American politics
The Iowa caucuses
Who is Rick Santorum?
Jan 4th 2012, 16:42 by E.G. | AUSTIN
THE official tally came in during the early hours of the morning: Mitt Romney won the Iowa caucus, by a mere eight votes. But as many observers quickly noted, that's basically a tie between Mr Romney and Rick Santorum, who finished second. And given the expectations going in—Mr Romney is the guy with all the money and name recognition, and he had said he was going to win—a tie should probably be considered a win for Mr Santorum.
But this raises a question: who is Rick Santorum, in this context? That is, is he Rick Santorum, the big-government Catholic conservative, or is he the latest in a string of "not-Romneys"? That seems to be a going debate around the blogosphere this morning, with many pundits implying that Mr Santorum is just the latest in a string of rising (then falling) candidates not named Mitt, albeit the one who happened to crest at exactly the right time. "The question is whether Santorum is equipped to be an effective 'not Romney'", writes W. James Antle at the American Spectator. At the American Catholic Donald McClarey says, "Last night the identity of the Not Romney candidate was determined." And at RedState, Erick Erickson argues that if Mr Santorum was more than the latest not-Romney Iowans would have supported him much sooner:
Santorum visited all 99 Iowan counties, some of them repeatedly. His “successful” campaign never, ever caught on with Iowa voters despite all that retail time in Iowa. It only became successful when every single other candidate had been vetted and imploded and there was absolutely no other person familiar to the voters who could stand as the non-Romney candidate.
However, there are some indications that Mr Santorum is more than just the latest not-Romney. David Brooks had a widely read op-ed yesterday praising the former senator's concern for the working class: "I do believe that he represents sensibility and a viewpoint that is being suppressed by the political system." Ross Douthat concurs that Mr Santorum has his strengths: "He has deep blue-collar roots, a more substantial legislative record than many of his rivals, and his campaign has been the only one to even try to hit the right-wing communitarian notes that Mike Huckabee struck so effectively four years ago." And as Dave Weigel notes, Rick Santorum spent $1.65 for every vote he received in the caucus; Rick Perry spent $817. That would seem to suggest that Iowa voters were drawn to Mr Santorum's particular message, despite the shoestring budget.
So there are two ways to interpret the Santorum win: as a win for Mr Santorum, or as a vote against Mr Romney. We'll get some clues soon enough as to which it is. Mr Santorum will get a big boost in attention and funds after last night, which will help him campaign. But as all the not-Romneys to date can attest, those sudden surges of attention can do a campaign more harm than good. At some point, the anti-Romney vote needs to coalesce around a candidate, but if Mr Santorum is merely not Mr Romney, I doubt that will be enough to keep his candidacy humming. On the other hand, if Mr Santorum does hang in long enough to have a serious shot at the nomination, it would be a fascinating outcome—a win for the socially conservative, big-government side of the Republican party, after three years in which much of the discourse has been dominated by the fiscally conservative, isolationist, anti-government strain.
(Photo credit: AFP)
In this blog, our correspondents share their thoughts and opinions on America's kinetic brand of politics and the policy it produces. The blog is named after the study of American politics and society written by Alexis de Tocqueville, a French political scientist, in the 1830s
Advertisement
- Analects | China
- Americas view | The Americas
- Babbage | Science and technology
- Bagehot's notebook | British politics
- Banyan | Asia
- Baobab | Africa
- Blighty | Britain
- Buttonwood's notebook | Financial markets
- Charlemagne's notebook | European politics
- Clausewitz | Defence, security and diplomacy
- Democracy in America | American politics
- Eastern approaches | Ex-communist Europe
- Elysée | France’s presidential election
- Free exchange | Economics
- Game theory | Sports
- Graphic detail | Charts, maps and infographics
- Gulliver | Business travel
- Johnson | Language
- Leviathan | Public policy
- Lexington's notebook | American politics
- Newsbook | News analysis
- Prospero | Books, arts and culture
- Schumpeter | Business and management
Most commented
- The euro crisis: The Greek run
- Foreigners in China: Barbarians at the gate, again
- Brazil’s economy: A bull diminished
- Russia and NATO: Rethink the reset
- Gay marriage: North Carolina begs the question too
- Nationalism online: Backfired
- Greece and the euro: Exodus, chapter 1
- Turkey’s cultural ambitions: Of marbles and men
- Renouncing citizenship: Did Eduardo Saverin do anything wrong?
