Coming on the heels of Rick Santorum’s recent wins in Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado, Gene Edward Veith asks “Why not Santorum?“ I greatly enjoyed the response of commenter “Cincinnatus”. Take a look.
Hold up. Few honest observers now deny that Bush and Obama have governed in dramatically similar ways. Both pursued bailouts, both pursued various landmark big-government social program, both pursued interventionist foreign policies in the Middle East and elsewhere. Both have issued controversial executive orders that consolidate their own power. Both deeply politicized the Justice Department. Both kow-towed to big business and the financial sector. Both attempted to bend the Supreme Court to their will. We can quibble about the details in emphasis, etc., but the point is that the two are largely similar in terms of the governing philosophies.
Meanwhile, Santorum was clearly one of Bush’s strongest allies during his tenure. Indeed, he’s still dancing to the “invade the world” tune. Assuming that I’m right about Obama/Bush–and I’ve yet to see convincing evidence that I’m not–then why am I to believe that Santorum would govern in a way dramatically different from Bush. The story of the Presidency for the past three decades has been a story of the accretion and consolidation of executive power. This is bad no matter which party sits in the White House. Why should I welcome Santorum, obviously a Hamiltonian in terms of his embrace of kingly executive authority, but reject Obama?
