(VIDEO) Full Context of Rick Santorum's Comments on Libertarian Influence in the Republican Party

 By the Left Coast Rebel

Yesterday I posted two videos of Rick Santorum disparaging the rising tea party/libertarian influence in the Republican party. My good friend and San Diego tea party compatriot Charles (Doo Doo Econ) and another reader thought that one of the videos was out of context.

Dave @ Moonbattery posted the entire clip (in context); here it is so that you can make up your own mind...

The video above was filmed in Pennsylvania. I think it was a somewhat recent townhall discussion with Rick Santorum. Or something. Either way, it is clear in my mind -- and in context -- that he throws the entire libertarian worldview under the bus. We shouldn't be surprised, this is the same Rick Santorum that aided and abetted the wholesale destruction of the fiscal conservative wing of the Republican party.

More from Dave Blount @ Moonbattery:

As suspected, the clip that appeared in a Ron Paul ad of Rick Santorum seemingly denouncing the Tea Party was taken out of context. Actually, he was denouncing libertarian influence on the Republican Party, as can be seen here.

Whether you can attack libertarian influence without implicitly attacking the Tea Party is another question.

For decades socialists have been implementing their platform not through the Socialist Party USA, but through the Democrat Party, which they have taken over and employ as a vehicle to advance their objectives. Through Ron Paul, Libertarians appear to be attempting the same with the Republican Party. 

To the extent this rejuvenates the GOP and sharpens its focus on reducing the size of government and defending individual liberty, it will be for the better, the panicked squeals of statists notwithstanding. But libertarians are asked to leave their naive foreign policy outside the door.
The collective establishment alarm over the libertarian rise in the tea party/GOP or "panicked squeals of statists" definitely applies to liberal squish throwback Rick Santorum.

I would love to see the full context of this 2005 radio segment that appeared on Freedom Watch. Let me know if any of you find it:

More: Santorum links from the Cato Institute:

Is There a Libertarian Case for Rick Santorum?

Rick Santorum's Anti-libertarianism

Santorum is Severely Wrong

Rick Santorum V. Limited Government

Rick Santorum and Limited Government?

Added: Don't forget that Rick Santorum endorsed Arlan Specter over Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania's 2010 senate race.

As it is said, you can judge a man by the company he keeps.


  1. Thank you for taking the time to put these resources together!

    1. Thanks for considering this stuff, Charles.

  2. "I would love to see the full context of this 2005 radio segment that appeared on Freedom Watch."


    1. Cherry picking from the same radio segment, someone could come up with this:

      INSKEEP: "You mentioned earlier a list of what you call bigs, opponents in a sense of what you stand for: big government, big labor."

      SANTORUM: "Yeah. And I do vote with--on a pro-economic growth agenda, and that's pretty much what the Chamber of Commerce votes on."

      SANTORUM: "I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom."

      SANTORUM: "my feeling is that the judge has a responsibility to the Constitution first, precedent second."

  3. The clip above is sharply edited. I've been looking for an unedited video, but I've yet to find one. The Right Scoop has a bit more context:


    24:05 Pennsylvania Press Club Moderator:
    Should the Public Accommodations Section of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill be open for revision?

    24:11-25:35 Rick Santorum:
    No. Look I supported Trey Grayson over Rand Paul and there was a reason for that … I am not a Libertarian and I fight very strongly against Libertarian influence in the Republican party and the conservative movement. I don’t think the Libertarians have it right when it comes to what the Constitution is all about. I don’t think they have it right as to what our history is and we are not a group of people who believe in no government. We are a people that believes that government has a role to play: federal government has a role to play, state government has a role to play and local government has a role to play; and when there are clear wrongs in society, when there are injustices in society, sure you handle it at the local level if you can, but when the local and state level are in cahoots with the injustice, then the federal government has to step in and do something; and I’m just hopeful that is a mistake that will be corrected by Mr. Paul, but as I’ve said before, I have some real concerns about this movement within the Republican Party and the Tea Party Movement to sort of refashion conservatism and I will vocally and publicly oppose it and do my best to correct the record.

    I agree that Santorum needs a more nuanced, less hostile approach to libertarian ideas. His oversimplified mischaracterization of (L?)ibertarians is unfortunate.

