Mon, July 25, 2005
Chilling. Chilling.—9:20 PM
Just finished watching tonight's Daily Show with guest Senator Rick Santorum. (At the desk for two segments; there was almost no comedy at all!) Obviously, a team of image consultants have been hammering on this guy for the last six months, even in his sleep.
Not only did he sound intelligent and reasonable, he sounded more reasonable than Jon Stewart. Don't get me wrong, I won't take his side that the government should make a special case for families headed by one man and one woman because they're more valuable to society than same-sex couples – though I suspect at least one reader will. But after tonight's interview, I could agree to disagree with Rick Santorum on the issue. I never thought that would happen.
He's wrong about the relative merits of gay vs. straight couples, and he's very wrong about the "culture war" (and of course that refrain still drives me up the wall). But Santorum made sense, rolled with the punches, got his point across clearly, and came off as a friendly, respectful – even open-minded – guy. He was poised and affable, even through Stewart's typical barrage of snide interjections. He weathered much better than Bernard Goldberg did a couple of weeks ago. I'm absolutely astonished.
Brandon — Tue, 7/26/05 3:10pm
I don't know that I'd call Stewart's interjections "snide"; I'd maybe call them overzealous. It was a very serious discussion, and it seemed like Stewart felt more compelled than usual to stick in laughs where he could find them. I'd also guess that he, like you and I, was caught off guard by Santorum's performance, and that might have thrown him off his usual game.
I don't buy Santorum's argument at all. Not in an age where same-sex couples - loving, committed, monogamous same-sex couples - have access to scientific advances like in-vitro fertilization and cultural advances like surrogate mothers that allow them to bear and raise their own biological children. Unless Santorum's book has a section with detailed, unimpeachable evidence that heterosexual couples make for better parents (and how one would come up with such evidence is beyond me), his proposition is little more than high-minded, condescending gay bashing. Subtle yes, but just as dangerous.
And without the "better parent" argument, Santorum's point of view gets really ridiculous, because then all he's got left in favor of heterosexual couples is the "ease of reproduction" angle, which is stupid, because any mouth-breathing shitbag hump who knows where to stick his dingle can get a girl pregnant. Conception is the simple part; it's the raising a child portion where parenting comes in. It's hard work, and it takes patience, dedication and a Titanic-sized boatload of love, and the last time I checked, none of those qualities had anything whatsoever to do with how you get your orgasms.
You want the government to make special cases for families under the auspices of investing in the future of the country, Rick? How bout giving tax breaks to help out parents who stay home with their kids? How bout investing more money to make high-quality daycare available and affordable for those parents who don't wish to quit working? How bout more money for public schools, who have nearly as much impact on these future generations as the parents do? All this other bullshit about who deserves the title of "married" and who's the best family is a waste of our time and our resources, and I for one am absolutely fucking sick of it.
Bee Boy — Tue, 7/26/05 3:46pm
I'm pretty sure that his is the "better parents" argument. And I disagree with Santorum because you're right: detailed, unimpeachable evidence is impossible to provide at this point – the whole phenomenon is just too new. But the other side of that coin is that it's too soon to provide detailed, unimpeachable evidence that "one-man-one-woman" families don't provide a more ideal formative household, either. (Even if I think they don't.) Which is why, based on Monday's discussion with Jon, I feel I have to agree to disagree with Santorum on the issue. I don't agree with his proposed legislation or amendment on the matter, but on the "better parents" thing, who am I to say?
Still, I credit all this to the image consultants. Santorum has a campaign to run next year and he needs to seem less like a crazy wackjob and more like a candidate. He's probably not telling the whole truth about what he believes, in order to "fit in." But he held his own against Jon, and – for this interview, at least – sounded pretty reasonable and respectful.
