Sanctimonious Know-it-alls

and goofy little puffery

[Santorum, 2006]

One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right. You know, the left has gone so far left and the right in some respects has gone so far right that they touch each other. They come around in the circle.

Ya mean that whole tyranny thing? The I-know-better-than-you-what-You-should-do-with-”your”-Life-so-I’ll-force-you-into-doing-it thing? Yep.

This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view.


Maybe we need more terms.

Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want.

Yeah. As in “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness“. As in Gubbmint — aka: Other People — telling people what to do all day has never worked out so well. From the aristocracy to the politburo.

Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.

So… You missed the last 300 or so years of History? Wherein the “rugged individualism” of the frontiersman settled the East, opened the middle and tamed the West of this continent producing a country in which Free Individuals are stronger, healthier, wealthier and more productive than any in recorded History?

Which means you must’ve missed the last 50 or so years wherein the ProgDoctrine slowly took over and is decreasing the Individual Freedoms and thus the productivity, wealth and strength of this nation while increasing dependence and cultural rot that definitionally derives from dependence.

Too bad, that.

Let’s look at this phrase again:

I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone.

Granted, individuals are most productive when working together. Ford mainly worked alone, but it took a helluva lotta folks to put together a Model A production line and spit out cars.

But I think the point — the essential point — you’re missing here, Sparky, is that was Voluntary association. No one forced folks to go to work on that production line. No one forced Ford to make those cars. And no gubbmint gave him ginormous piles of Other People’s ca$h to produce those cars. No gubbmint forced folks to buy his Good Idea. Ford had a Good Idea, and another few on how to get that Good Idea to fruition, and folks liked the idea and supported it with their dollars. If folks hadn’t liked his Good Idea, he would have gone bust. And likely started over with a different Good Idea. He was like that.

All those Wealth Creators were like that. Having Good Ideas and the Freedom to make something out of ‘em. They didn’t always play nice; like the coyote doesn’t play nice with the bunny. If someone didn’t want to participate — if the play was too rough — he could always go elsewhere. Though folks understood that — like with the bunny and the coyote — Life is kinda rough.

Life isn’t the foppishly romantic ideal of a Victorian Ladies’ Romantic Novel where everyone is magikally “taken care of” and all outcomes are good and sweet. And, oddly enough, every time Someone [or a Group of Someones] tries to create force that Ideal into fruition, where All Outcomes are Good, they produce the most terrifying of brutalities. Odd, that…

One would almost think that Humans thrive best when Life is a little rugged. Keeps ‘em on their toes and looking around. One might almost think that enslaving folks — whether to an aristocratic landlord or to a State — ain’t good for ‘em. It ain’t, so to speak, Humans’ Natural Habitat.



  1. Rick
    Posted January 8, 2012 at 9:21 am |

    Many confuse civilization with government. Civilization and the fruits of it are created by moral people not by government.

    Government is a tool, when that tool is used improperly it reduces the level of morality. The welfare state (government) reduces morality by taking away the physical need for the moral behavior of caring for oneself and family and for charitable, fair dealings with others.

    Reduce morality, reduce civilization.

  2. kinlaw
    Posted January 8, 2012 at 10:30 am |

    It seems Santorum is very similar to Huck; socially conservative, fiscally liberal.

    Kind of the opposite of libertarian. Bad combo in my opinion.

  3. Colonel Jerry USMC
    Posted January 8, 2012 at 11:10 am |

    This is what happens when a campaign for presidentin becomes a fucking 2 year SPELLING BEE!!! After you have said, essentially, the same thing for about, 900,000,000,000 times, you jist run out of ways to *spell the same word, over and fucking over*! The brane becomes like a rotating wire basket at Bingo; just grabbing whatever word your hand picked and sayin it……Meh….

    Fortunately, this time, we peeps know that a ham samwich is waaaay superior to OBoBo……We WILL endure—–

  4. DougM (jackassophobe)
    Posted January 8, 2012 at 11:59 am |

    Well-fisked, m’dear. Very well fisked, indeed.

    Santorum’s using a invalid sophomoric political analogy, the left-right line/circle thing you’ll hear in any dorm-level exposition. It’s ignorant, crappy Eurothink; and, no, you don’t want me to get into it, here.

    Apologies ahead of time if I offend anyone,
    but I sometimes think some religion-first folks call themselves conservatives, when they are actually, well, social traditionalists. Since conservatism welcomes faith, and the left is hostile to faith, it’s where the faithful naturally go, even though they may not really agree with conservatism’s classical liberalism (what I see as practical libertarianism). That’s why you get social conservatives who are economic liberals. Also, some politicians lack real political principles, some think of that mixture as an optimum vote-getting strategy, and some are just cowards.

  5. MCPO
    Posted January 8, 2012 at 12:16 pm |

    Yeah, keep throwing those rock at all of the Republicans running; I’m sure the Obama folks aren’t gathering any fodder.

  6. kinlaw
    Posted January 8, 2012 at 5:08 pm |

    That’s a nice analysis, DougM. Not offended in the least, cuz I am not religious.

    As I said, I think it’s a bad combo, the essence of the so called rino.

    Compassionate conservative.

    Don’r get me wrong, I have a great and abiding respect for president George W Bush, but he was fiscally pretty liberal.

    Our problem right now is spending, liberal fiscal policies.

  7. Buzz
    Posted January 8, 2012 at 5:32 pm |

    I agree with you, Rick.
    When the responsibilities for interaction are transferred from individuals of integrity and virtue to enforcement by government laws and taxes, society is wholly and truly fracked.

  8. SondraK, Queen of my domain
    Posted January 8, 2012 at 9:32 pm |

    We conservatives couldn’t be more blunt about who we are and what our core beliefs are and they insist it’s what they think.
    I think this is the part that frustrates me the most.

    Just makes me louder, more adamant and much more in their stupid faces.

    I hate them all.

    Rand Paul/ Sarah Palin 2016!!!
    Couldn’t get more epic than that.

  9. mojo
    Posted January 9, 2012 at 11:25 am |

    Dweeb rating: 6.5
    Bullshit meter is pegged.

  10. ZZMike
    Posted January 9, 2012 at 5:46 pm |

    Every now and again we should take a breather and try to define “conservative” and “liberal”. (Some Old Greek guy used to annoy people by asking them to “define their terms”.)

    Conservatives, it seems to me, want to conserve. Ideally, that means, conserve the good things, the good ways of doing things. Liberals, on the other hand, are supposed to be open to new ideas.

    But not so open-minded their brains fall out.

    I think we can agree that government has two basic functions (beside “provide a common defense”): enforce contracts, enforce property law.

    Other than that, stand aside and let the People build the country. The Wright Brothers built planes without government help (though they did want to sell planes to the Army (which at the time thought they were nuts)). Henry Ford built an empire without government help. In those days, and for decades later, really successful companies had their founders’ names on them: Sears & Roebuck. Woolworth’s. Warner Brothers.

    Nowadays, with few exceptions (Apple, for one), companies are run by committee (that’s a group that gives you a camel when you wanted a horse), and the government has its tentacles in almost every aspect of their operation. Gummint tells them how much they can pay their execs, how much they can charge for what they make, &c. They even try to tell them where they can relocate to (NLRB vs Boeing, for one).