Why Rick Santorum is an Embarrassment to Christians Like Me
He may have lost both primaries last week, but Rick Santorum isn’t going anywhere. And as long as the current alternative-to-Romney happens to be a proud culture warrior as well, it’s worth looking at some of the things he’s been saying on behalf of people like me.
I say “people like me” because I, like Santorum, am a fundamentalist Christian. But somehow, I ended up on the other side of the partisan divide – and people like Santorum are a large part of the reason why.
His remarks on “This Week” on the separation of church and state are a fine test case to start with:
“What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case? … [Barack Obama] is now trying to tell people of faith that you will do what the government says … we’re going to impose our values from the government on people of faith.”
There are all sorts of things wrong with this statement – for example, the irony of a person of faith making a vigorous argument in the public square (A Sunday talk show!) about how people of faith are being muzzled in the public square.
But the most troubling thing he says is this claim about values “from the government” being imposed on people of faith. Some news for Rick Santorum: every public policy decision constitutes the coercive imposition of values on all people, not just people of faith. But those values don’t just come from some dark and scary place called “the government.” In the United States, at least, they are arrived at through a process of democratic debate that (imperfectly) gives everyone a chance to participate in the argument. These values derive their legitimacy not from the say-so of government officials, but from the citizens who elected them.
Santorum and other culture warriors essentially want this game rigged in their favor. When public policy decisions don’t go their way, they want to be able to declare the outcome illegitimate because the values of others are being “imposed” on them. But we know that Santorum would not be shy about returning the favor if he were to win. Just one indicative example, from an interview he gave in October:
“One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is… the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea … I’m not running for preacher. I’m not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues.” (Emphasis added)
I will say this: If Rick Santorum is elected president, and a socially conservative Congress is swept in with him, and if they manage to ban contraception throughout the land according to the rules set forth in the Constitution, then that is an outcome that everyone will have to accept as legitimate. But there’s nothing magical or permanent about it; the next election or Supreme Court ruling could undo it, and that too would be legitimate.
That’s the bargain (you might say social contract) of living in a pluralistic democracy: the public square is the place where we labor to make decisions together. Whatever the results are, yes, they are then imposed on everyone, including the losers. You have a right to participate, and even to win. But you don’t have a right to special dispensation if you lose. If Santorum wants a government made in the image of his beliefs, he’s going to have to earn it electorally just like everyone else. He can’t just carry the day by asserting that the values of the current government (elected by voters in 2006, 2008, and 2010) are wrong – in fact, that would constitute an actual imposition of values without the ameliorating influence of democratic legitimacy.
As a Christian, I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. It is a major basis of my opinions in politics. But precisely because I live in a pluralistic society, I don’t expect as a matter of course that other people will share that worldview. I don’t take umbrage when they don’t. In fact, I expect others to disagree with me – and to have to work together with them on what common ground we do have.
This sets up a separate question: even if I don’t believe that the playing field of democracy should be tilted in favor of Christianity, shouldn’t I, as a Christian, at least be participating on that playing field alongside people like Rick Santorum? Shouldn’t I be joining with him in the fight to put as much of my worldview as possible into public law?
Thoughtful Christians disagree on this question, but I believe that the answer is no. As a Christian, I believe that I will give a moral accounting of all my actions before God one day. A fundamental component of a moral action is the choice to undertake it. If I pass a law that uses the government’s power to force people to make moral “choices,” I believe that it cheapens the value of those choices. What good is it, other than in a purely utilitarian sense, if a person is kept from sinning at the point of a bayonet? More broadly, if I pass a whole series of laws designed to coercively “return” America to “Christian” values, I damage the credibility of Christianity as a faith that people choose – or, worse, mislead people to believe that compliance with the law is tantamount to saving faith.
This is not to say that we shouldn’t have laws that keep people from doing bad things. But we shouldn’t fool ourselves that most of these laws accomplish anything out of the ordinary for God. They are merely useful instruments that help us to live together for the time that we are on this earth.
And this, to come back to the question that opened this post, is why I find myself a fundamentalist Christian who cannot bring himself to support most fundamentalist Christian political leaders. Yes, their approach is damaging to the idea of a pluralistic democracy. But it is even more damaging to the cause of Christ, who came to this earth not to establish a political kingdom of His own, but to inaugurate a heavenly kingdom, defined by a promise that is beyond this world and this life. He invited all who heard His message to choose to follow Him freely, and to suffer and die for that choice if necessary. To think that His kingdom is best expressed in the coercive actions of government and public policy is to place Christ in a box that is far too small for Him, and to lead non-Christians to misunderstand His message.
This is why what Rick Santorum is doing is so dangerous. His vision of an America that is outwardly Christian may lead to a polity that is inwardly rotting. It is true that most of the other candidates are not Christians at all. But better no prophet at all than a false one.
