Turning the Herd: Someone Has to Get in Front and Lead

We’ve all seen the movie scene when the herd of cattle is stampeding toward the edge of the cliff. Someone must race to the front of the herd and turn it before the he

rd topples over to disaster. Most constitutional conservatives think that America is the cattle herd, and that disaster is imminent. To mix metaphors, it is as if Barack Obama and his heir apparent Hillary are pressing the pedal to the metal, and are driving the herd over the cliff side. Conservatives are desperately looking for someone to turn the herd.

I have no doubt that establishment Republicans can put forward a candidate who will competently manage the herd over the cliff’s edge. A McCain, a Romney, or a Bush would make sure that every bovine would keep in step as it races toward death. The establishment Republican might even slow down the pace, but the herd would meet its destined disaster, nonetheless.

Based upon their ineffectiveness in the Senate to stop the Obama agenda, we should envision Republican leaders such as Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio as those cowboys who race to the front

of the herd and promptly get run over and stomped into the ground. Republicans elected constitutional conservatives and gave them majorities in both House and Senate, but none of them have mounted effective opposition against the Obama agenda. They followed the establishment leadership of Boehner, McConnell, and Ryan, and they gave Obama everything he asked. They will not be able to turn the herd. They are unable to forge alliances necessary for effective leadership, and they will be trampled into the dirt.

We’re looking for the kind of leader who not only holds the right positions, but also knows how to lead—someone who is courageous enough to take a stand in front of all opposition, and who knows how to work the system to tur

n the herd.

In his time in public office, Santorum stormed Congress, exposed the bank scandal and changed congressional practice. Against a presidential veto, he pressed through Welfare Reform. With cultural winds against him and the Supreme Court as well, he effectively won the ban against Partial Birth Abortion. When Senate Republican Mark Hatfield decisively voted against the Balanced Budget Amendment, Santorum had his head; despite Jesse Helms’ surprising attempt to protect Hatfield, Santorum’s opposition to Hatfield culminated in Hatfield’s retirement from the Senate. These were all herd-turning moments for American life.

The only objection that constitutional conservatives have to Santorum is the assertion that he has no chance of winning. Yet, the Santorum campaign is well ahead of its 2012 game when he won the Iowa Caucuses after being down at 2% in the polls two weeks prior. The fact that the number two candidate in the 2012 election gets so little recognition from the Republican establishment is noteworthy. The Republican establishment seems to have little fear of Cruz or Rubio or Paul, but is deathly afraid of a Santorum presidency. They have seen him turn the herd before, and they know that his election would mean that their party is over.

Santorum and Reagan's 3-Legged Stool

There's no doubt that the social conservative of this primary season is Sen. Santorum. However, Reagan conservatism is a three-legged stool, and all three legs are necessary for a stool to make: social issues, fiscal restraint/small government, and national defense. Accordingly, I don't support candidates just because they are passionate about traditional moral values. While Santorum makes the headlines on the social issues, it is his stance on all three legs which makes me an ardent supporter.

If it were only a matter of fiscal restraint, (and if there weren't so much racism in his newsletters), I'd be very much tempted to support Ron Paul. If it were only a matter of jobs creation, I might be tempted to vote for Romney. If it were only a matter of good governance, I might be tempted to vote for Perry. But the stool where the three legs of the stool are equally secure and proven is Rick Santorum.

On social issues and traditional moral values, little more needs to be said other than that Santorum rightly asserts that not only has he been the effective leader, but one who has been in the forefront taking the bullets. But Santorum's stance is not merely informed by his Judeo-Christian worldview. Rather, his pragmatic side is evident in that he alone articulates why healthy families are key to a healthy economy. Citing that 40 some percent of families with only one parent are living in poverty, Santorum perceptively argues that you can't fix the economy without strengthening families.


On fiscal restraint and on reducing the size of government, Santorum's bedrock beliefs can be seen in a number of episodes in his tenure in government, but none so keenly than in two particular titanic struggles. The first was the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. For the first time ever, a federal entitlement was ended. While Gingrich is quick to take credit for this, it was Santorum who co-authored the bill and did the heavy lifting as the floor manager. The second epic struggle was over the 1995 Balanced Budget Amendment which Santorum co-sponsored . This bill was passed by a 2/3rds majority in the House and sent to the Senate . The final vote was a nail-biter, coming down to the vote of a RINO, Mark Hatfield. He will forever be remembered as the Senator who prevented the Balanced Budget Amendment being sent to the States which almost certainly would have ratified it, so that we would not be in the mess we are in today.

When the Senate defeated the bill by a single vote, Santorum vociferously railed against RINO Hatfield, arguing that he should be stripped of his chairmanship and removed from Republican leadership. Although Republicans did not take this punitive step, it was clear that Hatfield would be challenged in the next primary, and he retired the next year.

On national security, Santorum is well known for his strong stance on defense. He still remembers how we swore our most sacred vows that there must never, ever be another 9/11. None of the candidates is more informed on the threat of radical Islam. Frankly, with the exception of Santorum, the Republican candidates are all rather weak on foreign policy. On the other hand, Santorum's strong suit is the Middle East and Latin America. While the economy is the central focus of this election, I fear that the next President is likely to face a significant foreign policy challenge that will once again occupy his attention. That all important 3 a.m. phone call must be answered by someone who has depth in national security.

Yes, I am an Evangelical and social conservative. But social issues do not drive my motivation to support Santorum. I'm in Santorum's camp because his is the best stool for conservatives in this primary season.