There is no question among even casual observers of politics these days that idiocy is all too often ignored, although sometimes even celebrated, within American political discourse. One need only look at some of Barack Obama's critics to know that there's an overarching skepticism on the Right, one that maintains the idea of style over substance has slowly made itself known, and that Obama's smoothness is merely an extension of this dangerous development. But Obama aside, and back to the point about idiocy, it seems that the recent rise of Rick Santorum cannot be simply dismissed as another revolution in the cyclical GOP race, but instead a sign that H.L. Mencken might have actually been correct. Correct, I mean, when he wrote in 1920, "All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men."
One exception of Mencken's rule appears to be the White House's current occupant. Mr. Reasonable has repeatedly proven himself to be both intelligent and articulate, although as I've previously illuminated, this can count against him politically. Santorum is the antithetical candidate when compared to the smooth Obama (okay, maybe Rick Perry then). His recent comments on the separation of church and state were particularly irksome. "What kind of country do we live in that says only people of nonfaith can come into the public square and make their case?" Santorum told an ABC reporter recently, latter adding, "I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute." With any luck the erroneous nature of this statement will already be apparent to you. He refers by the way to John F. Kennedy's 1960 speech on the need for rigid separation of church and state. One wonders if Kennedy's outward Catholicism has any bearing on Santorum's ill-conceived perception that only someone of 'non faith' can come 'into the square'. He had fittingly inspiring closing words on the subject: "That makes me throw up." What a coincidence! I thought your words rather vomitous myself!
We're in need of some correction here. I'm in no mood to go about defending the cult of Kennedy at this stage, but it must be noted (and noted goddamn well) that J.F.K., as with any genuine defender of the church-state separation, meant an institutional distinction. There's no doubt that any president's faith would have some sort of inspirational role in the way he — may I also say she? — governs, just as it does on the character of any individual regardless of their occupation.
Santorum's odious disingenuousness on the matter makes it even more nauseating. Does he even really believe this? I hope not, and my concern stems primarily from the reaction this type of ignorant fear mongering typically receives. People of Santorum's ilk should be left to holler in the street, and the theocratically inclined gentlemen who back his campaign with their votes ought to take up history, but then again this is the kind of conservatism that has somehow managed to acquire a kind of street cred currency within the Republican Party. It might be said that the candidate who can accrue the highest number of these 'points' wins the race. But of course this isn't how the system works, and in spite of their parochial small-mindedness, the most conservative voters in America aren't particularly concerned with delicate policy details.
"The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country," Mr. Santorum also opined. And on what ludicrous pseudo-evidence is this gem based? The risible situation with which we are faced in the United States, one in which institutions can claim tax-exempt status merely on the basis that they endorse or claim to have access to a higher power, is indicative of the extent to which the divinely appointed have been granted a position they simply do not deserve. Hitchens put it well following the death Jerry Falwell when he said that you can get away with the most awful things in the U.S. if you can just get yourself called 'reverend'. How right this is.
Santorum's rise, and the religious rhetoric that he has employed throughout it, is an alarming indication of an erosion, of sorts, within American conservatism. What kind of society awards brownie points on the basis of a candidate's willingness to degrade the tenet of religious freedom? If Santorum were to take home the prize of GOP champion, a prize desirous to many and within reach of few, then it would most certainly damage the Republican party for an indefinite period of time. Even 'President Gingrich' is a less harrowing nightmare than the one that ensues when we hear of another uptick in support for Rick Santorum, the man who said he thew up at the thought of church being separate from the state — and then didn't. Mencken was right: "On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." You'll forgive me for saying that the nightmare may well get worse from here.
(Image via Slate)