Men are leading Rick Santorum’s mad charge for the White House. Tom Matlack wants to know why.
A poll released Wednesday showed Rick Santorum maintaining his lead nationwide among likely Republican voters, topping his closest rival Mitt Romney by a margin of nine percentage points.
The poll from Quinnipiac University showed Santorum with the backing of 35% of registered Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, compared to 26% for Romney.
Broken down further, the poll showed Santorum’s support was strongest among Republican men and evangelical Christians. Santorum led Romney 35% to 24% among men, and 45% to 19% among white evangelicals.
–CNN
I’ve asking around and come up with 10 reasons that men prefer Rick Santorum for President in growing numbers, causing the man people are starting to call “Saint-orum” to take a commanding lead in the Republican Presidential nomination process and making an evangelical resident of the White House a real possibility. Here are ten reasons that guys I know gave me. Please add yours to the comment area.
#10 He is for unprotected sex.
#9 A woman’s place is home with the kids so the man of the house can shoot guns at large game or Muslims.
#8 Let’s face it the guy is cute and most of us are closeted homosexuals. We just want him.
#7 God. And we know there is just one.
#6 We’re unemployed.
#5 The guy in the White House now is named Obama and it just confuses us.
#4 His book put Hilary in her place, uppity bitch.
#3 Gay people make us nervous (because we are gay). Gay marriage is only okay inside a JackAss film that also involves ingesting the sperm of a farm animals.
#2 We don’t want health care.
#1 Women’s bodies are for men to do with what they like.
AP Photo/Eric Gay
About Tom Matlack
The best predictor of political outcomes is not polls, but prediction markets. Here are the “intrade” numbers for the 2012 primaries:
77% Mitt Romney to be Republican Presidential Nominee in 2012
10% Rick Santorum to be Republican Presidential Nominee in 2012
And for the general election:
59% Barack Obama to be re-elected President in 2012
#11: We just like to say “santorum” because of the anal-sex meaning of the word.
#12: We like to say his name hoping that people will look up the word on Google.
#13: We want him to stay in the headlines to see how many inadvertent puns show up in the papers, like “Santorum Surges from Behind”
Very +1
Not this man.
#14. The general election gaffe he has to make is going to be a doozy given what’s already happened.
Fucking brilliant, Tom.
Hi, I’ve been coming to Good Men Project for a long time and have probably, honest-to-goodness read over a hundred articles on this site by now. I was truly blown away when I discovered this site, because I had been looking for something just like it for over a year I’d say. I’m thus a huge admirer of Tom and what he’s been trying to do here, and probably 90% of the time I have pretty much agreed with his take on some extremely difficult and nuanced issues that people grapple with here and in their everyday lives concerning gender, race, ethics, sex, etc…
That said, I have personally felt a little surprised and disappointed at what seems to me to be a lack of that same nuanced approach and of much real honest effort being applied to understanding certain points of view when it comes to a few overtly political matters. For what it is worth, I’ll describe a some of the who I am and thus, where I am coming from personally: I am a young (28), bisexual man who briefly explored the possibility of redefining himself as transgender, who lived abroad several years, loves foreign culture, and lives with his self-proclaimed feminist girlfriend getting her master’s degree in English literature. I am also, however, a proud southerner (Georgian) who was raised by a devout Lutheran single mother with staunch conservative opinions, who continues to volunteer at and attend church several times a week and believes, generally speaking, that government has in many ways grown larger than it ought to have.
Further, I suppose I should also admit that I do not have any intention of voting for Santorum. From what I have heard about his positions on social issues I personally believe him to be misguided. As someone often inclined to be sympathetic to Republican candidates I must further admit that I find the Republican field this year to be disappointing. I have never had especially strong feelings about President Obama, and will in all likelihood either vote for his reelection or will not vote at all…
Alllll of that said, however… I believe it woefully unfair and close minded to imagine that everyone who lays claim to a particular end of the political spectrum does so for the worst possible reasons. This satirical column on the reasons why men must be supporting Santorum seems to suppose that these are the *only possible* reasons why men *could* support his candidacy. I don’t doubt that these are reasons given by “real” men, but are these men in question actual supporters of Santorum. I find that unlikely. Had The Good Men Project been tasked with considering why certain segments of the population support VAWA legislation, or Nancy Pelosi, or Eve Ensler and the Vagina Monologues, what I have seen on this site makes me believe that they would take a very even-handed approach, cautiously exploring different sides of a heated debate, even and *especially* when, as a website built around *men’s* issues, they might be presumed to be hostile to a certain viewpoint. Sadly, IMHO, on issues that directly relate to political candidates, Republicans are relatively rarely given much benefit of the doubt. I don’t presume to be familiar with every such instance on this site, but it does seem to me to be a trend.
Finally then, so that I might not be rightly accused of seeing a problem without offering a solution, I would venture to offer these reasons why men *might* support Santorum (though, again, these are not *my* opinions and I don’t support Santorum… I’m just willing to believe that many people who do, do so for well-meaning reasons):
1. In contrast to frontrunners Obama, who seems to many to have compromised his galvanizing vision over the past several years, and Romney, who has widely garnered a reputation for opportunistic political maneuvering, Santorum *gives the impression* that he has strong convictions and is unwilling to compromise for political gain.
