Skip to main content

Santorum Demonised

Somehow, the definition of mainstream has slipped, via the liberal media, over to the fringes.  As a Catholic with a leaning towards Liberation Theology, I am on the far-left of the Church, and find many of Rick Santorum's positions unwelcome - he makes Mel Gibson seem like Rowan Williams.  However, whenever the British media like the BBC describe Santorum they call him the "anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage" candidate, as if these positions were utterly alien and horrific in and of themselves.  Not so.  For there to be sensible and credible democratic discourse the liberal media must be willing to acknowledge the large subsection of the American populace (the majority?) for whom abortion is an evil; and so on.

Further, the positions that Santorum espouses are mainly those of the mainstream Catholic Church as typified by the current Pope, Benedict.  It is true they are shocking and offensive to feminists, Marxists, and most college professors on the East Coast.  But they are hardly unique to him.  Taken out of context, Santorum seems like a ranting madman.  In context, he is a product of a narrow reading of a religious tradition with millions of American followers.  We need to engage with this tradition, in thoughtful discourse.  To demonise conservative Catholics is to simply entrench their views, not all of which are necessarily wrong or offensive.  It seems that the Church needs to rethink its staunch views on homosexuality, and the ordination of women, especially; and Santorum should respect the distinction between Church and State.

But we need to respect his right to hold his views, just as we may wish to hold other, far more liberal ones.  And, do note, conservatism is not, in itself, a bad thing - in a fast-moving increasingly capitalist world, the Church is one of the last bastions of a different vision of humanity, especially after the fall of Communism which it did so much to bring about.  Eyewear, finally, feels that Rick Santorum would be a better candidate for the Republican party, for two reasons: 1. He has more integrity in that he is unafraid to speak his mind on controversial issues and thus represents the core views of the party unlike Romney a sleek corporate clone; and 2. He is unelectable.

Comments

Interesting post, Todd. Your pay-off is perfect. I'm not Roman Catholic - or indeed Christian - as you may have realised over the years, but engagement with the likes of Santorum is probably going to be more effective than easy-on-the-ear liberal-fascist dismissal (well, as long as that engagement really does give him a seriously bad time over his apparently multiple irrational intolerances). What I would question is your statement that 'it seems the Church needs to rethink its staunch views on homosexuality, and the ordination of women' (no - there is no 'seeming' about it: the Church really does have to rethink its views because they are not only incommensurate with the world as it is now, they're also incommensurate with its own basic philosophy, let alone an open and ethical pluralism). I'd also question your apparent faith in Catholic conservatism as a viable alternative to the excesses of capitalism. Certainly, during the Cold War, Catholicism provided a safe, dissident haven from the excesses of Stalinist communism - most notably in Krakow around the philosophical school centred on Josef Tischner (one of Lech Walesa's mentors, as it were) - but since then it's also true that Catholicism has abandoned the notion of itself as a dissident space - a space which, according to Czech dissident and, subsequently, government minister Jan Urban, gave formerly communist Eastern Europe the possibility to exist without the inhumanity of Stalinism and what Urban calls the 'carelessness with people' inherent in western capitalism - and become increasingly involved with counter-cosmopolitan nationalist culture (Ukraine's descet into Church-ratified Nazism being a prime example).The problem, perhaps, is that organised religion tends to regard itself as aloof from the grubby realities of 'events, dear boy, events'. The 'official' Catholic line on contraception while an AIDS epidemic is raging in Africa and elsewhere seems to be a particularly inhumane example of this aloofness. Perhaps, as you say, the only reason for supporting a blunt-headed dogmatist like Santorum in this election is that his idiocy might actually secure Obama another term - which, despite the latter's Blairite 'world's police force' tendencies might mean a few less teenagers being sent to their deaths in Afghanistan. That, I think, is what I would like to see most.
Poetry Pleases! said…
Dear Todd

I find it profoundly ironic that the the religious right in America is now rallying behind Santorum - a political persona whom I find utterly unconvincing. It wasn't so long ago that Bob Jones, a hero of the religious right, was calling Catholicism an evil sect and describing the pope as the Antichrist!

Best wishes from Simon

Popular posts from this blog

CLIVE WILMER'S THOM GUNN SELECTED POEMS IS A MUST-READ

THAT HANDSOME MAN  A PERSONAL BRIEF REVIEW BY TODD SWIFT I could lie and claim Larkin, Yeats , or Dylan Thomas most excited me as a young poet, or even Pound or FT Prince - but the truth be told, it was Thom Gunn I first and most loved when I was young. Precisely, I fell in love with his first two collections, written under a formalist, Elizabethan ( Fulke Greville mainly), Yvor Winters triad of influences - uniquely fused with an interest in homerotica, pop culture ( Brando, Elvis , motorcycles). His best poem 'On The Move' is oddly presented here without the quote that began it usually - Man, you gotta go - which I loved. Gunn was - and remains - so thrilling, to me at least, because so odd. His elegance, poise, and intelligence is all about display, about surface - but the surface of a panther, who ripples with strength beneath the skin. With Gunn, you dressed to have sex. Or so I thought.  Because I was queer (I maintain the right to lay claim to that

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".