<<http://coldfury.com/reason/comments.php?id=P553_0_1_0_C>>
SANTORUM REVISITED -- AND THE ROOTS OF THEOCRACY Following up on my previous post about Rick Santorum's remarks concerning homosexuality, there are several parts of the transcript of his AP interview deserving further comment. First, note the following (highlights added): SANTORUM: You have the problem within the church. Again, it goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get. You're going to get a lot of things that you're sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don't be surprised that you get more of it. AP: The right to privacy lifestyle? SANTORUM: The right to privacy lifestyle. AP: What's the alternative? SANTORUM: In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year olds, or 5-year olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it. Let's be very clear about this. Santorum is saying -- with regard to the recent series of scandals involving priests having sexual relations with minors -- that this is "a basic homosexual relationship," and that it is "consensual between people." He says this about a relationship between a mature man and a boy who is -- what? -- 14, 15, 16 years old? Moreover (and, to borrow language from feminists and others, where it is fully valid for once), he says this about a relationship where there is a significant disparity in power, and where the priest is in a unique position of personal, as well as moral and religious authority. One wonders if Santorum would have the same view if it were a girl of the same age having an affair with an older man. I somehow doubt it very seriously. These remarks are disgusting and outrageous, and have not received nearly the attention they should. The interview continues: AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality? SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. and I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions. This is a vicious and profoundly destructive equivocation, and it arises from a deep philosophical error. The error goes by many names: the mind-body dichotomy; reason versus emotion; the moral versus the practical. It is crucial to remember the following: we live by making our values take tangible form in the world, and we do so by means of our actions. On the basis of our particular interests and/or abilities, we pursue careers or some form of work to make money; we use our money to purchase food, have a home, and pursue our other values (friends, recreation, vacations, etc.). It would make no sense for our government to tell us, for example, that we are free to pursue work -- but that we may only work in one or two fields, as would happen under a program of labor conscription. We would recognize that for what it is: a form of slavery, and a vicious attack on freedom and individual rights. In the exact same way, it is a mistaken and dangerous idea to permit yourself to believe that you have "no problem with homosexuality" -- provided that homosexuals never act on the basis of their "orientations." What could this possibly mean? That all gays and lesbians live as celibates for their entire lives -- so as not to offend your notion of what is proper morally? There is only one proper response to such a vicious idea: How dare you? How dare anyone? Furthermore, such an idea rests on the idea that people's sexuality exists as some kind of Platonic Form: an abstraction with no specific, concrete expression, free-floating and detached from anything in reality, and never expressed in action. Anyone -- heterosexual, homosexual, or otherwise -- should rebel in disgust at such an idea. It is even more revolting when one considers how crucial our sexuality is to our sense of ourselves, and to our deepest sense of identity. To seriously suggest that anyone should remain celibate (unless, I assume, he is able to magically transform his desires into an "acceptable" form) is to deny him one of the most profound and meaningful pleasures available to any human being. (I have discussed this issue before.) It is no accident that views like Santorum's are specifically focused on areas of special meaning and pleasure to human beings; we'll come back to this point in a moment. The interview goes on: SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold - Griswold was the contraceptive case - and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you - this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family. ... 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. AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy - you don't agree with it? SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in. About this: first, a note about terminology. We commonly speak of individual rights -- and governmental, or state, powers. But to hear a United States Senator speak of the government's "rights" -- and "rights" to tell adults how to live their lives in terms of their consensual acts -- is simply astonishing. At the most fundamental level, it is a complete inversion of the founding principles of this country: those principles were based on the idea that individual rights are sovereign, and one of the primary purposes of the Constitution was explicitly to limit the powers of government. There are two key passages in the last part of the transcript above: "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: "You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family." The entirety of the interview, and these last statements in