SHOCKED, SHOCKED
Eugene Volokh and Andrew Sullivan have ably analyzed the legal and policy arguments behind Sen. Rick Santorum's now- infamous comment that "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." (In the process, and not for the first time, Eugene has let blogging ruin his chances of becoming a federal judge.)
What I don't get is why sophisticated pundits imagine that Rick Santorum might think that the Constitution protects sexual privacy or that the government should stay out of people's sex lives.
Santorum is, first of all, from Pennsylvania, a highly traditional state with an aging population whose don't-make-waves politics is protective of the status quo and not the least suspicious of government power. I wouldn't expect a Pennsylvania politician to push for new sanctions to regulate sexual behavior, but neither would I expect one to push to get current laws overturned.
For a Pennsylvania pol, Santorum is actually quite the intellectual. And he's always been upfront about his political principles. Andrew Sullivan is being disingenuous when he writes, "Has Santorum heard of limited government? It was once a conservative idea, you know, Senator."
As Andrew well knows, limited government is a liberal idea. It only seems conservative in the Anglo-American context because we've had several hundred years of liberal tradition. But there are older, pre-liberal conservative traditions, including a rather prominent one to which Rich Santorum outspokenly adheres--a tradition that honors hierarchy, solidarity, and "natural law" and sees liberal individualism as a source of decay.
As a sample, here's what Santorum writes about the pedophilia scandals in the Catholic Church:
Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical leadership. Unlike most, I have been visited by the gift of hope; for I see in this fall an opportunity for ecclesial rebirth and a new evangelization of America. This "new evangelization," advocated strenuously by Pope John Paul II, has the potential for restoring confidence in the priesthood while empowering all American Catholics.
The most obvious change must occur within American seminaries, many of which demonstrate the same brand of cultural liberalism plaguing our secular universities. My hope was rekindled last week as our American Cardinals proposed from Rome an "apostolic visitation" of seminaries emphasizing "the need for fidelity to the Church's teaching, especially in the area of morality." It is an arduous task. However, the Pope made it clear last week that he expects the strong appeal of the Cardinals to be followed by decisive Episcopal action.
It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning "private" moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm. [Emphasis added.--vp]
The cultural change needed cannot end with our seminaries. Most of the American Cardinals, while strong defenders of the faith , are from a different era with only a few responding to the new demands our decaying culture has place upon them. With God's grace, a new hierarchy must emerge that will be both faithful in thought and courageous in confronting all infidelity within the Church. Such Church leaders have a great example in Pope John Paul II's battle with communism's attempt to destroy the Church and human dignity. A new hierarchy must similarly fight against an array of "isms"--moral relativism, cultural liberalism--inside and outside of the Church.
Any religious tradition as rich and varied as Roman Catholicism obviously has its liberal strands; the history of classical liberalism includes notable Catholic thinkers; and, to the chagrin of much of the Church hierarchy, most American Catholics have thoroughly embraced Anglo-American liberal individualism. But the conservative Catholic tradition to which Rick Santorum owes his primary intellectual allegiance is not liberal. It recognizes no public-private distinction on matters of sexual morality. Stop pretending you're so shocked.