Your main argument (re: Christian’s shouldn’t impose their morals on others) has some merit. But, your characterization of Santorum is unfair, serving only to confuse and weaken your ultimate argument.
I’m no big fan of Santorum, but your article (at least in the quotes you’ve chosen) misunderstand and mischaracterize Santorum’s intent and argument. You argue that legitimacy comes through the democratic process in our pluralistic society, Santorum doesn’t respect that process, he wants the system rigged in his favor, and that he wants to impose his religious beliefs on everyone else. Next, you state that if his public policy position loses, he will label it “illegitimate” and “imposing” on him. Thus, the implication is that Santorum doesn’t respect the rules and is a sore loser, thereby earning the labels “embarrassment” (explicit), “dangerous” (explicit), and a “false prophet (implicit).”
Your argument ignores that fact that our government is is not exclusively a democracy, but a constitutional republic. One implication of this fact: we have a constitution that protects citizens from certain government actions and guarantees certain rights. In the specific interviewed you quoted, Santorum was, under his interpretation of the First Amendment, arguing that the “separation of church and state is not absolute” and that people of faith have a role in the public square. In recent days, Santorum has been arguing that government laws and regulations are “imposing” on citizens in an unconstitutional way (e.g. forcing Catholic institution to provide contraceptives thus violating the Free Exercise and Establishment Clause). Agree or disagree with Santorum’s interpretation of the First Amendment, his argument is not so unreasonable as to be outside the bounds of “mainstream” constitutional law, and at least 4 Supreme Court Justices would probably agree with him. His arguments aren’t outside the bounds of acceptable pluralistic discourse, rigging the system in his favor, or an attempt to “ke[ep people] from sinning at the point of a bayonet”.
You also ignore Santorum’s clear support for robust discussion and democratic participation. Consider Santorum’s own words from the next paragraph in the very article you quoted him: “Come into the public square. … [T]here are people I disagree with. Come to my town hall meetings, as people have done, and disagree with me and let’s have a discussion. Let’s air your ideas, let’s bring them in, let’s explain why you believe what you believe and what you think is best for the country. People of faith, people of no faith, people of different faith, that’s what America is all about, it’s bringing that diversity into and challenge of the different ideas that motivate people in our country. That’s what makes America work.”
Sounds a lot like you: “I expect others to disagree with me – and to have to work together with them on what common ground we do have.”
You also imply Santorum believes God’s kingdom comes through “coercive actions of government.” Thus, Santorum is dangerous because his actions lead to “an America that is outwardly Christian [but] a polity that is inwardly rotting.” So, Santorum is a “false prophet” who impliedly “misleads people to believe that compliance with the law is tantamount to saving faith.” This is unfair to Santorum. Have you ever heard Santorum say that adhering to his policy positions is tantamount to saving faith? Have you ever heard Santorum say that he wants to impose morality at the prod of a bayonet? I haven’t ready all Santorum’s public statements (actually, I’ve only read the one you quoted), but I doubt it. You gave Santorum the prophet label – he doesn’t claim that label.
Your ultimate argument (e.g., that you can and should be a Christian who doesn’t use public policy to impose your “moral” convictions on others, thereby subverting and confusing the truth of the Gospel) has some merit but also lacks nuance. Basing policy positions on God’s word (or other religious texts) does not automatically mean you want to impose your moral beliefs on everyone else in a dangerous way. On the other hand, I think even you would agree that some policy positions based on God’s word (or other religious texts) probably should impose on others (e.g., murder is morally wrong, or the abortion issue). As you yourself say, “every public policy decision constitutes the coercive imposition of values on all people.” At the same time, there are some policy positions that should definitely NOT impose on others (e.g., mandating prayer in schools).
Ultimately, I think your critique should be aimed at the pastor who tells his members how to vote instead of at a politician with convictions or average citizens who, like you, look at Gods word and form policy positions. Your argument would do better to stand on well reasoned analysis than on boogie men.
When has Rick Santorum said anything about banning contraception in America? To my knowledge, never. Making arguments, from natural law and from theological convictions, that contraception is unnatural, unhealthy, and immoral, is not necessarily tantamount to advocating that contraception be *banned*. Some partisan news sources seem to be *claiming* that Santorum wants such an outcome, but I have not heard such statements from the man himself.
In fact, while I have heard him say that while he, as a Catholic, does believe that contraception is wrong (given that it unnaturally separates sexual intercourse from the *natural, God-designed outcome* of sexual intercourse), he has also categorically states that he would not try to make that conviction into a matter of American law. (Also, Catholics don’t generally describe themselves as “fundamentalists”– that is a Protestant term.)