Hacker News Reader

Comment by philwelch | Hacker News Reader

So here's the backstory.

Santorum has a microscopically thin but nonzero chance of winning the Republican primaries. To do so, either Romney has to all but disappear as a candidate or he has to do extremely well in the upcoming primaries. Even then, the most likely outcome is a "brokered convention", where literally anything is possible, up to and including nominating someone who isn't even running yet.

Santorum knows that he has to win the GOP base this way. And he'll never win the libertarianish part of the GOP base to begin with (they're voting for Ron Paul), nor will he win over the sane people (they're either voting for Romney or staying home in a fog of crippling depression). So his only chance is to maximize turnout from crazy, evangelical, right-wing loonies of the type rarely seen outside flyover country.

If he somehow wins the nomination, expect him to quietly forget half of these crazy promises. If he loses, his political career is over. So he has to go pretty crazy.

View on HN

> If he somehow wins the nomination, expect him to quietly forget half of these crazy promises. If he loses, his political career is over. So he has to go pretty crazy.

Here's the real backstory.

You have Santorum mixed up with Romney. Santorum really believes all this stuff, he isn't just saying it to get elected. He is about as puritanical in his beliefs as you can get. While I respect him for being so open and being who he is, I frankly find it frightening that he is winning primaries.

> Santorum really believes all this stuff

Maybe this is just being pedantic, but: what about his beliefs on higher education? The man has denigrated the idea of pursuing education beyond high school, yet he has more degrees than the current president. That just seems like pandering to me.

He home schools his kids, which is inline with what he is stating are his current beliefs.

As for the number of degrees, excess can breed contempt. Also, college is a great place to have lots of sex and be exposed to tons of secular ideas.

Santorum has an extra one-year MBA degree. Both had Bachelor of Arts, both had Juris Doctor (a law degree).

Here's the scorecard for sport fans:

Santorum: BA (Hons) from UPenn; a one year MBA from University of Pittsburgh. Katz.; J.D. (Hons) from Dickinson School of Law

Obama: BA, Columbia University; J.D. (Magna cum laude) from Harvard Law

Sounds like you are trying to arrive to predefined conclusion. Given the sorry state of public education, where schools graduate illiterate people unable to read their own diploma, if homeschooling is a sign of something it is a sign of deep commitment to the child's education. The second argument is even weaker - it sounds like if he had a lot of degrees, he'd be against education, and if he had none, he'd be against education. Solid argument needs more than that. You can see in parallel branch I am very far from being fan of Santorum, however disliking him does not mean getting to his level and starting to use prejudices instead of solid argument.

> if homeschooling is a sign of something it is a sign of deep commitment to the child's education.

Commitment to what aspect, though? Actual educational and personal development or complete indoctrination in a bubble where no outside ideas can penetrate?

My point is that it's an ambiguous indicator, and can honestly be used by both sides until we know details about the homeschooling in question.

What's "actual" education? One's personal opinion can differ. However, education and indoctrination are not mutually exclusive. The debate about mentioning creationism in schools shows that both sides see the school as the indoctrination vehicle - otherwise describing the existence of the creationist theories, which is - the existence of the theories, of course - a scientific fact would not be controversial, but there's more to it than just that, right? And educational institutions themselves are deeply political - D/R ratio in some academic disciplines is 30/1, some institutions are completely ideologically monocultural, and teacher's union NEA is 6th biggest political donor, donating almost exclusively to one party. There are also numerous documented cases of teachers involving pupils into political activities for the causes of their choosing. So it would be very hard to find an education venue where indoctrination would not take place.

The whole point of the homeschooling (one of) is that people choose what is actual education for them, not for somebody else. Of course, you or I may not like their choice, but why should they care?

> What's "actual" education? One's personal opinion can differ.

A good education is one that reflects reality. If your opinion of what reality is differs from mine, you're welcome to show me wrong using experiments. Otherwise, you are wrong and are not likely to be a good educator.