As to the "snide," I think the overall quality at TDS has suffered. It's not just the new set: Ed Helms's recent piece with the "hidden" camera on his Speedo was sophomoric and goofy, none of the biting media criticism the show usually does. Jon seems more desperate for laughs, making side jokes about the over-the-shoulder graphics or mugging when material doesn't go over well. And he's been interrupting guests more frequently than before, making jokes at the expense of the conversation's momentum. It worked to hilarious effect with Bernard Goldberg and, last year, Stephen F. Hayes. But, funny as it is, it doesn't seem very fair. I don't think it's related to the seriousness of the topic; I think it's related to how much Jon disagrees with the guest. The Daily Show is still my number one source for news, but I'm starting to step back from the superfan I was at this time last year. I hope the decline is a temporary result of their faltering confidence post-election, and not a permanent effect of Colbert's move to his own show.
"michwagn" — Wed, 7/27/05 8:41am
Oh Jamison, you disappoint me! :-)
I thought that Senator Santorum performed very well on TDS the other day, but I don't think that he argued well.
First, he talked about the decline of what he said was "something I call social capital." This may be a small point, but that is not something he camp up with. Prof. Robert Putnam at Harvard wrote a book called Bowling Alone: The Decline of Social Capital in America (I may have gotten the second title a little wrong, but that's the gist). So, it isn't something Sen. Santorum came up with. He is free to use that book's argument and findings to help make his own point (though Putnam does not argue that it all starts with the family, as Sen. Santorum does), but he shouldn't pass it off as his own argument.
Now on to the real stuff. Sen. Santorum, early in the first segment, said that his critics say that he doesn't care about heterosexual divorce, but he addresses that subject in his book. That is laudable, but that is a straw man argument. The issue isn't whether he cares about heterosexual divorce, it is about whether he thinks all Americans deserve equal access to marrying the one adult of their choice. That is different and he does not address it because he knows that if he did, he'd have to say, "I don't think men should marry men," which he wants to avoid saying, at least for the time being.
He also kept talking about "what's best," a point Brandon picked up on. How does he know what's best? And why would one begin with the premise that patriarchal marriage between a man and a woman is best (that is not what he says himself, but he often referred to the history of marriage in his argument and so I am taking the liberty...)
One of his main points is that marriage provides stability for the future, with the underlying premise that men and women need to do it to keep the population going. This was true until a few years ago.
Now, we have tons of kids available for adoption and many technological ways of starting a family that have no direct relationship to putting a penis in a vagina (though there is the indirect relationship one someone's sperm and someone's egg, a romantic petri dish and Barry White playing...). I think it is worth studying (though not debating just yet) whether kids conceived in a dish or in artificial insemination are somehow different than those produced from sex. I would hypothesize there is no difference, but that is worth studying. It is also worth studying various outcomes for kids from gay families, straight ones, single-parent ones, etc.
I imagine that the answer would be that it varies.
Next, Sen. Santorum talks about how we should "treat everyone equally." Then why not let two consenting adults marry? That is not a "special right," as he and the president like to say, that is an equal right.
Finally, Sen. Santorum is a conservative, a CONSERVATIVE, who said that we should "legislate the ideal." What? Whatever happened to individual freedom? Then, should we legislate that everyone get good at math and learn arabic so they can be in the CIA and be human intelligence because that is the ideal intelligence? Shouldn't we legislate to prevent the worst and help the legitimately downtrodden before we just pony up and push an ideal, one that is likely to be morally malleable?
Anyway.
Bee Boy — Wed, 7/27/05 9:58am
This wasn't something I heard him say on TDS Monday night. I vehemently oppose the hetero-couples-needed-for-breeding argument – as I've stated here before – and I wouldn't give him any credit for his appearance if he'd trotted that one out.
And, as I said, I completely disagree with his proposal to legislate his ideal (heterosexual couples as parents). But I think he finally presented his view in the most nearly arguable way, at least in this particular TDS appearance: the "better parents" approach. Which I don't agree with, but I can't dismiss out of hand because: what data do we have? How does he know what's best? He doesn't. But by the same token, how do we?
I went a few rounds with Arksie on this over e-mail a while back, and it comes down to that: if someone legitimately believes that one man and one woman make a more ideal formative environment for raising a child (vs. two men, two women, one man, or one woman, or – in Santorum's world – some sort of goat), I legitimately disagree with them, but I can't tear that argument down.
