Santorum, Puerto Rico, and Statehood

Our chapter on citizenship notes that residents of Puerto Rico are American citizens even though it is not a state (and even though most do not have to pay federal income tax).  There has long been debate about the island's status, and this debate is entering the US presidential campaign. ABC reports:

Rick Santorum Wednesday became the first Republican presidential hopeful in this election to visit Puerto Rico before the island commonwealth’s Sunday primary, taking a controversial stand on statehood that he was forced to defend this morning after losing a key supporter.

Rather than boost his standing, the trip has ignited a firestorm with Santorum’s comment that English would have to be “the main language” in order for Puerto Rico to become a U.S. state.
“Like in every other state, it [must comply] with this and every other federal law,- and that is that English should be the main language,” Santorum said in an interview with the El Vocero newspaper Wednesday. “There are other states with more than one language, as is the case with Hawaii, but to be a state of the U.S., English should be the main language.”

The question of statehood is a huge issue in Puerto Rico, which is set to vote on the matter in November. The island’s voters will have a referendum on whether to become a state, something some Puerto Ricans favor and others oppose, whether they be in favor of remaining a commonwealth or becoming independent.

Santorum’s comments left one of his supporters, Oreste Ramos, so upset that the former Puerto Rican senator rescinded his endorsement.

“Although such a requirement would be unconstitutional, and also would clash with our sociological and linguistic reality, as a question of principle I cannot back a person who holds that position,” Oreste said, according to El Vocero. “As a Puerto Rican and Spanish-speaking U.S. citizen, I consider the position of Mr. Santorum offensive.

CNN provides some background:

Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution spells out how states can be admitted to the union, making no mention of language requirements. The passage states: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."

A second clause states Congress has the power to "dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States."
In the past, Congress has passed "enabling acts" for territories seeking statehood, and has included provisions requiring English to be the prevailing language as a requirement for admission. The Louisiana Enabling Act of 1811 mandated the new state conduct its official business in the same language as the United States.

In 1906, Congress passed an enabling act requiring Oklahoma use English in its public schools before it obtained statehood.

There is currently no law declaring an official language of the United States, though several attempts have been made to give English that designation. Thirty-one states have passed laws naming English as their official language.

Both English and Spanish are official languages of Puerto Rico, though Spanish is by far the dominant language on the island. According to census data released in 2012, 81% of Puerto Rico residents spoke English "less than very well," with 95% saying Spanish was the language they spoke at home.

Santorum and the Catholic Vote

Rick Santorum would be the first Catholic Republican in the White House. But as an earlier post indicated, he lost the Michigan primary in part because he lost the Catholic vote.  The Pew Forum examines exit polls and finds that Michigan was not an aberration:

Exit polls in four of the Super Tuesday states asked voters about their religious affiliation (Protestant, Catholic, etc.). Romney, Santorum and Gingrich each won the Protestant vote in one state, while Protestants were evenly divided between Romney and Santorum in the fourth (Ohio). Catholics preferred Romney in two states (Massachusetts and Ohio) and were evenly divided in Georgia (between Romney and Gingrich) and Tennessee (between Romney and Santorum). Santorum, who has been Romney’s closest competitor in recent primaries and who is Catholic himself, has yet to achieve an outright victory among Catholics in any state for which data are available.

What If...

At The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Bud Kennedy notes that Rick Santorum is where Rick Perry had expected to be.

"Yes, Santorum is living Perry's dream, but Perry would have been so much better at it," said Adam Schiffer, a Texas Christian University political science professor.

"If he had been the candidate religious leaders hoped, he could have had that constituency locked up like Santorum. But Perry would have had broader appeal."
Perry's campaign launched when some ministers became concerned that Newt Gingrich wouldn't run hard and Santorum couldn't win.

But Perry also won support from business leaders who view Santorum as a Senate washout with no executive experience.

"No other candidate so effectively blended both the social and economic wings of the party" as Perry, said political science professor Jerry Polinard of the University of Texas-Pan American in Edinburg.

"Instead, he will appear prominently in every future textbook on campaign mistakes."

Had Perry not tripped over his tongue early and often, he would be talking mostly about jobs and economic growth by now, not sex, college snobs or John F. Kennedy, the topics of Santorum.

(When the contraception question came up, Perry could tell how his father-in-law did his vasectomy.)

"Of all the candidates who started last May and June, it's unbelievable that Rick Santorum would be the challenger left," Schiffer said.