particular, make it unmistakably clear that, for Santorum, the purpose of government is not to protect individual rights, but to protect "strong healthy families," "the basic unit of our society." Note that his idea of "strong healthy families" is one growing out of his particular beliefs, including his religious beliefs; you might have quite a different idea of a "strong healthy family," as might many millions of other people. But beyond this, Santorum could not be more mistaken: "the basic unit of our society" is the individual, not "a healthy, stable, traditional family" or any other "unit" that someone might put forth. The smallest minority is the individual -- and it is the individual's rights that government properly should protect, especially against people with views like Santorum's. The other element worthy of note is the breathtaking arrogance of this statement: "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." Please keep in mind the following: what Santorum is talking about in this interview is sexual activity conducted in private by consenting adults. But Santorum proceeds from what is, in fundamental terms, a collectivist premise: he believes that government properly has the power (or in his terms, the "right") to criminalize behavior which might endanger "strong healthy families," thus in his view endangering society in general. In other words, the purpose of government is to protect "society" (which presumably includes those who thinks as he does, but no one else at all), but not to protect you specifically, or any other individual. Once again, it should be kept in mind that Santorum is talking about his particular beliefs, which others may or may not share. And in his case, given other facts about Santorum on the public record, including his strong religious beliefs, it is clear that those beliefs spring from his religious convictions. The idea that government exists to preserve and continue, under force of law, a religious view of what constitutes a "proper" society is theocracy, and nothing less: "the belief in government by divine guidance." And this is what Santorum believes is correct for the United States -- the model, in its original founding principles, of a secular, pluralistic country. It never ceases to amaze me how uncomfortable people like Santorum are with the idea of a pluralistic society. What is so threatening to him about the idea of adults acting, in private, in ways that he may not personally approve of? I think one major element is an issue I have discussed before: the conflict between faith and reason. To the extent that one relies on faith, one is ultimately reduced to saying: "I believe this, because I just know it to be true. No, I can't prove it, but you can't prove I'm wrong -- but my faith tells me that it is true, and that it must be true." (And please don't tell me that I have "faith in reason." I've been over these issues at great length before -- here, for example, and here.) When people surrender reason, to whatever extent, they give up the ability to convince people by means of argument, and logic. When men give up reason, the only means of getting others to act as they think others should act is force -- and this is why people like Santorum inevitably must resort to the force of law to make others act as they believe they should. No, I am certainly not saying that everyone who is religious, even deeply religious, necessarily thinks that government should have the power to criminalize the acts of consenting adults, as Santorum does. Clearly, many religious people do not believe that. But I think the converse is almost always true: people who think government should have the power to make people act in the "proper" way usually are religious -- or, to put it more broadly and more accurately, their ideas are not defensible in rational terms. And I think the fact that such people feel they must resort to force to impose their view of what is correct on others is a confession of how little confidence they have in their ideas as ideas. They know that they cannot defend them logically -- so the only alternative is to make people act in accordance with their views, whether they agree with them or not. And, to return to my earlier point about the attack on pleasure: it is noteworthy that, when people are embarked on "crusades" to impose their vision of the "proper" or "healthy" society on others, their first targets are almost always those activities that provide people with meaningful, deeply personal pleasure. This is not accidental -- and it arises from the role of pleasure in man's psychology. Here is Nathaniel Branden on "The Psychology of Pleasure" (reprinted in The Virtue of Selfishness): Pleasure, for man, is not a luxury, but a profound psychological need. Pleasure (in the widest sense of the term) is a metaphysical concomitant of life, the reward and consequence of successful action--just as pain is the insignia of failure, destruction, death. Through the state of enjoyment, man experiences the value of life, the sense that life is worth living, worth struggling to maintain. In order to live, man must act to achieve values. Pleasure or enjoyment is at once an emotional payment for successful action and an incentive to continue acting. Further, because of the metaphysical meaning of pleasure to man, the state of enjoyment gives him a direct experience of his own efficacy, of his competence to deal with the facts of reality, to achieve his values, to live. Implicitly contained in the