> The debate about mentioning creationism in schools shows that both sides see the school as the indoctrination vehicle

Not to the extent you seem to think: One side has facts on its side, whereas the other does not. If you can't see any asymmetry there I refuse to try to help you.

> Of course, you or I may not like their choice, but why should they care?

Because I have to live with the laws they have the political clout to force through Congress. I have to deal with the fact they have just as much political clout as I do and no idea why the tides come in or why trickle-down economics is a terrible idea or why banning abortions doesn't magically make everyone into someone who can raise a child in a reasonable fashion.

I am no Santorum fan, but you should at least reflect what he said accurately. He stated not every one should be encouraged to go to university for their chosen career path. i.e. plumbers should not feel pressure to get a BA. This concept is not entirely wrong and is embraced by very liberal cultures in Europe. US culture has a misguided impression that everyone has to go to university to be successful in life.

Errr, no. He actually said that 'satan' has taken over academics, and other such nonsense.

prooflink with a quote? He talked a bunch about Satan and about how corrupt some institutions are (one can easily find it by searching for satana+santorum+academics), but I can't find a quote where he explicitly says Satan has taken over academics.

I concur, Santorum is a sincere candidate compared to Romney. Hitler was sincere too. Sincerity is an overrated virtue.....

Aside from the ridiculously crass comparison to Hitler, you are patently wrong.

Hitler was a liar to the core. He framed the Invasion of Poland as a 'defensive war' which he convinced many Germans into believe Poland was actually invading Germany!

He spun deceptions regularly and was known for his ability to convince or make others look the other way while he planned military actions and genocide. Just because he was outspoken about his hate for the Jewish people does not at all make him 'sincere'.

I did not say sincerity is not a virtue, I said it is overrated. I don't think Santorum is even close to being Hitler, I believe he is overall an honest man who believes that he will do good for the country. My problem with him is that he is so certain with his beliefs. He's too dogmatic for my taste. “The most harm of all is done when power is in the hands of people who are absolutely persuaded of the purity of their intentions” – Milton Friedman

Being sincere doesn't mean to always tell the truth. Lies can be justified as a means to achieve a goal that is sincerely believed to be for the greater good.

That's what makes these people dangerous. If they had an obsession with telling the truth, they would be easy to defeat, because even though many people share some of their beliefs, very few people share the priorities of true fanatics.

Yeah you're right. I don't think Hitler was sincere when he negotiated with Neville Chamberlain on the annexation of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. No one was listening to Churchill who has been warning for years about Hitler. Who would listen to a drunk discredited politician? This time pragmatism failed.

I'm sure he is sincere, but a professional politician does not run his mouth, sincerely or insincerely, without a purpose behind doing so. Santorum isn't Ron Paul, Alan Keyes, Dennis Kucinich, or Sarah Palin--he knows exactly what he's doing.

Alas, Rick Santorum ("Putting the 'No' in 'Nuance' since 1991") will be with us long after he's turned over the hole cards of his busted straight of a Presidential bid.

Look at the careers of Sarah Palin, Pat Buchanan, Howard Dean, Jon Stewart, Rush Limbaugh, Rob Reich, et cetera et cetera ad absurdum. Once a politician discovers some capacity to generate an audience, they go on raising money ($ for consultant buddies), selling books (royalties), speaking (speaker fees) . . . . No one expects these people to ever affect anything. But they can reliably, bankably, generate attention. Maybe they start out trying to influence opinion, but over time the audience retention imperative drives that to the background.

That's one reason why this sort is so reliably brain-dead. Saying something their audience doesn't expect to hear subjects said audience to the pain of unguided thought; do this too often and that audience withers, because they're tuning in for validation of opinion, not formation of new opinion.

A general campaign introduces Santorum to zero marginal conversative audience and takes up valuable time. If he won the nomination, his first move would be to demand a recount.

