It’s been four long years since Republicans have been out of the White House. So long, in fact, that many Republicans appear to have forgotten why we even lost the 2008 presidential election.
The obvious answer is the financial crisis and economic recession. But there was more to it than that.
The Republican Party – the one of limited government, free markets and free people – strayed from its path. President George W. Bush and the Republican Party adopted “compassionate conservatism,” a catchy way of saying “big government as a means to a conservative end.” Ignore the oxymoron in that phrase, because apparently Republican leaders at the time did, too.
During the decade of “compassionate conservatism,” a large number of Republicans either fell into the trap or helped set the trap themselves.
One of those men was Senator Rick Santorum, now running for the GOP nomination for President. As Phillip Klein at the Washington Examiner notes, Santorum was a “a loyal soldier” during the years of big government conservatism.
A look at the Senator’s voting record only affirms that. Santorum voted for and supported the No Child Left Behind Act. Meanwhile, the supposed RINO in the GOP nomination race, Jon Huntsman, took “the strongest stand” against the big government law all the way back in 2005. No Child Left Behind has been proven a failure in almost every aspect, yet Santorum’s own campaign site makes it seem like he’d vote for it again today.
Then there’s Medicare Part D, which created yet another unsustainable federal entitlement. Santorum still supports that decision, too.
And it doesn’t end there. Santorum’s tenure in the Senate can only be described as earmarks all day, every day. From the Senator’s own mouth: “I have had a lot of earmarks. In fact, I’m very proud of all the earmarks I’ve put in bills.”
Limited government, indeed. What’s worse, Santorum didn’t just support earmarks for his state of Pennsylvania. No, he even supported the controversial “bridge to nowhere” and, you guessed it, still supports his decision today.
And now, Santorum has the gall to attack Romney for wanting an earmark back in 2002 for the Olympic Games. The hypocrisy is astounding.
The list goes on.
Even one of the key points of Santorum’s platform in 2012 reeks of big government. Santorum wants to eliminate taxes on manufacturing companies to spur job creation in that sector. It’s an admirable goal, but an ill-informed one. Beyond the chaos that would ensue as every company attempted to frame themselves as “manufacturers” to skip out on their taxes, Santorum’s plan chooses winners and losers in the American economy – much the same way as President Obama, albeit without the taxpayer subsidies. But I wouldn’t put that past a President Santorum either.
Rick Santorum is conservative. I have no doubt about that. He isn’t a closet liberal. But if it were possible to be such a thing, Santorum would be a conservative statist. He supported the policies that lead to the Republican drubbings that knocked him out of the Senate in 2006 and the GOP away from the White House in 2008.
Back in 2003, Fred Barnes wrote: “Reagan was a small government conservative who declared in his inauguration address that government was the problem, not the solution. There, Bush begs to differ. The essence of Bush’s big government conservatism is a trade-off. To gain free-market reforms and expand individual choice, he’s willing to broaden programs and increase spending.”
We need a Reagan, not a Bush, Jr. junior – and that’s what Rick Santorum is.
