The Liberty Papers

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum has apparently climbed out from the rock he’s been hiding under since he was defeated in 2006. In a column for the Philadelphia Inquirer, Rick Santorum believes that the key to victory for Republicans is to embrace Compassionate Conservatism, except he calls it “common good” conservatism.

What Rick defines as “common good conservatism” is the following:

What I call “common-good” conservatism not only relies as much as possible on private charities and faith organizations, market forces, individual choice and decentralized decision-making, but also sees a role for government in empowering the nongovernmental institutions of civil society that serve the common good.

For example, with the use of government vouchers, individuals are better able to choose a nonprofit service provider that is better for their families than a government program is. Similarly, taxpayers are at least as capable as Washington bureaucrats of choosing an effective charity that aids the poor in their communities. So why not eliminate most government grants and give a tax credit to individuals who give to poverty-fighting nonprofits? Unlike past conservative proposals, that measure would be aiming not to save money but to save lives.

Common-good conservatism creates the opportunity for services to be more effectively delivered to those in need, while helping to re-create a community, a place to reconnect. And for Republicans, it creates an opportunity to reconnect to the millions of Americans who think we don’t care.

The major problem is that the non-government agencies, when you ask them, do not want to deal with the paperwork and regulations that will come with government vouchers (which is why I’m skeptical of school voucher programs). Also, I would like to know how Rick Santorum will define “poverty-fighting nonprofits”.

The best way to fight poverty is through private charity and government getting out of the way of the private sector. Also when we’re talking about poverty, we have to break it down into two types of people: those who cannot genuinely help themselves due to disease, sickness, physical or mental handicap, etc. and those who will not help themselves. Those who cannot help themselves, most of the American people would agree that there maybe a role for government. I would argue that private charity can help most, if not all, of those cases; but clearly I’m in the minority on that particular issue. I can live with a safety net for those who cannot help themselves. However, to expect the government to take people who are clearly capable to taking care of themselves, physically and mentally, is not only insulting to the taxpayers, but only perpetuates the culture of dependence that some Welfare recipients have.

Also, Rick Santorum continually touches on “building a sense of community”. I’m also curious as to what kind of community Rick Santorum wants to build. Finally, why should government be in the business of “building communities”?

If Republicans definitely want to lose in 2008, they should start by taking Rick Santorum’s advise and finish driving out the fiscal conservatives who remain in the party.