[EDIT: Yes, I meant Jon Stewart. I regard him and Limbaugh as a species of politician -- they make their living motivating political activity of a particular bent. They didn't build their audiences via electoral politics, but once built their audience relationship / maintenance dynamics are very similar to the others named.]

> Look at the careers of Sarah Palin, Pat Buchanan, Howard Dean, John Stewart, Rush Limbaugh, Rob Reich, et cetera et cetera ad absurdum. Once a politician [...]

Who is John Stewart? If you're referring to the comedian Jon Stewart, when was he ever a politician? I don't think it's fair to lump him in with people like Palin, Dean, etc. Stewart has never held public office and made a career of poking fun at politicians and the media who cover them.

And to be fair, as much I disagree with the man, Rush Limbaugh isn't a washed-up politician turned commentator either, he was always a radio guy.

But Limbaugh is a rather active activist (via his show) for the causes he champions. Jon Stewart doesn't give off a vibe of promoting a certain course of action among his audience.

I listen to Rush and watch Jon. They are equally prescriptive. Most of the time, they simply frame the conversation and subtly suggest a course of action. Only occasionally do either tell their audience to take direct action.

Yeah... he's able to generate an audience but he wasn't ever a politician.

I think evangelicals have caught on to the fact that they have been pandered to and then ignored by mainstream Republicans, and they're sick of it; in Santorum, they see someone who holds their beliefs unambiguously. While I would expect that he would go quiet over these issues in a general election, I have no doubt that he would attempt to implement bible-based policy in the unlikely event that he is elected.

I think this long GOP primary is a sign that both evangelicals and libertarians are realizing that the "deal" they made with the "big tent" GOP has had a poor ROI.

>I have no doubt that he would attempt to implement bible-based policy in the unlikely event that he is elected.

People thought George Bush would do the same.

And he did. He banned federal funding for stem-cell research for biblical reasons. It might not have made the USA a theocracy, but he actually came pretty close with many of his decisions.

Intellectually, I understand all this. However when I read a pile of steaming bull manure that is presented to me at the link as a political argument, I literally feel sick a little. And that given that I am a libertarian (not a Ron Paul kind, but still) and so have significant affinity to some of the GOP positions and thus my prejudices lie rather in favor than against GOP candidates. I am not an US voter, but if I were, I would not be able to vote for a person that publishes such a vile idiocy under his name. I'm sure he could appeal to the same base without this - there must be other issues and things he could use as his special advantage. I don't believe one has to go that stupid.

> I am not an US voter, but if I were, I would not be able to vote for a person that publishes such a vile idiocy under his name.

Unless you live in US flyover country and are intimately familiar with the types of people who live there, you won't understand Santorum. It's just a cultural gap.

For what it's worth, I could name some popular opinions and ideas in, for instance, Europe that are just as shocking and repugnant to me.

I don't think American culture is as uniform as you're implying it is. I'm from the bay area in california and Santorum's positions seem very foreign to me, but everyone in my circles around here at least thinks they "get" Santorum - it is accepted wisdom that's he's a crazy idiot. I don't think someone who isn't a U.S. voter is automatically more at a disadvantage than most Americans when it comes to understanding what's going on this election season.

Curious to hear some European opinions that are shocking to you. I wonder if they would be shocking to Americans in general and I wonder if Europeans would agree that those opinions and ideas are uniformly European.

Curious to hear some European opinions that are shocking to you.

One European idea (as practised in a reasonable sub set of Europe) that I can see many Americans finding shocking are the legal limits to free speech. Gun control is another one which would shock at least a fair number of Americans (again this varies a bit across Europe, but is always far stricter than in the US). Various ideas on taxation is a third, depending slightly on your political leaning. The lax (from a US perspective) attitude towards punishing criminals as yet another.

I do not get the lax jail sentences for violent crimes in Europe either. For me it's not about punishment but about preventing such people from perpetrating their violence again. I don't get it but here in Europe (at least until recently) they have less violent crime so it appears to work for them.