Romney Wins Catholic Vote in Michigan

In the Michigan primary tonight, the exit poll showed that Catholics made up 30 percent of the electorate.  By a 44-37 percent margin, they favored Mitt Romney over Rick Santorum -- even though Santorum is Catholic.  There are probably multiple reasons for this outcome, but perhaps a comment by Santorum may have alienated his coreligionists.

At ABC, George Stephanopoulos reports on his Sunday interview with Santorum:

GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum said today that watching John F. Kennedy’s speech to the Baptist ministers in Houston in 1960 made him want to “throw up.”

“To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case?” Santorum said.

“That makes me throw up and it should make every American who is seen from the president, someone who is now trying to tell people of faith that you will do what the government says, we are going to impose our values on you, not that you can’t come to the public square and argue against it, but now we’re going to turn around and say we’re going to impose our values from the government on people of faith, which of course is the next logical step when people of faith, at least according to John Kennedy, have no role in the public square,” he said.

To put it mildly, such remarks were politically imprudent. By more than a 2-1 margin, Republicans remember JFK favorably.  Despite revelations about JFK's personal conduct, they have positive memories of his assertive policies on national security and his support for tax cuts.  The ratio is probably even greater among Catholic Republicans.  


Moreover, Santorum could have made the same point without criticizing Kennedy.  Indeed, it would have been clever to quote Barack Obama's 2006 speech on religion and politics:

But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Theology and Politics

Rick Santorum has received criticism for saying that the president's energy policies had roots in a "phony theology."  He later said that he was faulting the president's worldview, not his religion.

There is a long history of referring to a political opponent's belief system as a "theology."  Critics of the Reagan Administration, for instance, spoke of "Star Wars theology" or "supply-side theology."


In 1997, President Clinton said:

We passed the family and medical leave law. There were a lot of Republicans who voted for that—I'll give them credit for that—far more Democrats. My predecessor had vetoed it twice. Why? Because their theology said—their theology said it's a nice thing if people can spend a little time with their new-born babies or if someone in their family gets sick, but we couldn't think of requiring it because it would hurt the economy and the economy is always the most important thing.

In an interview with Wolf Blitzer last fall, Mr. Clinton used similar terms to explain why Republicans did not embrace the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan.

CLINTON: Ryan rejected it because it was against their theology. Because it had both new revenues and spending -- but all I can ask the American people to do is to, you know, inject some reality into this. 

The theology of the modern Republican Party, it's an ideology, is that every tax is bad especially if an upper income person has to pay it. 

At a December 13 press briefing, White House press secretary Jay Carney said:  "Now, what we have seen from Republicans in Congress is the promulgation of this idea that passing a tax cut for middle-class Americans is somehow a favor they would be doing for the President of the United States. Most of my adult life, the Republican theology has been tax cuts for everyone are the highest priority. "

Mud and Ads

A new ad attacks Romney for attacking Santorum:






"Mudsplat ads" have long been a staple of American campaigns. In 1974, Bob Dole ran such an spot in his tough Senate reelection race. In 1996, The New York Times recalled: 

 Known as the "mudslinger ad," it starts with a close-up of a Dole campaign poster. "Bill Roy says that Senator Bob Dole is against the farmer," the narrator intones, as a gob of mud splatters the poster. "Against cutting the Federal budget." More mud. "Against the school lunch program." Another gob. But none of these accusations are accurate, the narrator continues, as the mud flies off the poster. "All of which," he concludes, "makes Bob Dole look pretty good, and Bill Roy look like just another mudslinger."

Video of the 1974 ad is available here.


In 1992, Russ Feingold did his own version of a mudsplat ad (click here and scroll down to "Stoop Gaining" or click here)

An Issue Against Gingrich

At a debate this week, Rick Santorum alluded to the House Bank, which once allowed lawmakers to make overdrafts on their personal checking accounts. Newt Gingrich made a number of such overdrafts, which nearly cost him his seat in a 1992 primary campaign. His opponent's attack ad was unpolished and not entirely accurate (overdrafts are different from bounced checks), but nevertheless caused Gingrich some damage.

Views of Santorum

Political scientists are commenting on the rise of Rick Santorum and its relationship to the place of religion in American politics.

Professor Hunter Baker of Union University writes at The Jackson Sun:

The odds are against him, but Santorum has an interesting appeal. He is a social conservative with a message of interest to working people in America. His economic plan emphasizes a strategy to maintain and expand the manufacturing base. As a Catholic son of the Rust Belt, he has the potential to build a broad coalition.

On the other hand, he is arguably the most hated candidate by the gay rights lobby for his blunt opposition to both gay marriage and adoption. Those commitments alone practically guarantee extremely negative treatment for his campaign from cultural elites in the media and entertainment industries.