2. In contrast to most political candidates who seem only to give lip service to the value of religion in modern American life, Santorum gives the impression that he is a sincere Christian.
3. In contrast to some candidates, who believe that America ought to be beholden to international interests, Santorum believes, as some Americans do, that America, having borne much that may well be in international interests by herself, has earned the right to lead and be recognized as a leader among nations.
4. Though not in contrast to all candidates, in contrast to some, Santorum *appears* to favor reductions in the unsustainable spending of money that, while meant to help blamelessly poor and hurting Americans, will not, in the long run, be a solution to our social and economic problems when massive debt causes our economy to grind to a halt, and those well-meaning spending programs which many will have then become dependent on, disappear.
While I don’t feel that these are correct assessments of society and the political candidates, I do think that it’s extremely important not to imagine that people who disagree with us, (even people who may support *damaging* causes!) are simply bad people who desire to advance the cause of evil and hurt others. I feel it’s much, much more likely, that like most people, those who disagree with us are just seeking to advance some good and are either wrong that that good will actually be advanced through their actions or are blind to what evil may be done while they are focused on their narrow cause… Try to assume the best in others motives be they feminist, MRAs – Democrats, or Republicans. It’s part of what I believe this site was created to help us do, and I think it’s what “good men” *ought* to do!
Daniel…a lovely, impassioned comment, obviously heartfelt. But you left out one other possibility about why people are supporting Santorum – the Right Wing voting block is simply stupid. They don’t understand what they are voting for, they don’t understand the place of America on the increasingly small world stage, and they don’t understand the implications of “Christian” rule in this country. They are overwhelmingly white, male, and over 40 and they don’t understand what has happened to their lives….and like dogs backed into a corner, they are snarling mad and ready to fight. They perceive Obama as a black, foreign stranger, likely a Muslim, likely a terrorist, likely intent on destroying their way of life….and they will vote for anybody who ISN’T him. This is, of course, precisely how Germany moved into its rather dark period in the last century…. Santorum is a joke, but what he represents in this country is no laughing matter.
What Ron Oliver said.
“This is, of course, precisely how Germany moved into its rather dark period in the last centur”
You just made an excellent argument in daniel’s favour. The one sided and simplistic interpretations of the cause of world war one lead to the Versailles treaty and other punative policies. These impoverished and marginalised the entire country, creating the conditions which allowed the Nazis to sieze power.
Dismissing your opponents as “simple idiots” isn’t very intellectually honest.
That said, its a lightheated article and there are more serious political articles on the site.
Ron – Let me start by saying that I agree with you on one point: one *possibility* that people are supporting Santorum is that they’re stupid. If my above comment did not make it clear, I am sure that there *are* people who support Santorum because they’re uninformed or because they hate people who are different from them and that is wrong. My quarrel would be that I am equally sure that all of the candidates, Republican, Democrat, Independent, etc. have supporters who base their opinions on ignorance or prejudice. My main point then is that I think that the only way that we as a society can end the kind of polarization that I feel has damaged this country is not to *presume* the worst reasons for people who disagree with us. Everyday on this site writers and commenters are doing the difficult but important work of really listening to each other and trying to understand each other as human beings even when the human being that you’re talking to has claimed a label like “MRA” or “feminist” and you just *know* what that must mean and what they must believe about everything based on that one little word.
I mean, what about me? I’m not necessarily wed to the Republican party, but I could be considered part of the Right wing voting block – I have voted for Republican candidates. I’m white, male, and… well, not 40 I guess, but c’mon, two out of three, right? For myself then, I can assure you that I don’t see Obama “as a foreign stranger, likely a Muslim, likely a terrorist, likely intent on destroying [my] way of life…” I don’t *think* I’m advocating for the return of Nazi Germany simply by leaning Republican as a white male.
Do ignorance and bigotry still play a large role in American society and thus in politics? Most certainly. Is that ignorance and bigotry possibly even more prevalent on one end of the political spectrum than the other? Quite possibly. Does that mean, however, that claiming a particular political label is a de facto claim of bigotry and ignorance? I don’t think so. I mean, I think *I’m* a pretty nice guy. Maybe we’ll just have to wait until I turn 40… I promise I’ll do my best though!
“Ron – Let me start by saying that I agree with you on one point: one *possibility* that people are supporting Santorum is that they’re stupid. If my above comment did not make it clear, I am sure that there *are* people who support Santorum because they’re uninformed or because they hate people who are different from them and that is wrong.”
And I’m pretty sure theres more than a few people who’ll vote Obama for silly reasons too. No reflection on the candidate, more the voters.