As I said in the evolution post, it's unfair to define "best" by looking at the outcome we have and reverse engineering it. (i.e., "Kids today are well-adjusted [debatable] and they came from mom-dad households; therefore, mom-dad households are the only way to produce well-adjusted kids.") Santorum's disagreement with non-mom-dad households seems to stem from a fear that if parents are the same gender, it sets a weird and deviant example for the youngster. Arksie comes at it from a more reasonable direction. My gut tells me to disagree with both. I think there are plenty of ways to produce well-adjusted kids, and it starts with a loving relationship between the parent(s) and the child. But I can't defend my view that dad-dad is significantly indistinguishable from mom-dad with the same unwavering, crush-all-opposition conviction I reserve for evolution, because I'm not aware of hard evidence either way.
"michwagn" — Wed, 7/27/05 10:07am
Quoting here to start (I just have no interest in formatting...I know! I know, I just use other people's good work, sigh).
ME: One of his main points is that marriage provides stability for the future, with the underlying premise that men and women need to do it to keep the population going. This was true until a few years ago.
YOU: This wasn't something I heard him say on TDS Monday night. I vehemently oppose the hetero-couples-needed-for-breeding argument – as I've stated here before – and I wouldn't give him any credit for his appearance if he'd trotted that one out.
Ok, ME again: I didn't mean to suggest he made the heteros are needed for breeding argument. I meant to suggest that the premise underlying his arguments suggested (and I think he almost said this but held back) that the breeders argument is a main artery of his conviction.
I didn't mean to suggest you come down on this issue anywhere near the Sen. Santorum side, I was playfully being disappointed b/c you were impressed by Sen. Santorum's turn on TDS.
Yeah, I agree that there is no argument that crushes the mom-dad argument, just like there is no mom-dad argument that crushes the mom-mom or dad-dad argument.
Bee Boy — Wed, 7/27/05 10:19am
He he! All good. I haven't read Santorum's book and won't, and based on what little I've seen him say in public on the issue, I would not have assumed the population argument is in there. But if it is, fuck him.
Believe me, I expected to watch Stewart tear Santorum to shreds. But I really thought Santorum held his own, and that impressed me because I think Jon tried to undermine him a lot of times just to get a laugh or because he thinks he's smarter than Santorum is. (Which he probably is. We all are, probably, including that goat.)
I guess all my marveling should've been reserved for Santorum's handlers and image consultants, for training him how to be on TV for twelve minutes without spouting one of the ridiculously moronic things he usually says. His seeming normalcy impressed me, and then Jon's frustrating interruptions irked me, so I ended up sort of defending Santorum in that fight.
Interestingly, Jon mentioned in the following night's opener that most people thought his Santorum interview sucked – implying that he should've been harder on the senator. I guess that just validates the view of TDS viewers as opinionated lefties who watch the show to be told that they're righter than everyone else and smarter than everyone else. A group I'm cheerfully among, but come on TDS audience! Step outside yourselves a little!
Bee Boy — Wed, 7/27/05 10:22am
Oh, and by the way, credit to you, sir. That "some kind of goat" line is something I artfully lifted from your own delicious critique of Santorum on this site a year ago.
Brandon — Wed, 7/27/05 5:05pm
I don't agree with his proposed legislation or amendment on the matter, but on the "better parents" thing, who am I to say?
But my feeling is, who is Santorum to say either? You say you can't attack his point of view because there's no "evidence that 'one-man-one-woman' families don't provide a more ideal formative household, either" - that's only because that's the way it's always been. So for Santorum to call that the "ideal" is patently false; an alternative has never really been given a full and honest chance. You can't call something an ideal without an in-depth study full of lots of comparative data, and there's no way Santorum has anything even close to that.
