(Best of the tube tonight: Watch us on "Hannity," Fox News Channel, 9 p.m. ET, with a repeat showing at midnight ET. The "Great American Panel" starts around 40 minutes in.)

This column has tended to agree with the conventional wisdom that among the Republicans running for president, Mitt Romney is the safest choice, the most "electable." See, for example, our rebuttal of Richard Miniter's contrarian column from late last month. We still think Romney, on balance, would be a stronger general-election candidate than Newt Gingrich for reasons of the latter's personal and political character. But Rick Santorum's surge has us thinking second thoughts about the electability question.

That is despite the obviousness of the case against Santorum in the abstract, which is that moderate voters are more likely to abandon a too-conservative candidate than the converse. What are right-wingers going to do, vote for Obama?

The obvious shortcoming of such an analysis is that it is extremely simplistic, reducing the complex and diverse political culture of a nation of 300 million to a one-dimensional ideological scale. Anything that complicates the picture--that brings into view considerations that transcend the single dimension of "left" to "right"--is reason to question the conclusion.

Of late we have been struck powerfully by one such complication, namely the emotional intensity of the opposition to Santorum by some on the center-right. This has led them to criticize him on grounds that are utterly irrational. A case in point is The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf, a disciple of the self-styled conservative dissident David Frum. Here is a Santorum quote, from an interview with CaffeinatedThoughts.com, that he finds objectionable:

That's the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that's not for purposes of procreation, that's not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can't you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it's simply pleasure. And that's certainly a part of it--and it's an important part of it, don't get me wrong--but there's a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special. Again, I know most presidents don't talk about those things, and maybe people don't want us to talk about those things, but I think it's important that you are who you are. I'm not running for preacher.

Now, let us stipulate that this quote makes us cringe a bit. In other circumstances, we might be inclined to mock Santorum for talking about how to make sex "special." If Friedersdorf took a cheap shot in that manner, it would be unremarkable. But he doesn't. Here is his rejoinder:


In truth, Santorum says only that he would "talk about" what he sees as the social harms of contraception. There is no conflict whatever between limited government and moral exhortation, provided the latter is unaccompanied by legislative or administrative action.

And the quote is very much in keeping with "a tradition rooted in the pursuit of happiness." Santorum is merely making a case for deferred gratification. His claim is that the easy availability of birth control has enabled and encouraged a pursuit of pleasure that is inimical to the achievement of happiness. One may reasonably argue that Santorum is overgeneralizing or that on the whole he is mistaken. But to write him out of the American tradition on the basis of that quote, as Friedersdorf attempts to do, is simply bonkers.

Another example comes from Jennifer Rubin, the Washington Post's conservative blogress, who posted yesterday under the headline "Santorum: Birth Control 'Harmful to Women.' " It is a reaction to a 2006 video from CN8, a cable-news station in Pennsylvania, posted contemporaneously to YouTube by the Lantern Project, a Democratic 501(c)(4) corporation.

Rubin does not quote from the Santorum interview, except for the phrase in the headline, which blogger Thomas Grace faults her for taking out of context. So let's look at her response to Santorum first:

For starters, does he realize that married women (men too!) use birth control? The impression that Santorum finds the prevalent practice of birth control "harmful to women" is, frankly, mind-numbing. If he meant to focus on teen sexual promiscuity, he surely could have, and thereby might have sounded less out of touch.
Now, he qualifies his religious views by saying he doesn't vote against contraception "because it's not the taking of a human life" (in other contexts he has emphasized that as a legal matter he has no problem with contraception). But how does that square with his professed belief that a candidate's values are essential to understanding and predicting his behavior? Perhaps that's an abortion-only rule. (And really, where are George Stephanopoulos's questions on this topic when you need them?)
In any event, this sort of thing undermines Santorum's electability argument.

