Yesterday I was talking to one of the GMP contributors who was very upset about the characterization of our Project in the Atlantic. I tried to make him feel better by telling him, “The good news is when major media starts paying attention, that means you matter. The bad news is when you become the story you realize that major media almost always gets the facts wrong. I learned that the hard way while serving as CFO of a large media conglomerate where I would literally spoon feed top reporters from the WSJ and NYT financial data–numbers not subject to interpretation just cold hard facts–that they would get wrong.”
Then this morning I opened up the paper to read numerous supposedly objective news organizations and many columnists (see Frank Bruni’s piece “The Do-Over Derby” as a case in point) ripping Rick Santorum a new one for his position, and the supposed revision of his position, on parenting.
Now I am no Rick Santorum fan. I find the Jesus is My Personal Savior litmus test in the Republican Party abhorrent (where is Bill Weld when you need him?). The chance of my voting for the guy in a general election is about the same as the chance that I will run the 100 yard dash in under 10 seconds any time soon. Nil.
Still I don’t trust anything I read anymore. And that goes double when it comes to politicians with massive PAC-funded slime campaigns on both sides. And the willing press playing right along to drive readership amongst the partisan and increasingly gossip oriented news cycle. So I went to the source documents. I only believe what I actually hear for myself coming out of somebody’s mouth.
I was shocked by what I found. At first all I could find was Rick and his wife saying stuff about stay-at-home parents that I strongly agree with. Then I found the supposed smoking gun. Still, I think it’s worth actually considering what he wrote and said before letting the tigers out of the cage.
◊♦◊
The first time I could find that the issue came up was during a interview on Meet the Press, in which David Gregory quotes It Takes a Family and asks Santorum to respond. Here it is:
A few things here that could be troubling. “Traditional Family” and “Radical Feminism” are both terms that can certainly make progressives look for the nearest shotgun. But I would also argue that those terms really depend on what you mean by family and feminism. As we have found out the hard way here on GMP, they can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. More on that below. But let’s just say that a charitable view of the excerpt and the interview are that he is less than clear as he doesn’t address fathers in any way and he doesn’t really say whether he believes that the over-emphasis on work applies only to women.
◊♦◊
Here is the first clip I found in which Santorum and his wife Karen address the issue more recently, and attempt to clarify the book and prior statements.
This is the one I watched first and quite frankly I had to hold my nose and admit in the dark corner of my home office that I agreed with everything that he said, particularly the part about how important proactive and stay-at-home dads are and the way in which parenting has been undervalued in general.
◊♦◊
The criticism, of course, is that his handlers coached him into a switch and by changing his tune there’s a powerful gotcha moment here for the Left to kick-start the attack just in case this guy turns out to be the Tea Party’s final line in the sand to get rid of Mitt.
That to me is the mistake. It’s behaving just as badly as the other side.
Did Santorum start out by saying that he is promoting the traditional family and that he thinks feminism had a role in undervaluing moms? Yes.
Did Santorum elaborate on that to say that he thinks the family includes dads and stay-at-home dads who cook and clean and change diapers? Yes.
Is it possible that the feminist movement, while crucial to equal rights that progressives like me violently support, unintentionally lead to us all devaluing the importance of stay-at-home parents of either gender? I think that’s a question worth pondering and isn’t out of the question.
Is the supposed flip-flop on this issue the thing that we as voters should be focussed on when gays can’t marry, we are talking about fighting yet another war in the Middle East, our country is on the edge of bankruptcy, there’s a massive concentration of wealth, our education system is a failure, and our prisons are bursting at the seams with a disproportionate number of African-American men? No
When I was young both my parents worked. We had to go to after school. However, I never felt that I was missing out on something. They spent as much time with my sister and I as they could. Both were actively involved in our activities. My father in fact would come to Girl Scout camping trips with me. Sure it’s nice to think about stay at home parents and for some people that’s great. If a woman or a man can do it. But these days it doesn’t seem possible. And hell I’m not sure I really needed a… Read more »
M I agree it’s not an economic reality for many people.
Well sort of, I mean my mom possibly could have stayed at home, but both my parents had college degrees. My mom enjoyed her job and doing research for drugs that would help improve other people’s lives. My dad enjoyed his work as well. Their working at their jobs, and pushing us to do what we want, has meant that my sister and I both have master’s degree. I may be strongly a feminist because I come from a family of strong women, but I wouldn’t say that being a stay at home mom is demeaning or below anyone unless… Read more »
Am I just being immature to snicker at the word “santorum” and people have chosen to ignore his “Google problem”? Or does Dan Savage just not have the readership nationwide that he does on the West Coast and so this is a non-issue? I believe there’s now a campaign to alter the word “rick” so that it is a verb, so that “Rick Santorum” becomes a verb + object phrase.
I’m not saying this kind of word-coining is fair, but it does point out the power of media to influence perceptions, even to affect name-recognition.
I think we’re all just trying to be mature…on the internet….lol.
He does and it’s only a concerted campaign on Santorum’s part that’s causing spreadsantorum.com to *not* be the top listing.