Santorum has been largely overlooked so far as he stood at the edge of the podium in debates, dismissed due to low poll numbers. When he was noticed, it was usually because he complained about how few questions he was getting. Sen. Santorum, the stage is yours for at least the next several news cycles. We shall see what you can do with it.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports:

SMU political science professor Matthew Wilson, who follows evangelicals' role in the campaign, said it's not out of the question that they will ultimately back Romney.

"Basically, the evangelical leaders are either going to have to make a last-ditch push for Santorum or make their peace with Romney so as not to appear irrelevant," Wilson said in an e-mail.

The Financial Times reports:

“People are now paying attention to Rick Santorum and saying that he has a chance,” said David White, chairman of the political science department at Francis Marion University in South Carolina.

He might also be helped by local evangelicals’ unease about Mr Romney’s religion, Mormonism, and by the large Pennsylvanian population in the state as older people migrate south for the winter.

About 60 per cent of residents in both Iowa and South Carolina describe themselves as evangelical Christians, compared with only 23 per cent of New Hampshire residents.
...

Andrew Smith, a political scientist at the University of New Hampshire, said Mr Santorum would have a difficult time in the Granite State, where his messages about family and abortion would not gain much traction.

“This is not a very religious state and people are not concerned about social issues,” Mr Smith said. “But his bigger problem is that he has no money and he has no organisation. He has to rely on media attention to reach voters.”

Iowa Asterisks

In the Iowa caucuses last night, Mitt Romney won by a mere 8 votes over Rick Santorum, whose come-from-behind showing will enter American political lore.  The outcome will greatly help Santorum, but keep three asterisks in mind.

1.  Turnout in the Iowa caucuses was 122,255 voters.  Though higher than GOP turnout in 2008, that figure amounted to about only one-fifth of registered Republicans in the state.  Here's another way to put it:  statewide Iowa turnout was smaller than the number of Republicans (123,625) who voted in the 2008 Republican primary in Santa Clara County, California.


2.  Iowa did not select a single national convention delegate last night.  The caucus results were merely a poll.  In separate votes, attendees selected delegates to county conventions, who in turn will participate in a process that will eventually result in the selection of national convention delegates.  Throughout this process, the caucus results bind no one to vote a certain way.


3.  The Iowa results do not necessarily predict the eventual nominee.  In 1980, Ronald Reagan lost Iowa to George H.W. Bush but went on to win the nomination. Eight years later, Bush finished third, behind Bob Dole and Pat Robertson, but also went on to win.  Four years ago, Mike Huckabee won in Iowa, only to lose  the nomination to John McCain.

Social Media, The Presidential Race, and a 9-Year-Old with Autism

Social media allow citizens to influence campaign discussions. Lin Wessels has been recording her son's encounters with Republican presidential candidates campaigning for the Iowa caucuses.  She has posted the results on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.


Reposted from Autism Policy and Politics:

Sam Wessels, a nine-year-old Iowan with autism, has been asking presidential candidates about their positions on autism.  A previous post showed his encounter with Ron Paul.  Others are below.


Mitt Romney:

 

Rick Santorum:




Newt Gingrich:



Michele Bachmann:

American Exceptionalism in Contemporary Politics

An earlier post dealt with a Gallup survey on American exceptionalism. The Pew Research Center finds:

The view that the United States is a great nation is widely held across all typology groups. About nine-in-ten Americans say the United States either stands above all other countries in the world (38%) or is one of the greatest along with some others (53%). Just 8% say there are other countries that are better than the U.S.

But Staunch Conservatives differ from other typology groups in their view that the United States is superior to all other countries. Two-thirds of Staunch Conservatives (67%) say the U.S. stands above all other nations; they are the only group in which a majority expresses this view.

Smaller percentages of Solid Liberals (19%) and Post-Moderns (27%) than those in other groups say the U.S. stands above all other countries. Still, majorities in both groups (62% of Solid Liberals and 65% of Post-Moderns) say the U.S. is one of the greatest countries along with some others.

At The Washington Post, Richard Cohen writes:

The term “American exceptionalism” has been invoked by Mitt Romney, Mike Pence, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee and, of course, Sarah Palin. I would throw in Michele Bachmann, since if she has not said it yet, she soon will because she says almost anything. She is no exception to the cult of American exceptionalism.

The phrase has an odd history. As Princeton history professor Sean Wilentz reminds me, American exceptionalism once applied to the hostility that the American worker — virtually alone in the industrialized world — had toward socialism. Now, though, it is infused with religious meaning, which makes it impervious to analysis. Once you say God likes something, who can quibble?

