(Click on the logo to return to the main blog.)

Santorum's Saving Grace
04/23/2003

... is context and explanation. Trent Lott's comments were just thrown out into the world, without context or specificity. Senator Santorum's were part of a conversation:

AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.

I agree entirely that there are such consequences to a society that becomes uninvolved in the lives of its members. I simply don't think that it's a role that government should fill, because government too easily expands, and it is too malleable in a relatively short period of time. The "nanny state" of the conservatives can very quickly become the "nanny state" of the liberals. To my mind, the more effective course of action would be to pull back the government where it restricts other areas of community life from exerting influence — specifically religion.

Senator Santorum believes that individual states ought to be able to offer the "right" to abortion. I disagree with this assertion just as I would disagree that states ought to have the right to allow murder. On the other hand, and in many ways to the same effect, I think an individual state ought to have a right to decrease restrictions on religious activities.

Posted by Justin Katz @ 08:16 AM EST