The Talmud says that to humiliate a man is to murder him. With this in mind, I am very, VERY keen to see Santorum keep the appellation of “The Frothy Smear” because he has earned it. I’m quite happy with the idea of publicly humiliating him after all he’s done for gays and women. Something really public, if at all possible. I’m good with that.
You know, forget MRAs or radical feminists…….the people I have the most difficult time seeing as actual human beings are politicians. I doubt every single word that comes out of their mouths. That being said, I agree with the ideas that he says in the second clip. Like Julia says, I think it’s important that children have a consistent caregiver, whether they are genetically related or not, male, female, trans, bi, gay, straight, whatever. Now as for this question: “Is it possible that the feminist movement, while crucial to equal rights that progressives like me violently support, unintentionally lead to… Read more »
Thanks for the thougttful response Heather. I agree.
It’s amazing to me how polarized everything in our country has become and what a terrible impact it has on our lives. I drive my friends crazy because I am neither progressive nor conservative and neither republican nor democrat. I don’t think any of those groups are improving the life of the average american nor will they when the vast majority of them do nothing but attack each other. How sad.
So is this your view folks (#1 on CNN today):
Santorum’s stone-age view of women
By Stephanie Coontz, Special to CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/14/opinion/coontz-santorum/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn
I can’t speak for the other folks, but that about captures it for me. If I knew nothing of Santorum but the two video clips in the article, I’d be nodding my head and thinking I might be able to vote for a guy like this. Everything else I know about him, though, tells me that those clips are not representative of his true views about women, men, and families, or that if they are, they leave out a truckload of relevant caveats he has about exactly who and what a family should be. He wants families to be religious… Read more »
Marcus I don’t necessarily disagree as my last line indicates. I just question why we need to make te stand on what to me is the weakest argument. I also think reading opinion to figure out someone’s character is risky at best.
I think we’re agreed neither of us will vote for him, but maybe for different reasons. I didn’t learn everything I know about Santorum from the opinion piece you linked – it was just consistent with what I’ve learned elsewhere, and none of his positions on anything else make me want to vote for him, either. My single biggest gripe with him, which seems to permeate every position he takes, is that he’s religious to the point of being theocratic. He won’t call it that, but he shows every sign of wanting to legislate and enforce a faith-based version of… Read more »
Here’s more from Santorum, via The Atlantic: One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea… It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal… but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you… Read more »
I read your post Marcus and thought of this image. SFW, cartoon by Tom the Dancing Bug.
I didn’t see your reply and link until today, but awesome, thanks for sharing. 😀
Reading opinion is not the best way to assess someone’s character, but fortunately, (p)Rick is very fond of direct and outrageous quotes and video clips that leave you with no doubt.
I wouldn’t vote for him. I would, however, pay $29.95 to see him skinned alive on Pay-per-View.
Oh, yes, he’s definitely got a stone-age view of women. He always has.
I’ll be the first to admit that I think children do best the first two years of their lives if they have consistent, loving, connected caregivers (of either sex). And if a man or woman can stay at home, or some combination of that, so much the better. I don’t think it matters if it’s the father or mother, gay or straight, trans or cis, so long as the child is given love, safety, resources etc. I agree with WRR and John V up there, that I can’t trust Santorum or the rest of the evangelical religious right for their… Read more »
+2, great post. i completely agree with you
You know, I cannot help but think that the reason that Santorum has 7 kids is that he’s desperately trying to prove that he’s straight and that the repeated sexual abuse that happened to him when he was young by a priest–and it sure gives that impression that that’s the etiology, don’t it??–didn’t happen and that he’s NOT gay, he’s really NOT.
I would actually feel some sympathy for him if he weren’t such an unbelievable douche.
I can’t value or believe a single word these GOP candidates say because I hear them say so much about how I as a bisexual man am evil and should have no rights for anything. If the hate-monger believes in strong parenting, I can only assume he means only heterosexuals are allowed to parent. I have four kids and I’m a 95% stay at home dad, coolest dad in the world (a quote from my kids) and I consider being their dad my mission in life. As a survivor of incest and child sex abuse, I know better than some… Read more »
Well said, WRR. Some of my own sexuality is probably anathema to him, and certainly my religious preferences are. In addition, believing in caring for the poor and sick is not the kind of Christianity he believes in (but that I do). Many of my friends would be outlawed by Santorum and the rest of his ilk and my beloved eldest daughter and her wife–who are having their first baby in April–would be imprisoned, told they couldn’t raise children, and completely marginalized. No, no, far better that people like that should never see office and be treated like the rabid… Read more »
It is perfectly reasonable somewhere in there to discuss SAH parenting and so on. I am personally rather inclined to think that this is not a bad thing, either… but it’s not anything important in light of the fact that both parents are usually working because they have to. To focus your entire campaign on the demonizing of gays, their desire to marry, birth control, sex in general, and people who in any way upset Santorum’s carefully crafted cartoon of reality is the act of a man who really needs therapy and drugs and probably a 72-hour involuntary psychiatric hold… Read more »