And doing just a hetero vs. non-hetero family study still wouldn't give you an ideal, because there's so many other factors that affect raising a child: What's the family's financial situation? What kind of neighborhood/environment did the child grow up in? What's the impact of extended family and their physical proximity (i.e. grandparents living nearby)? For Santorum to say he has any kind of "ideal" is arrogant and simple-minded, and frankly, smells like a lie. He's not that dumb. In fact, he (and/or his handlers) are so smart, they've latched onto a line of thinking that allows them to dress up something ugly (homophobic prejudice) into something that seems noble and well-intentioned and shiny and pretty.
"Holly" — Wed, 7/27/05 6:35pm
I thought one of Jon Stewart's best points was that this one-man, one-woman "ideal" loving partnership actually LACKS any lengthy historical precedent. Santorum said that for "4000 years" this has been the ideal in our culture – but that's simply not true. Marriage was mostly about property and other legal arrangements up until the last couple hundred years or so, when "love" became the bigger reason to get married. A couple in 1654 England was not necessarily assumed to love one another. They were assumed to be doing their duty for economic or diplomatic reasons. And we could go even further back into our 4000-year-old cultural history, say to ancient Athens, when a man might marry a woman in order to secure (again) property and provide the correct heirs for diplomatic reasons, but when he might also be equally socially expected to have a public loving/mentoring/sexual relationship with a younger man.
Santorum saying that, for 4000 years, marriage has meant nothing but a man and woman uniting in love is just goofy. Our idea of loving, mutually consensual marriage is – surprise – a modern innovation – a CHANGE – but I think most of us would agree that we're happier this way. (Does a hastily arranged marriage to settle some petty financial dispute between your and your spouse's parents sound like fun?)
I don't see why we can't have more modern innovations, and I don't see why we should fear them.
My suspicion, of course, is that some part of Santorum would be thrilled to have marriage revert to a legal/property arrangement designed for the benefit of the heterosexual man. In which case he WOULD be relatively in line with centuries of his cultural heritage.
Bee Boy — Thu, 7/28/05 10:19am
I'm reminded of the scene in Wedding Crashers when Christopher Walken is talking about how the adorable, doe-eyed Rachel McAdams is arranged to marry the icy, cutthroat Bradley Cooper (Boo! Hiss!) because it will finally achieve the joining of two prominent, wealthy, powerful (WASPy) American families. "No!" we screamed (in our minds, of course – ArcLight had admonished us to "refrain" from talking). "She should marry for love! She should marry Owen 'The Butterscotch Stallion' Wilson! Because he truly cares about her! Why won't she suddenly realize how uncaring her relationship with Bradley Cooper is after completely ignoring the problem for the duration of their five-year relationship!"
And then, she did.
Okay, you just made me throw up in my own mouth.
"Holly" — Fri, 7/29/05 8:54am
Remember, in "Troy," they claimed that Patrokles was Brad Pitt's "cousin" and that's why Brad Pitt loved him so much...? not necessarily Homer's intention with that relationship.
"AC" — Fri, 7/29/05 10:26am
No.
"Holly" — Fri, 7/29/05 3:27pm
Heh heh heh.
I had a class with a PhD student in Classics, who specialized in ancient Greece, and mentioning "Troy" to her always elicited this hilarious shudder of revulsion and a brief lecture on its problems. We started doing it for fun.
Bee Boy — Mon, 8/7/06 9:48am
Okay, so this was one of those WTF moments: I drove to work today behind someone with a "Santorum 2006" bumper sticker. Not a vacationing Pennsylvanian – Florida tags. This makes absolutely no sense unless they're saying, "I hate gay people so much, I'm promoting Santorum as an ideology even though I can't vote for him."
What else could it possibly mean? (Maybe they live up there and have a summer house down here? Still doesn't make sense to shill for a guy none of us can vote for.)
I have to admit, I gagged a little.
Just in case, I Googled "Santorum Florida," figuring maybe there's another candidate here by the same name. The only results were in reference to this story. (Gag again.)
Brandon — Mon, 8/7/06 2:02pm
Could be a Pennsylvanian who just moved to Florida and got new plates.