Now here's a full transcript of the Santorum video:

Host: So, would birth control be covered by that notion of freedom without responsibility?
Santorum: I'm--look, I vote and have supported, you know, birth control because it is not the taking of a human life. But, you know, I'm not a believer in birth control--in artificial birth control. Again, I think it goes down the line of being able to do whatever you want to do without having the responsibility that comes with that. And I don't think it--it breaks what I think--now, this is from a personal point of view. From a governmental point of view, I support, you know, Title X, I guess it is, and have voted for contraception--although I don't think it works. I think it's harmful to women, I think it's harmful to our society to have a society that says that, you know, sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated, particularly among the young, and I think it has--and we've seen very, very harmful long-term consequences to a society. So birth control to me enables that, and I don't think it's a healthy thing for our country.

So as a political matter, it turns out then-Sen. Santorum not only "doesn't vote against contraception," but voted to subsidize it. (Title X is a Nixon-era family-planning program that directs federal taxpayer money to, among others, the pro-abortion group Planned Parenthood.)

Sen. Santorum in 2006 CN8/YouTube

Rubin proclaims herself puzzled as to how Santorum can "square" his attitudes toward birth control, on which he would not impose his religious views through legislation, and abortion, on which he would. But Santorum explains that right off the bat: The latter but not the former, in his view, is "the taking of a human life." That's Romney's position too, and the position of every Republican presidential nominee since Reagan.

In the video Rubin scorns, Santorum actually makes an entirely reasonable and fairly sophisticated argument, and he says nothing cringe-worthy. He doesn't appeal to the authority of the church or "family values." He doesn't say that people who fornicate are going to hell or ought to be ashamed of themselves. Nor does he deny that it is prudent for them to use birth control.

What he says is that birth control has greatly expanded sexual freedom, and that sexual freedom has had consequences that are harmful to society and to women in particular. Again, one may disagree whether, on balance, these harms outweighed the benefits. But what is so upsetting about the idea that they might have? What in the world explains Friedersdorf's and Rubin's overwrought emotionalism?

Here's our attempt at an explanation: In liberal metropolises like Los Angeles, Washington and New York (homes of Friedersdorf, Rubin and this columnist, respectively), a high proportion of conservatives have internalized the assumptions of feminism. One of those assumptions is that female sexual freedom, an essential component of sexual equality, is an unadulterated good. Santorum's statements to the contrary challenge this deeply held view.

Furthermore, contemporary feminism is, as we recently argued, a totalitarian ideology, by which we mean one that tolerates no divergence between the personal and the political. If you are not a feminist, you can enjoy a lifestyle of sexual freedom and also take seriously the idea that sexual freedom is bad for society. If you are a feminist, that is a thoughtcrime. Thoughtcrimes are enforced through cognitive dissonance, which produces the departures from rationality that we have seen here from Friedersdorf and, to a lesser extent, from Rubin.

We say "to a lesser extent" because Rubin's bottom line, that Santorum's personal opinions about birth control make him unelectable, is not outlandish and could be true. But to the extent that Friedersdorf and Rubin support that hypothesis, it is by example rather than by logic. That is, if their emotions are typical of those of independent voters in swing states, then Rubin's conclusion is probably correct. But like this columnist, they are members of a rarefied class--media professionals living in highly Democratic areas--so the premise is counterintuitive to say the least.

Totalitarian ideologies sustain themselves in large part through fear, and feminism has been particularly fearsome of late, as the Susan G. Komen ladies and the Catholic bishops can attest. But our intuition is that this is a sign of weakness, not strength. The fearful reactions to Santorum's heresies against sexual freedom reinforce that sense.

This column has its differences with Rick Santorum, but we admire him for his fearlessness in challenging feminist pieties. "One man with courage makes a majority," Andrew Jackson is supposed to have observed. Is Rick Santorum such a man? If not, let's hear a reasoned argument to the contrary.

America's Got Talent
How well oiled is the Mitt Romney bandwagon? That ear-piercing squeak you hear is a Romney campaign conference call in which Jim Talent "denounced [Rick] Santorum's spending record," as Byron York reports. Talent, from Missouri, is a former U.S. senator, and that's the trouble:

Among the targets of Talent's criticism was Santorum's support of the Medicare prescription drug entitlement. "He voted for Medicare Part D, a big expansion of a federal entitlement," Talent said of Santorum.
The problem was, Talent himself was in the Senate at the time, and he also voted for Medicare Part D.