- Economics and culture: Maybe teen motherhood isn't so bad
Over the past five days
Most recommended
- The euro crisis: The Greek run
- Renouncing citizenship: Did Eduardo Saverin do anything wrong?
- Greek politics: Slouching towards the drachma
- Brazil’s economy: A bull diminished
- The euro crisis: Going, going, gone?
- Foreigners in China: Barbarians at the gate, again
- Rival versions of capitalism: The endangered public company
- Jacob Zuma: Portrait of a president
- Bo Xilai v Chen Guangcheng: Who is the mightier?
- Facebook goes public: Not top of the pops
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
I don't question that Mr Santorum is about far right enough to maybe win the GOP.I do question if he is too right to be in the White House. Not that he can't win the Wite House I just don't think it would be good for the USA, though it would be better then other GOB want to bes.
Santorum is a naive war hawk. He is also a BIG govt "conservative". He would be another young president like Clinton, Bush & Obama. Yes, too naive.
I also think Santorum, like Romney and Newt and Perry, have all lead lives of duplicity and moral lies.
If Santorum wore labels from donors, it would be Unions, Oil & Gas. If Romney it would be Goldman Sach and Chase. Newt would be covered in corp sponsors. Perry is covered with Texas Oil sponsors. Then there is Ron Paul, just thousand of $50 donations from his money bombs and lots of veterans and military soldiers. Think about that.
Ron Paul has never been bought. Lobbyist don't own him.
Romney is the only candidate who might be able to challenge Obama. But Obama is going to benefit from the same situation that GW Bush enjoyed in 2004. A president with low approval ratings who gets re-elected because the challenger is completely out of touch and unable to relate to the average American.
I hope he doesn't get much further. He gathers all the bad from the Republicans nowadays -arcaic points of views on social issues- but none of the good, essentially constituted by small government policies and all that implies.
Sanitarium or the Mormon? Some choice.
Without Herman Cain it's a waste of time, energy and money for the Republicans to field even a token candidate. Better to start grooming someone for 2016.
As a Pennsylvania resident during Mr. Santorum's stint in congress, my impression of him was a political hack, elevated on the flood of Reagan-era conservatism. Most of the others so elevated have since faded away, as Mr. Santorum had until a couple of weeks ago. Contrary to Mr. Brooks (whom I perceive as more and more desperate to sound insightful these days), I believe the only national policy issues Mr. Santorum knows anything about are those of concern to the most extreme social conservatives. I believe his shallowness will soon out, but given the way the social conservative tail seems to be wagging the Republican dog these days, maybe that's all it takes to give Romney a run. It's all about money - and bigotry.
I live in Pa and have been a registered Republican since I turned 18 and entered the Army. I did not vote for Santorum not simply because his positions are vile but because his philosophy is vile.
He does not believe in the right to pursue happiness or the right of property, in fact he doesn't believe in rights. What he believes in is not the modern American Conservative belief in rights but the modern American Liberal belief in using government to achieve the common good. This is an ideal of collective force not an ideal of individualism. He simply has a different idea of the common good to be forced on people in violation of their rights than do most who champion this philosophy in politics.
He is no conservative and has no clue as to the meaning or history of the word as it has been used in politics in this nation. He is a progressive with a progressive outlook and progressive means to obtain his version of utopia regardless if anyone else wants it.
How can you define Santorum? Simple, type santorum in google and hit I'm feeling lucky.
Santorum is a right-wing freak who has no business leading a country as diverse as the US
Santorum's sad flaw is his obsession with my penis.
