Santorum and his discontents

I hate that I'm writing about Santorum. 

I don't think he has a chance in hell of winning the Republican nomination; most of the crap about his offering a challenge to Romney is just the media's horse race fever. [Just for fun: Slate has a fun horse race graphic — but note that even when Santorum is "surging ahead," he's 30+ delegates behind Romney.] Waste of my time. And probably yours, for which I apologize.

Nonetheless...

Here's Santorum on the audacity of Obama urging everyone to go to college (it's only a little over a minute, so please watch this one — no matter how painful...):

And here, he doubles down on Meet the Press (this one's a little longer, but it's still under three minutes — I summarize below, if three minutes is too long to suffer this fool) : 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

[In case you don't suffer fools lightly: Among other things, Santorum complains about the "over-politicized values and political [sic] correct values" of the left, which are found on "most colleges and university campuses," and claims — as if this is in contrast to Obama — that he advocates everyone having the opportunity to attend a college or any other higher level of training.  "It doesn't mean you have to go to a four-year college degree," he says, "and the president saying that everyone should — I think that everyone should have the opportunity. The question is, what's best for you?"  Santorum argues that not everyone has the skills for college; he "disagrees" with telling people, "unless you do this, then you're not living up to our goals." He then suggests — again, as if this is somehow in contrast to Obama — that trade schools are a good alternative for many people, and that we shouldn't "look down our noses" at people who opt for such alternatives as "less, just because you didn't get a four year college degree."]

I don't even know where to begin to make a coherent response. Maybe I can't.

But how about starting here, in Obama's speech to the Joint Session of Congress in 2009:

It is our responsibility as lawmakers and educators to make this system work. But it is the responsibility of every citizen to participate in it. And so tonight, I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be community college or a four-year school; vocational training or an apprenticeship. But whatever the training may be, every American will need to get more than a high school diploma. And dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It's not just quitting on yourself, it's quitting on your country — and this country needs and values the talents of every American. That is why we will provide the support necessary for you to complete college and meet a new goal: by 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. (my emphasis)

[You can watch the speech or read the transcript, if you like. Obama's comments on education in general start at 29:14; the above quote starts at 31:36. And, if this means anything, not everything he proposes sits well with me... but that's not the point here.] 


Despite Santorum's claims, Obama never suggested that everyone go to a four year college and get a degree. Does Obama call for the highest proportion of college graduates in the world? Yes... and given that, aside from a handful of entrepreneurs whose exception proves the rule, this is in most cases the most effective road to success, it seems a reasonable goal.

But that's not even what has me spitting. 

Please watch ten seconds of that first clip again —  from 0:42-0:52. 

(I'll wait...)

If all we had was the transcript — the words on paper — the context would seem pretty clearly to be all about those god damned "liberal" college professors "indoctrinating" their poor, vulnerable college students. (Don't get me started on this patronizing view of students....)

If we did a little research (pretending for a moment that we took this idiot seriously), we'd find that this complaint about liberal indoctrination comes from personal experience: In a follow-up interview with George Stephanopoulos, for example, he complained about how, at Penn State, he was "docked" for his conservative views. But I'm going to say this: If his speech were an argumentative essay, I'd dock his ass, too. But it wouldn't be for conservative views; it would be for misrepresenting his opposition, and for faulty logic. Something for which, incidentally, I dock people with whom I agree.

But really, I've paid way more attention to Santorum than he deserves.  What I really care about is  his audience.

I know it's painful, but please watch that first clip again, paying attention to the difference in audience response to each of his... claims(?).

Claim 1: "President Obama once said that he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob." 

Reaction: As you'd expect with any joke, surprised laughter, followed by applause. (Kudos to the three men who didn't react...)

Claim 2: "There are good decent men and women who go out and work hard every day and put their skills to test that aren't taught by some liberal college professor trying to indoctrinate them."  

Reaction: Applause, cheering, whistling.

Claim 3: "Oh, I understand why he wants you to go to college. He wants to remake you into his image."

Reaction: (And here's the break...) No laughter, no applause. Instead, there's a kind of murmuring, punctuated by a sudden "Yeah!" from the crowd.

Why the difference?

My take: we've moved from Comedy Central to Revival Hour. 

The rhetoric here is Biblical: the phrase remade in his image resonates with the Biblical creation story, where God says, "Let us make man in our image." This puts Obama in the role of usurper, trying to take the role of God. Like Lucifer. 

Or worse, given that he's a black man... Can you say, "Uppity"?

No doubt people will say I've gone too far. Santorum — Catholic or no — isn't clever enough to demonize his opponent so subtly (though that's what speech writers are for...).  Maybe. But listen again to the audience's reactions. The difference is obvious: the first two claims draw laughter and applause; the third doesn't — though, in my view, it is no less approving. Indeed, it may be more so.

Santorum, though frightening, is irrelevant. But the people who listen to him, who applaud him, who grin at what a "snob" (can you say, "Uppity"?) our president is for emphasizing education, of all things... these people will transfer their loyalties (and votes) to whichever candidate claims the GOP nomination (okay, okay, Romney). 

And these are the people who scare the beJESUS out of me.