Citing a Weekly Standard report, York notes that "when reporters brought up that fact, Talent explained that he wasn't running against Santorum--Romney was." And Romney voted against Medicare Part D.

Oh, but of course he didn't. Romney was never in Congress, having lost his maiden race for the Senate in 1994, the same year Santorum won his. What if he'd won, and a re-elected Sen. Romney had been called on to vote on Medicare Part D?

Remember that this new entitlement passed in 2003 and was a signature legislative initiative of a Republican administration. As best we can tell from a quick Factiva search, Romney took no position on the legislation at the time. The roll-call vote shows that the bill passed the Senate 54-44 with bipartisan but mostly Republican support.

Of the 51 Republicans then in the Senate, only 9 voted "no." The "no" votes included conservative Republicans, but also liberal ones and the vast majority of Democrats, including the man who beat Romney. So if Romney had cast a vote on the legislation, he would have voted either "yes" like Santorum or "no" like Ted Kennedy. As York observes, "the episode highlighted why Santorum will be more difficult for the Romney team to attack than Newt Gingrich."

Their Idea of Balance
"The uproar threatens to embroil the Catholic church in a bitter election-year political battle while deepening internal rifts within the church. On the one side are traditionalists who believe in upholding Catholic doctrine to the letter, and on the other, modernists who believe the church must respond to changing times and a pluralistic society."--news story, New York Times, Feb. 15

Culture War Triumphalism
Michael Lind has an unwittingly funny piece in Salon. "American conservatives are deranged by anger," he claims, and little wonder:

For decades, they have been losing on multiple fronts. From the culture war to the welfare state to foreign policy, conservative initiatives have been rejected by the American people and repudiated by public policy. At most they have won a few battles while losing the war.

His piece goes through a long list of liberal triumphs, starting with the claim that "even with a conservative majority on the Supreme Court Roe v. Wade is in no danger of being overruled"--which is true so long as Justice Anthony Kennedy is the fifth member of that majority. If President Santorum gets to appoint the successor to Kennedy or a Clinton nominee, watch out.

But wait. What about the landmark cases in which Kennedy is on the other side, like Citizens United v. FEC, the free-speech case liberals hate, or District of Columbia v. Heller, which finally established that the Second Amendment has meaning? Or even Grutter v. Bollinger, upholding racial preferences in university admissions? It stands but is in danger of being overturned. On these cases, crickets from Lind. He does, on the other hand, boast of the easy availability of pornography, though he calls it "a triumph for libertinism, if not liberalism."

Gay rights are on the march, he says. Fair enough. "American conservatives have met defeat in their efforts to dismantle the middle-class welfare state." That "middle-class" is an important qualification, for it leaves out the 1996 welfare reform. But that doesn't count, according to Lind, because Republicans didn't do it alone. Likewise for the failure of Obama administration priorities on forced unionism and global warming. These aren't conservative victories because some Democrats opposed these measures.

"The only significant achievements that the right can claim on its own have been the tax cuts under Reagan and [George W.] Bush," Lind claims. By Lind's standards, they shouldn't even get credit for that. After all, the Reagan tax cuts passed a Democratic House, and Bush's were extended in 2010 by a completely Democratic Congress and signed by the most liberal president in history.

Oh well, whatever. Lind's main point is that liberalism's stock has never been higher, and you'd better buy now before it's too late.