I have lived in rural parts of the US most of my life and I don't see Santorum's positions as being from most of there either. It IS typical of a small subset of people widely dispersed, though, and that includes some Catholics and Evangelicals I know.....

Deleted comment

The parent to your comment would have made a lot more sense to you if you had read its parent. Just saying.

I don't think American culture is as uniform as you're implying it is. I'm from the bay area in california

When was the last time the bay area was referred to as flyover country? And so far Santorum has won 10 and seconded quite a few other primaries. Crazy or not he appears to reflect the ideas of a large portion of the american populous. He regularly gets 20-30% of the vote.

The Bay Area ain't flyover country.

Please tell me what ideas euorpeans hold that you find morally repugnant.

I find their criminalization of right-wing radical speech to be pretty repugnant, e.g. jail time for Holocaust denial in Germany. Don't get me wrong, Holocaust deniers are all mad as hatters, but they shouldn't be thrown in jail for expressing an opinion. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Eu...

I find many of these laws quite outdated as well, but you have to consider the historical context. These laws were made at a time when the nazis had just murdered millions of people, caused a world war, and most importantly, were still holding all the influencial positions in the country.

The nazis were a broad popular movement. It wasn't just some dictator and his family who could be removed in a day. Most of the intellectual elite was either dead or had left the country. The nazis had replaced everyone who held any kind of official role with their own people. All the judges, university teachers, school principals, police officers, civil servants, etc, they were all nazis or opportunistic collaborators with questionable political attitudes.

There was no way all these people could have been removed from their posts or put in jail where they really belonged. Preventing them from being politically active, banning their symbols and everything they might reunite behind in order to regain power, was seen as the only practical way to diffuse a very real threat.

Also, the laws were made at a time when no law could be made without the approval the US government. After all, a large number of US, British, Russian, and other soldiers had just lost their lives liberating Europe and removing the nazis from power. It would have been insane to just let the nazis resume their political activities.

But 66 years on they are no longer a threat. They have almost no popular support, and the very specific laws that violate free speech could now be replaced by general laws against inciting violence like they exist in all countries.

I don't think that's a European thing, per se. Have you ever been to Holland? ;)

I am dismayed at the continuing popularity of fascism in Europe. Ten years ago, a crypto-fascist got almost 1/5 of the vote in the French presidential election; many countries in Europe seem to elect neo-fascists or crypto-fascists to the European Parliament just to spite the EU.

Judging by the experiences of footballers like Samuel Eto'o, Mario Balotelli, and Patrice Evra, Europe is decades behind the United States in tackling the problem of racism. I've never heard of black athletes on the field of play being the subject of racist taunts either by the fans or by opposing players in the United States. It is unbelievably taboo.

I'm shocked that in Italy, it is apparently possible to simultaneously be the richest man in the country, the majority owner of a major media conglomerate, and Prime Minister. And that's setting aside all the other unsavory things about Berlusconi.

Now, I kind of expect a lot of Europeans--on HN at least--to be embarrassed about neofascists or racism or Berlusconi, but hey, I'm just as embarrassed about Santorum.

Please don't start "my country vs. your country" threads.

I don't live in Europe. I was legitimately curious.

Believing that the GOP that exists today is more libertarian in ways that actually affect your life, and what libertarianism means to you, regarding how government operates than the Democratic party is a mistake. Politics is not about grand philosophies and isms, it is about what set of deals and compromises each politician has made.