    But it's not clear to me if Santorum is talking about "little L" libertarians or "big L" libertarians. The context of that discussion was the recent statement by Rand Paul on the civil rights act 5/2010: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37550.html. Rand Paul had gotten embroiled in controversy and Santorum clearly wanted no part in it.

    These butchered Santorum clips are exactly what inspired my recent discussion about "SoCons" vs liberatarians:


    Libertarians and social conservatives miss too many opportunities to work together. It's a two way street.

    SoCons point to libertarians, characterizing them as anarchist potheads. Libertarians point to SoCons with pejoratives like "fundies" and "theocrats." I think the animosity is unnecessary, and that only helps the statist left.

    In the war against the Obama agenda, we're not helping each other as much as we could (e.g. Santorum not defending Rand Paul above, or more recently, the underwhelming libertarian response to Obama's abortifacient/contraceptive mandates.)

    Enough already!

    This is really disgusting. If we don't put aside our differences, we'll be standing around pointing fingers at each other while European socialism is fully implemented in America.

    1. Good job RK. Feel free to turn this into a post here, if you don't have time to I'll jump on it in the next couple of day. This is a good discussion and as you say here, something that needs to be hashed out.

    2. I'll put something together on Friday.

  4. Indeed a great job RK.

    What strikes me as almost amusing, were it not so sad is that the statists of the right are really no better than the statists of the left.

    I mean it is only a matter of where you what your statist to have the most influence on your liberties. My problem with the Socons is so many of them are nothing but reactionary and stand in the way of natural progress that occurs from scientific discovery etc. Many live by, and want you as well to live by their belief(s) in some mystical and outdated concepts.

    Only MO of course, but in observing the course of movements these past several decades the trend seems clear top me, and it ain't very settling.

  5. Statist impulses show up everywhere on the political spectrum. But I think libertarians need to do some soul searching to think about who their allies should be.

    In thinking about who they can work with, libertarians need to think about where the biggest threat is. Is a right wing totalitarian theocracy our most imminent threat? Or is left wing crony statism more likely?

    I think liberarians and the right wing can work together. But I'm not encouraged by what I've seen lately.


    If there are SoCons trying to interfere with scientific progress, I don't see where they've had a lot of impact. To the extent that they've had any influence, they've perhaps tried to get govt out of funding x, y or z ... (Which would seem to be a fairly libertarian-friendly thing to do.)

    With science in general, we've seen more politicization with each passing year. Whether it's environmental science, reproduction, IQ science (http://www.rightklik.net/2012/02/bright-minds-dark-attitudes-progressive.html) -- you name it -- it's been politicized and spiritualized and bastardized in every conceivable way.

    "Religionizing" political policy is unfortunately not the sole province of the right. The dominant media turn a blind eye to the transgressions of the left in this arena, but I don't think it's any less prominent.

  6. Of course statist impulses creep into every political philosophy and agenda, it after all entirely about power and control... Pick where you wish to be controlled the least.

    Actually it goes beyond just rightwing theocratic statism, right wing statism is evident in government The Patriot Act and Homeland security being just two examples. We have more to fear from right wing democratic fascism than we do from left wing democratic socialism. Please don't take my word for it but do read "The Ominous Parallels" by Leonard Piekoff.

    As a independent classical liberal with strong libertarian leanings I do not wish to align myself with, nor support individuals such as Santorum, Gingrich, or Romney. Anymore than I wish to align with Obama. As long as there are individuals such as Ron Paul or Gary Johnson I shall align with and support those folks. It is time to really stand by the principles of limited constitutional government and actually work for change rather than just a different brand of statism.

    With respect to "religionizing" political policy the right has a huge lead. At least most on the left at least understand what the founders meant in the first amendment. Governance and religion has no business in the same arena. The founders understood religion was personal not public and they did not intend for what we see today. Santorum and those as blind as he apparently is would do well to stick to policy issues of economics, defense, infrastructure, international affairs, the fed, how to rebuild capitalism (as in real rather than crony) to name a few. And stay the hell out of our personal affairs. Either that or join a monastery or convent.

    Oh, it has always been throughout history the religious zealots that have resisted and stood in the way of science whenever it questioned their mystical religious dogma.

    JMO of course...


Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.