Out on a Limb
"President Barack Obama's chances of winning a second term appear better today than at anytime in the past two years, but there are plenty of things that could go wrong between now and November."--Joe Peyronnin, Puffington Host, Feb. 15

We Blame Global Warming
"Fashion Week 2012: Coats Make a Comeback"--headline, NPR.org, Feb. 16

Longest Books Ever Written

Does This Mean Megadeth Is Pro-Life?
"Megadeth Frontman Backs Rick Santorum"--headline, Politico.com, Feb. 15

They Really Ought to Do Something About Their Appearance
"TSA Officers Focus on Security, Not Good Looks"--headline, blog.tsa.gov, Feb. 15

Eat Your Heart Out, TSA
"Swiss Craft Janitor Satellites to Grab Space Junk"--headline, Associated Press, Feb. 15

A Job for Bill Bennett
"Does America Need a Video Game Czar?"--headline, Townhall.com, Feb. 14

Always Use Condoms
"Homophobic Leaflets in Sweden Aren't Protected"--headline, CourthouseNews.com, Feb. 14

Please Tell Us Galveston Is All Right
"Houston Discovered in Tub Underwater, Unconscious"--headline, Seattle Times, Feb. 14

Truth in Advertising
"Man Suffers Heart Attack While Eating at Heart Attack Grill"--headline, Yahoo! News, Feb. 15

Would You Like Eyes With That?
"Hearing Set for Man Charged in Brain-Eating Case"--headline, Associated Press, Feb. 15

That's a Particularly Painful Place to Be Shot
"Mercedes Ad Won't Be Shot in Oregon"--headline, Associated Press, Feb. 15

Hey, Kids! What Time Is It?

  • "Time to Tame the Federal Beast"--headline, Andrew Napolitano syndicated column, Feb. 16
  • "High Time to Boot the Houseguests Who Refuse to Leave"--headline, George Will syndicated column, Feb. 16

Questions Nobody Is Asking

Answers to Questions Nobody Is Asking

  • "Free Advice for Archbishop Dolan"--headline, E.J. Dionne blog post, Washington Post, Feb. 14
  • "Ex-President Carter Says Occupy Movement Successful in Putting Wealth Disparity on Agenda"--headline, Associated Press, Feb. 15

It's Always in the Last Place You Look

  • "Social Media Tool Aims to Help Journalists Find Undiscovered, Reliable Sources on Twitter"--headline, Poynter.org, Feb. 14
  • "Teen Girl Discovers 'Swinging' Parents Online"--headline, TheLocal.de, Feb. 16

Too Much Information

  • "Huguely Jurors See Photos of Love's Injuries"--headline, Washington Times, Feb. 14
  • "Science: It's Really, Really Hard, and That's Something to Celebrate"--headline, NPR.org, Feb. 14

Bottom Stories of the Day

  • "Republican Presidential Candidates Have No Specific Plans to Visit Augusta Before March 6 Primary"--headline, Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle, Feb. 15
  • "Romney Says He's Unsure Why Palin's Not Convinced of His Credentials"--headline, NationalJournal.com, Feb. 15
  • "Perry's Support for Gingrich Remains Low-Key"--headline, Austin American-Statesman, Feb. 14

Clubbing 'Glee'
PolitiFact, the Tampa Bay Times's already silly "fact checking" operation, rates the following statement "pants on fire": "The U.S. Census believes that by 2030 the majority of Americans will use Spanish as their first language."

What politician said that? David Martinez. Only he's not a politician. He's not even a real person. He's a character on "Glee." Not content with tendentious "fact checks" of politicians, the Tampa Bay Times's PolitiFact operation is now checking fictional TV series.

Just think, if only we had "fact checkers" around back in the 1970s, when Norman Lear's liberal lies were broadcast to millions of American homes on the top-rated sitcom "All in the Family," George McGovern and Walter Mondale might never have become president.

Follow us on Twitter.

Join Fans of Best of the Web Today on Facebook.


(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Hillel Markowitz, Frederick Ingham, Eric Jensen, Stuart Sechrest, Jim Cummings, Michele Schiesser, John Bobek, Richard Belzer, Daniel Mullen, Mark Finkelstein, Kevin Burns, Brian Lavin, Paul Dyck, Robert Firriolo, Rod Pennington, Bruce Goldman, Kyle Kyllan, Ethel Fenig, Marc Lanman, Michael Throop, T. Young, Dan Tracy, Miguel Rakiewicz, Brian Warner, Marion Dreyfus, Tim Holm, Jim Chapman, John Williamson, Chris Keel, Mark Kellner and Matthew Lopresti. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)