Economically, the GOP, while being far from what I would like, is closer to that than the Dems. Of course, it is all relative - lately, by not letting a good crisis to go to waste, Dems moved severely to the anti-libertarian direction, and the GOP was dragged kicking and screaming a bit to the libertarian direction. So the choice here would be between quite bad and somewhat not as bad as that. Economic issues are usually far more pervasive than social issues - you can filter out 99% of social issues by turning off the TV, but the economy will influence your life whatever you do and wherever you are. I say if they raise taxes it would immediately hurt me both directly in person and through my employment (less free income - less money to buy stuff that I do - less income to the company I work for - no raises to the employees). If they accept or deny gay marriage, for example, with all my respect to people that seek or oppose it, it would not matter a bit in my life, regardless of my opinion on it. So in general I feel the GOP is, well, I wouldn't say more libertarian - it's like saying Al Capone is more pacifist than Pol Pot - but less anti-libertarian where it affects my life. Maybe I am mistaken but that's the conclusion I have arrived to so far.

"my prejudices lie rather in favor than against GOP candidates. [...] I'm sure [Santorum] could appeal to the same base without this - there must be other issues and things he could use as his special advantage. I don't believe one has to go that stupid."

Alas, then you don't really understand the GOP. These beliefs are representative of a large chunk of the GOP base. Santorum's success is not a fluke in that regard.

There's a large (large enough to be detectable) amount of people that believes 9/11 was organized by Bush and the moon landing was filmed in Hollywood. Yet you do not see Obama saying that or any sane politician promoting that. There's a difference between leading and appealing to the base (pun intended) instincts. I know politicians frequently do the latter, and it is disgusting every time.

You nailed it. I'm a Republican, but the candidates this time around are really depressing. I don't identify with the Tea Party ("angry" does not a political platform make,) but wish Ron Paul would win the primaries. I don't think he will.

If Santorum manages to win the general election, ritual suicide will become a serious option.

Agreed. While it's often hard to distinguish Santorum's genuine beliefs from his pandering to the redneck vote, the distinction is somewhat irrelevant. He now stands for that base, and he needs it as a bargaining chip in pretty much any outcome that can occur between now and the convention. At a brokered convention, he'll be able to cash in that voting base for a cabinet or advisory position (probably not a vice presidential slot, but at least something) on Romney's ticket. If Romney ends up beating him outright before the convention, then he'll cash it in for a lucrative talkshow deal, a la Mike Huckabee. At the very least, and certainly in any event, he'll be able to sell a mountain of books.

The point is, from a game-theoretical standpoint, there is no benefit to Santorum in backing down from his rhetoric at this juncture. He's in an especially lucrative position because Romney is so perfectly ill-positioned to win over the base Santorum has carved out for himself. (In the eyes of the evangelical, white, working-class base, Romney is every bit the "snob" that Obama is).

Unconstitutional crazy positions are the best ones, because the supreme court gives you a get out of jail free card.

This is a great point. I would much rather have a president with a handful of crazy, completely wrong, clearly unconstitutional ideas than a president with a handful of just slightly wrong ideas that might actually pass. Congress and SCOTUS will block the truly crazy stuff; it's the borderline stuff that's dangerous.

Well, yes. The problem is that a president with crazy and completely wrong ideas is also more likely to have a whole bunch of just-slightly-wrong ideas because of his (or her) complete lack of rationality.

You're assuming politicians are sincere.

Is he angling for a Kingmaker position instead, i.e. extract certain concessions from Romney given that he controls a large chunk of delegates?

No, I sincerely doubt it. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is doing exactly this. Word is that he's angling to get Rand Paul a leg up for a run at the Presidency in either 2016 or 2020.

I thought the conspiracy was a V.P. bid with Romney. I'm not sure if that's more or less made-up than the Rand Paul thing though.

I don't see how Ron Paul losing more publicly than ever will help Rand's career.

The road to 1144 delegates for Romney is getting trickier and trickier with every passing primary contest[1]. It's possible to imagine a number of scenarios where Romney, in order to clear the magic number on the first ballot at the convention in Tampa, engages in horse trading with Paul in order to put him over the top.

[1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/07/no-clear-pa...

He's trying to maximize his delegates going forward; that will give him all kinds of leverage in case of a Romney win or even a brokered convention.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com