...

The huge role of religion in American politics is nothing new but always a matter for concern nonetheless. In the years preceding the Civil War, both sides of the slavery issue claimed the endorsement of God. The 1856 Republican convention concluded with a song that ended like this: “We’ve truth on our side/ We’ve God for our guide.” Within five years, Americans were slaughtering one another on the battlefield.

Therein lies the danger of American exceptionalism. It discourages compromise, for what God has made exceptional, man must not alter. And yet clearly America must change fundamentally or continue to decline. It could begin by junking a phase that reeks of arrogance and discourages compromise. American exceptionalism ought to be called American narcissism. We look perfect only to ourselves.

At National Review Online, Jonah Goldberg replies:

As far as I can tell the only evidence that Cohen cites to support his thesis that “American Exceptionalism” is now an overwhelmingly and dangerously religious concept comes in the 8th paragraph (of a 10 paragraph column) where he notes that Gingrich uses the phrase “secular left” sometimes. That doesn’t strike me as a forensic slam dunk. It seems that Cohen is sort of right in one narrow sense. The term American exceptionalism is impervious to analysis — Cohen’s analysis.

I don’t dispute, by the way, that there is some significant religious resonance to American exceptionalism. What I vigorously dispute is any suggestion that Cohen understands what it is or has come within a thousand yards of explaining it.

For those interested they might consult the works of Seymour Martin Lipset, or Arthur Brooks, or Ponnuru and Lowry.

Greg Sargent writes at The Washington Post:

* The most mindless “American exceptionalism” attack yet: Rick Santorum rehashes the nonsense about Obama and “American exceptionalism” yet again, even though he was confronted with proof less than two weeks ago that it’s completely false.

At Politico, Isaac Wood of the University of Virginia writes:

Much like stories of the Cold War, American exceptionalism was more something we inherited than experienced first-hand. We read in textbooks, not newspapers, about America’s ascent to superpower status....

The end of bin Laden’s life on the lam may be only symbolic. But it is a particularly powerful symbol to my generation. Across college campuses, students rushed to celebrate together, singing patriotic hymns and waving U.S. flags.

In New York, young people flocked to Ground Zero to mark closure and justice done. In Washington, the White House was surrounded by jubilant spectators, joined together in communal catharsis.

It feels like we turned a corner. America triumphed again — but this was our triumph over our foe. We realize are not free from the specter of terrorism — but we have shown we are not powerless against it. We brought justice to a man who sought to replace law and order with disorder and terror.

My generation is young. We have many more challenges to face, from a rising Chinese economic superpower to the still-dangerous terror networks overseas. At home we must confront concerns about our energy future and a serious national debt crisis.

Still, we have a sense of shared purpose and patriotism — perhaps forged from the same steel as the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

For one exhilarating moment, at least, we now taste the power and potential of America.

Christianity Today reports on a more negative reaction:

Popular author and New Testament scholar N.T. Wright has accused the world of giving America a free pass for violating Pakistan's sovereignty and killing an unarmed man during the recent attack that killed Osama bin Laden.

The former bishop of Durham sent a short statement to The Times' religion correspondent Ruth Gledhill in which he pointed out that Americans would be "furious" if Great Britain's military had staged an unannounced raid against hypothetical Irish Republican Army terrorists and killed them, unarmed, in a Boston suburb.

The only difference, Wright says, is "American exceptionalism."

"America is allowed to do it, but the rest of us are not," said Wright, who is now the research professor of New Testament and early Christianity at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. "By what right? Who says?"

President Obama, Wright says, has "enacted one of America’s most powerful myths," the vigilante hero going outside the law to execute "redemptive violence" against an enemy who has rendered the legitimate authorities impotent. "This is the plot of a thousand movies, comic-book strips, and TV shows: Captain America, the Lone Ranger, and (upgraded to hi-tech) Superman. The masked hero saves the world."

(See an earlier post on religion and American exceptionalism.)

In Australia, Ruby Hamad writes in the same vein:

So how disappointing it was, last week, to hear him boast that “today's achievement is a testament to the greatness of our country and the determination of the American people… tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to”. Including, apparently, violating the sovereignty of another nation, an ally no less, and quite possibly illegally executing an unarmed man, along with whoever happened to get in America’s way that night.

Either Obama has been inducted into the American exceptionalism camp, or simply revealed his true colours. Either way, it’s devastating for those of us who dared to believe his audacious message - that America need not claim exceptionalism in order to play an important role in world affairs.