An Open Question About Yesterday’s Results
Maybe I am too much of a Machiavellian, but one must wonder about a couple of things.
One, why would Obama level his blatant attack at the Roman Catholic church? He HAD to know the blow back would be tremendous.
Two, were Santorum’s victories yesterday a Catholic sympathy vote in light of this attack?
Is it possible the questions are related? For example, did Obama think he could could give Santorum a boost by virtue of the ruling and thus weaken the presumptive nominee Romney? In his conversation with E.J. Dionne, Hugh Hewitt proposed an even more sophisticated possible tie in between the two questions, but essentially the conclusion that the ruling was a political calculation by Team Obama to weaken the Republican coalition remains the same.
But let’s ask ourselves this – what is it about us that even makes speculation of this sort possible? We are riven along religious lines to some extent. Whether it be Catholic/Evangelical, liberal Catholic/conservative Catholic, Evangelical/Mormon these divisions and others are being exploited by Team Obama. What is it about Republicans that allow these divisions to be exploitable while we just cannot get a wedge in similar divisions inside the Democrats?
The answer is not easy to hear. There is a form of selfishness involved here. As Republicans, we tend to worry about the task at hand instead of the power politics around it. Thus we become so focused on abortion or same sex marriage that that is all we care about, neglecting the enormous amount political reality that surrounds the issue. This is most expressed by the natural tendency for people of faith to avoid conflict. “I don’t want to have a fight with you, my stance is right, here is the evidence, now agree with me and let me get back to doing what I really need to be doing.” Democrats, on the other hand, are all about the fight.
Our tendency to avoid the fight comes, at least in some part, from Christ’s apparent avoidance of a fight when He allowed Himself to be crucified. But we must remember something – Christ’s crucifixion was not a result of avoiding a fight, it was in fact, shifting the battleground to where it truly needed to be. More importantly, it set up the Resurrection which is the “nuclear weapon” of the great war in which Christ was engaged. The Resurrection ended the war – its just the mop-up phase now.
We cannot afford to shy from this fight. We have to follow Christ’s true example and shift the battleground. The petty divisions that the Democrats currently exploit are not the real battleground. It is time to set them aside. We have a real and serious war to win.
UPDATE: 36 hours later, The Fix wonders with us. You know, you’d think these big time papers might give us a little credit.
Posted in Candidate Qualifications, News Media Bias, Political Strategy, Religious Freedom, Understanding Religion | 7 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
lizzie on 09 Feb 2012 at 12:00 am #
Yes, I think the Catholic issue aided Santorum tremendously. That and the ailment of his daughter, Bella. They always say these things take a little time to catch up.
Also, Mitt has his tongue tied. It’s hard for him to be able to talk about religion, because some folks won’t accept his statements on any account because they distrust his religion. So he is at a disadvantage when Santorum can talk it up and he’s Catholic to boot.
sewinglady on 09 Feb 2012 at 10:06 am #
“More importantly, it set up the Resurrection which is the “nuclear weapon” of the great war in which Christ was engaged.” LOL! I love it. Great analogy, John.
I think that the Catholic issue helped Santorum to gain votes. Romney has spoken out about the Obama Administration’s war on religion, but there is no doubt that it primarily brought the Catholics front and center. It puts Romney at a disadvantage to Santorum not just because Santorum is Catholic, but because if Romney were to bring up our Church’s history with government and fighting government, he wouldn’t win any sympathy. Most people believe that the government has been entirely justified in the things that they did to our Church to make us conform with their decrees. My great-great grandfather spent a year in jail. Our people weren’t even granted habeus corpus rights. We know something about the tyranny of government, but our tongues are tied because no one will agree that the government was unjust in anything they did. All we can do now is try to stand with people of faith everywhere and continue to fight the legal battles necessary to protect the guaranteed right of freedom of religion. If the gay marriage decisions continue to be upheld, religious people will not have any rights left. We won’t even be allowed to believe that anything is a sin. I will end with a quote from the Revolutionary War: “Gentlemen, we must all hang together, or we shall all hang separately.”
JLF9999 on 09 Feb 2012 at 10:30 am #
Interesting post John. E.J. Dion’s comments to Hewett were telling. So, Catholic women use birth control and the White House calculates they can throw a wrench in the Republican works by exploiting the issue. It sounds to me like we need a Republican nominee who can use brass knuckles and throw sand in his opponents’ eyes while kicking him in the gonads. When we do that will be criticized for not being Christ-like?
JLF9999 on 09 Feb 2012 at 10:36 am #
One question I would like an answer to: Does Rick Santorum’s attack on Massachusetts’ health plan mean he thinks the president should stick his nose in a state’s 10th Amendment right to devise its own system for taking care of its people?
Retrocon on 09 Feb 2012 at 3:15 pm #
Besides a sympathy bounce for Santorum, consider also that it appears Gingrich’s surliness had finally caught up with him, and even Sarah Palin was finding it hard to prop him up any more. In Colorado and Minnesota, where Gingrich was on the ballot, he still fell flat. Most of those Gingrich voters seem to have fled to Santorum for the time being.
John’s has an excellent point that we cannot allow the Republican coalition to be weakened by political ploys from Obama and the Left. And we can’t let little things — like the fact that Romney had made a concession to his liberal Massachusetts electorate in 1994 that he would not seek to overturn abortion laws — get in the way of making sound judgments regarding who can best challenge Pres. Obama and who would make a better President if elected.
Santorum may be much more idealogical, whereas Romney is much more practical, but I don’t see this as helping Santorum be an effective President.
coltakashi on 09 Feb 2012 at 11:03 pm #
Romney’s luck in having the more conservative voters split among several candidates, allowing gim to win pluralities, had to run out sometime, and after Huntsman and Parry and Bachman and Cain dropped out, and Gingrich was defeated in Florida, deflating his South Carolina win, Santorum is de facto the last man standing among the “I am more conservative than Romney” crowd. He becomes the focus of the faction.
An additional factor in Romney losing ground from last time is that in 2008, running against McCain, Romney was perceived as the more conservative alternative. This time, relatively, Mitt is the less conservative alternative.
The disappointing aspect of the losses was that Romney’s team did not foresee this outcome and understand how bad would be the psychological impact of Santorum winning all three state votes. If they had put more resources into Colorado, it would have been perceived as another tie with Santorum, rather than a Santorum “hat trick”.
Retrocon on 09 Feb 2012 at 11:10 pm #
Santorum’s constant assault on Romney for the Massachusetts Health Care bill is an example of political opportunism. Let’s not forget that Santorum backed Romney in the 2008 Presidential Primary — which was not but a year of so AFTER the Massachusetts bill was signed into law. Why was this not a killer issue for Santorum back then? Why is Santorum flip-flopping now in the 2012 race? Because he knows that late in 2009, when the Right was trying to think of reasons to oppose ObamaCare, a lot of Conservatives suddenly became oppositional to the concept of “government mandates” — and the political opportunists (from Obama and the Left to those like Santorum on the Right) have seen an opening to try to link Romney to the now distasteful mandates.
Santorum is portrayed by followers as a long-time ideological purist on conservative issues, so why the flip-flop now? Someone needs to ask Sen. Santorum why he supported Romney in 2008 despite the Massachusetts health care bill having been recently signed. So far, it seems, this has been Santorum’s #1 issue for bashing Romney.