talk to more people about these issues. The opportunity costs of having the presidential debates focused on 9-9-9 or who was most cynical in their embrace of health insurance purchase mandates are a little scary. I fear we are about to waste more time with exchanges about who was most for earmarks.
January 7th, 2012 | 8:05 pm
I agree, from what I’ve seen Santorum is a little– decisively–short on the forensic art, but I’ll be watching tonight.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact