So I'm surprised that Rick Santorum is not only still in the race, but that his campaign is actually gaining traction. I have a hard time understanding why it is that so many people have moved to the Santorum camp; I'm starting to think that it may have a lot to do with the fact that so few Republicans actually like Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich is such a sleazeball. I guess that Ron Paul is also an alternative, but his "apply the golden rule to foreign policy" idea is pretty much a non-starter with most Republicans. This leaves Santorum as the final candidate for the anti-Romney camp.
Although I do have quite a few political reasons to dislike Santorum as a presidential candidate; I'm going to start with the most obvious and non political reason not to elect him.
He reminds me of Mr. Rogers.
Now, I do like Mr. Rogers; and I'm sure he'd keep the children entertained... I guess I just can't imagine a commander in chief who wears sweater vests.
In all seriousness; I think that his views are dangerously extreme and often outdated. I oppose the budget plan that he submitted before the presidential campaign due largely to the balanced budget amendment that he wants to make. To make this clear, I do not oppose balancing the budget; and who would? Of course we want to ensure a balanced budget; ideally a surplus. In order to achieve this we can't tie our own hands. His "balanced budget" plan is actually an amendment that prevents raising taxes. You may agree with the idea of low taxes, and I can't blame you. Nobody wants to pay higher taxes, but right now as a country America brings in less money than it spends by a huge margin. You may blame Obama for this, but it actually has just as much to do with the Bush tax cuts as it has to do with spending. Also, there are a lot of corporations out there that don't spend a dime on taxes. This is part of the reason that there's widespread support for tax reform right now.
I'm getting a little off topic, the point of this is that we can't afford to put in a provision that prevents raising tax revenue in a time when tax rates are historically low.
His views on women's rights are also problematic for me; when the military announced an expansion of the roles that women are allowed to have within the military Santorum came out against the change, citing concerns that men have natural instincts to protect women and that would get in the way of their duties. That's just one example of his lack of respect for women. In his 2005 book, “It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good,” he lectured women who choose to work outside the home, writing that “the purported need to provide things for their children simply provides a convenient rationalization for pursuing a gratifying career outside the home.” In a time when such a large portion of the electorate have all adults in the household working, it's hard to take a candidate seriously that is so disrespectful of such a large portion of the workforce.
I also dislike his position on the environment; he said that climate science is not actual science, but political science. On another occasion he said that while Democrats accuse Republicans of being anti science, they are actually the ones being anti science. This because Democrats want nature to take its course instead of mankind husbanding the planet and using science and technology to improve quality of life. His argument sounds pretty good, and is actually fairly close to what most Democrats really believe... in fact I have no idea who he's talking about that's arguing that we should "not do anything, let nature take it's course, leave it alone." Greenpeace maybe, but not the bulk of Democrats; most on the left would agree that we want a balanced approach to the environment, but we want to do something to ensure that the planet is still habitable in 100 years. In reality what Santorum is advocating is letting nature take its course. A Santorum administration would do nothing to improve the environment, but would allow the states to make their own decisions regarding the environment. This is something that simply would not get done well on a state level. I'm not saying that individual states can't pass meaningful legislation that would have a positive effect; states have already done this. The problem is that for every state that did so, another state could go the absolute other way on it, and we'd be no further along the road. The environment is something that needs the whole nation to be on board with to make any meaningful progress.
I'll leave the climate debate for another time, but these issues are the big ones that lead me to oppose Rick Santorum as a candidate.