I don’t see Obama as any of which you mentioned. What I am looking at is that all my investments are gone down the tubes. I haven’t seen a raise in pay for more then two years although my reviews have been far exceeding expectations. I’ve recently experienced a mandate by the government to accept employee benefit services which fly in the face of my faith. Four male friends have settled for jobs where their income is less then half what they were making, accordingly they have taken on part time jobs to help their finances. The company I work for closed two of its four sites. Several of my fellow co-workers have also taken second jobs to compensate their gas costs to get to work. Where you get the “uninformed” is beyond me. I have talked to several co-workers and asked basic questions about legislation in the past 3 years. The wide majority have no clue as to what I’m talking about. Most of them votes for Obama. In my circle, it appears that the Republicans appear to be far more educated on the inssues at hand then other voters, if they even vote at all.
Thanks for the comment Daniel. Just wanted to be sure you saw this, which is obviously more serious in tone on the same point: http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/why-i-agree-with-rick-santorum-on-sah-parenting-gasp/
Tom, thanks so much for linking the article about Santorum and his stance on stay-at-home parenting. That is very much the sort of article that I come to this site for: a writer identifies something or someone that they are generally opposed to, but they also point out the possibility of something worthwhile being defended by their opponents, and then they reiterate why it is that they still, nevertheless, because of several other enumerated reasons, are opposed to that thing or person.
I still feel personally that the one serious article, simply by having also been posted, doesn’t excuse anything provocative that might be written in a different article. For one thing, while criticizing or praising a public individual can certainly be seen as an indirect criticism or praise of that person’s self-proclaimed supporters, it is much easier to talk about what that public individual believes than to talk about what that individual’s supporters believe. That public individual is on record and there is plenty of material from which to draw conclusions about their beliefs. When you go the next step, however, and start presuming the worst of a broad group of people (even in jest, I think) because of *one* claim they’ve made (in this case, that they’re supporters of Santorum), I think that you unfairly drive people away. I’m not trying to say that there shouldn’t be such a thing as satire and that every position on every issue needs to be treated with reverence, but I think that we can agree that satire can’t be used to justify everything.
“I’m just joking,” and “I’ve said plenty of nice things about women” for example, has been used to justify plenty of sexist comments I think, so likewise, “I’m just joking – I’ve said some nice things about Republicans too” doesn’t necessarily satisfy me. I mean, in reading the comments below that other article about Santorum that, again, I really liked I found someone saying “I wouldn’t vote for him. I would, however, pay $29.95 to see him skinned alive on Pay-per-View.” I just don’t think that that sort of statement should be acceptable about anyone, especially coming solely in response to that person’s expressed opinions, no matter how abhorrent those opinions might be. And, I’ve been very relieved to see that on other issues these kinds of statements are not tolerated, but I do believe there’s a bit of a blind spot in the defense of positions explicitly tied to political conservatism.
For me, a little test was to think – What if someone made a “10 Reasons Pussies Love Tom Matlock and The GMP” and then proceeded to spout a lot of obnoxious stereotypes about the sort of [insert insult] men that (probably) read gender blogs and talk about “men’s rights”. I’d be upset, and I don’t think that I would personally find there to be any good excuse for writing something like that. I understand though if people don’t see this article as I do and I’m willing to be persuaded that there’s something I’m missing. I guess I’ll let my final word on the subject be one more reiteration of how much I admire what is being done on this site. I criticize because I care – because I recommend this site to my friends as a place where an insightful debate is going on, and because even though I see room for improvement, I think that practically everyone writing here is doing their best to remain open-minded and honest and are generally succeeding in my opinion far more often than just about anyone else out there on the web. Thanks!
Very well said.
Daniel, I’m glad I read your post first in that it deminished my anger and brought me back in focus. Thank you for your objective view. At this point in time, as a conservative and a Catholic, I’m leaning toward Santorum for many of the reasons you mentioned. I too am not impressed with the candidates and as in years past, it’s a matter of what I see as the lessor of the evils. At the age of 57, things are not looking too good for my future. Thank you again for your reply. Take care.
I like seeing an occasional humor piece on the site. And Ron Oliver has defined quite well why Santorum and his supporters deserve a satirical treatment.
I agree, so long as we’re also willing to examine their motives more deeply. I think Daniel’s analysis bears merit. Even if, like he, I don’t agree with it.
I laughed more than I should. I really despise Santorum. Yes, it is primarily because I have a uterus, which he seems to be incredibly interested in.
The alternate definition of his name is the only thing which makes his presence bearable.
Last time I checked, my wife has one of those too and she likes what he stands for. Then again, she was a full time mom and didn’t re-enter the business world until after the kids were out of school. She was laid off three years ago and has not been able to find a job. She lost her unemployment two years ago, so she’s not counted as one of the unemployed. Yeah, she’s also a women who was given a choice to abort our daughter 6 months into her pregnancy because of health complications but because of her faith (Catholic) it wasn’t an option. Thank God because we are crazy for our 2 year old grandson that she and her husband blessed us with. Then again she’s one of those dinosaurs, a women that’s only had one husband for 37 years. Sad that you would vote against someone simply because you’re a women because I hope you’re not a guy and have a uterus in a jar? I don’t vote b ased on gender, age, or race …. BTW, my wife is of Mexican (100%) heritage.