Santorum stands out as the only Romney opponent other than Paul yet to stumble over his/her own intellect. It will be interesting to find out if that's because nobody has bothered to shine the spotlight on him before Iowa.
Any remarks about 'giving black people other people's money' will see him join Bachmann, Cain and Perry in the ship of fools that passes for Republican Party leadership material these days.
A big government social conservative is exactly the opposite of what a Republican nominee should be.
America needs a small-government Republican who does not waste time on 'social conservatism' which is just leftism with a thin veneer of Christianity.
I've never had my own fanboy before. Can you cook, clean and iron shirts?
The question that should have been asked was: Who here truly believes that Rick Santorum could ever become the president of the US? The rest is just silly drivel to keep the simple-minded amused - whoever anyone else thinks he is...
Santorum was on O'Reilly and he said that he would not support banning contraception. Yes, Santorum's personal views are extreme but in terms of policy, he doesn't differ from the rest of the pack.
They also talked about a statement in which Santorum apparently described welfare recipients as black for no reason. Santorum says he didn't say it. I watched the statement in question and Santorum at least has a plausible case. It sounds like "blah." It could've been that he was about to say "black" and stopped himself mid-word. He was talking to a white Iowa crowd and addressed them as "you" so "black" would be out-of-place even if he believes it.
Hurray for SueNJ97!!!!
heated
I have great reservation about Rick Santorum. I too believe he happened to be “flavor of the month”
(1) That he can loose his last senate run 20% in a state like PA said something. Had it been a liberal district election and he was running for district office, that is one thing. PA is not a liberal state. At most, it is a “swing state”. To loose at nearly 20% in a state like PA tells me there is something much deeper about Santorum.
(2) He is too much like Huckabee. They may talk a good talk, but actions speak louder than words. Looking deeper, it does not give me the warm and fussy.
(3) Too much Bible thumping. God this and God that every other sentence turns me off and make me very distrustful of the guy.
But like many Republicans, in our view, in a contest of lesser of two evils, our choice is obvious. Be it either Rick, Mitt, Newt, so forth, doesn't matter. Sending Obama packing is what we are voting for.
"But like many Republicans, ... Sending Obama packing is what we are voting for." - so it is not about what is best for the country anymore??? What a 'surprise'.
RestrainedRadical "...Obama salivates at thought of Santorum? Not a pretty picture..."
* * *
Hmmm... Now that you mention it... Not pretty but it does fit Obama's image. Salivating while blabbing. Even without Santorum in the picture, it is an eloquent description of our leader. Keeping Santorum in the picture adds a nice contrast but clutters the picture too much.
Good thought, RestrainedRadical. Keep the creativity coming.
Any of these republicans can stop Obama in his race of transforming America in a third world country. Both of them have much more experience than Obama, whose politics are killing companies and increasing unemployment. The republicans want to re- establish the idiosyncrasy of Americans to whom Obama is making protesters and recipients of food stamps instead of the creative entrepreneurs that built the most prosperous democracy in the world. These republicans are proud to be American, while Obama is ashamed, and he goes through the planet blaming the United States for all the problems of the world. Both of the republicans have the experience in administration and government that Obama lacks, both of them have balanced budgets and want to cut public expending that the Obama administration has raised to an astronomic 43%. Obama’s mistakes are weakening The United States while their enemies strengthened. The republicans want to revive the agonizing America and gave back its place in the world: The defender of democracy and liberty. Obama received a won war in Iraq but signed the defeat to get the votes of democrats who ingenuously think that an isolated America will bring stability and peace when in reality America and occident won’t survive the threatens of the new nuclear powers. Obama’s only arm to defeat the republicans is to sell the lie that the republicans are millionaires who want to get richer but Forbes showed that 90% of millionaires are democrats.
I will donate a dollar to Santorum's campaign for every time a commenter on DiA says "Google Santorum." In the last 24 hours, we're up to $10 already. The first one was funny. The 7th, not so much.