experience of pleasure is the feeling: "I am in control of my existence" -- just as implicitly contained in the experience of pain is the feeling: "I am helpless." As pleasure emotionally entails a sense of efficacy, so pain emotionally entails a sense of impotence. Thus, in letting man experience, in his own person, the sense that life if a value and that he is a value, pleasure serves as the emotional fuel of man's existence. And romantic love and sex are uniquely meaningful: Of the various pleasures that man can offer himself, the greatest is pride--the pleasure he takes in his own achievements and in the creation of his own character. The pleasure he takes in the character and achievements of another human being is that of admiration. The highest expression of the most intense union of these two responses--pride and admiration--is romantic love. Its celebration is sex. It is in this sphere above all--in a man's romantic-sexual responses--that his view of himself and of existence stands eloquently revealed. A man falls in love with and sexually desires the person who reflects his own deepest values. So when people like Santorum wish to lay down legal rules about what is permissible and not permissible in the sexual realm, their target is a crucial one, whether they know it consciously or not. I suspect they do not know it explicitly, but only in vague, emotional terms -- but they sense that it is terribly important in some way. They're right. If you succeed in allowing men only those pleasures permitted by law -- and more, if you convince them that such an approach is proper -- you are well on the way to seriously impairing, or even destroying, man's capacity for pleasure, for experiencing his love of life and of himself, and you succeed in profoundly undercutting his self-esteem and sense of self-worth. Such men will be ruled much more easily by Santorum and similar types -- and if enough damage is done, such men will even want to be ruled, and told what to do. Self-confident men, proud of their own value and knowing they can live successfully on their own and by their own judgment, have no use for Santorum and his kind. Finally, I am not particularly interested in getting into a long discussion about the proper or best method of constitutionally striking down the Texas sodomy law, for example. Similarly, I am not especially interested in the contention of many that Santorum was "only" showing the logical consequences of decriminalizing homosexual acts between consenting adults. In fact, as I indicated in the comments to my earlier post, I think Santorum is probably right about the logical results of a ruling striking down the Texas law -- and, for the reasons I identified in earlier posts, and so long as we are talking about acts between consenting adults (and, unlike Santorum, I definitely do not include sexual activity between priests and 14-year-old boys in this category), I think that homosexual acts, bigamy, polygamy and even incest (again, between consenting adults) are simply none of the state's business. Moreover, I myself believe that the entire issue of marriage should be completely privatized, as I explained in this post. But what Santorum was touching on -- and what is most on his mind, as the unedited transcript makes clear -- is something much deeper, and much more important, than methods of Constitutional interpretation. He was talking about his idea of a "proper" society, and the power that government should have to force his notion of that society on everyone, and the power that government should have to criminalize acts which ought to be none of the state's business at all -- unless one proceeds from the premise, as Santorum does, that government's proper role is to force you to act in ways dictated by his, or anyone else's, particular religious beliefs. Santorum's views should be anathema to anyone who gives a damn at all about individual rights. Some have suggested that Santorum's comments are "unconservative" -- that they do not truly reflect the "conservative" view of government. I think such an idea is simply mistaken: when David Horowitz supports a draft; when the Heritage Institute supports "compulsory universal service"; when Jonah Goldberg supports censorship; and when Santorum, the third most powerful individual in the Republican Congressional leadership, supports criminalization of a wide range of consensual adult activities -- exactly how are the "conservatives" defending individual rights? As I have said a number of times before, these are the reasons that I consider such conservatives among the worst enemies of freedom: they pose as defenders of individual rights, while striving to destroy freedom supposedly in the name of defending it. By such intellectually reprehensible tactics, they do infinitely more damage to the cause of individual rights than any avowed enemy of freedom. With an acknowledged enemy, at least you know where he stands, and you can act accordingly. But conservatives of the Horowitz-Goldberg-Santorum kind would convince you that they are "freedom's friend" --and they will destroy the freedoms we still have before you will know what has happened. Condemn them all for such beliefs, and recognize them for what they are: the enemies of freedom, of individual rights, and of human dignity. Whatever such people are after, it is not freedom. And if they were to have their way, eventually you would not have any freedom left at all. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
