Rick Santorum Misses The Point

Your Friday morning dose of Santorum -- because I can only handle just over one minute of him per week.

Look, I can understand that you are allowed to speak your mind on any number of issues facing our country. But what bothers me most about this clip of former Senator Santorum is that he makes it sound as if Democrats, led by 'a guy named Barack Obama' (don't get me started) think that America is a terrible country and want to completely destroy everything for which America stands. This is simply not true.

Using this logic, George W. Bush was a terrible leader for trying to completely re-vamp our educational system (No Child Left Behind anyone?). Change is good Rick. Sure, sometimes it doesn't work and you simply admit it when something fails and move on... but without change, women and minorities would not be allowed to vote. People of color could be bought and sold at market as slaves.

And 'the stewardship of patrimony'? Really?

Stewardship:
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1: the office, duties, and obligations of a steward
2: the conducting, supervising, or managing of something ; especially : the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one's care [stewardship of our natural resources]

Patrimony:
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English patrimoine, patrimonie, from Anglo-French patremoine, from Latin patrimonium, from patr-, pater father
Date: 14th century
1 a: an estate inherited from one's father or ancestor b: anything derived from one's father or ancestors : heritage
2: an estate or endowment belonging by ancient right to a church

Now, at ThinkProgress (where I got the video clip), there are a bunch of people who are claiming that Santorum is talking about protecting the wealthy or the powerful people in America. While I understand their argument, I do not agree with it. I think that 'ol Ricky is simply saying that we must preserve, unchanged, our nation as it was in the 1950s.

I know, I know -- it sounds absurd. But, think about it... conservatives like Santorum would enjoy living in a 'Leave It To Beaver' America.

Marriage was between 'one man and one woman' only. In fact, gay people were relegated to living a shadow life, if any life at all. Minorities had their place -- but it was separate from everyone else. There were no loony-lefty-liberals to hate America. We had just come out of World War II and the country was thriving and united. If someone even looked at you sideways, you could claim that they were a Communist, get them on a blacklist and have them detained (at the very least) and possibly have their lives ruined (at the very best).

Please don't misunderstand me -- America is indeed worthy of protection. However, I see things a little bit differently than Mr. Santorum:

The 'stewardship of patrimony' that I see is that of our Founding Fathers. We must protect our Constitution. These men risked execution because they believed in something nobler, something better for this great land. These guys were not concerned with whom a citizen was able to marry. They were concerned that The King would tell his subjects how to live -- but even more that said subjects would have no say in how to conduct their lives. This is the patrimony that we must protect.

The Founders thought that change was good. They are called Constitutional Amendments.

What bothers me most about conservatives (and liberals) like Santorum is that this argument works when it suits them. 'Right now things are great -- why change them?' Things are great, but they can always be better Mr. Santorum. I love America -- but I would love it even more if all men and women were indeed equal.

So, once again Mr. Santorum, you are off-the-mark.

Like what you see? RSS FEED | TWITTER FEED | HOME