Why Does Santorum Hate Individual Freedom So Much? Was He Dumped by a Libertarian Girlfriend?

As I read more about Santorum and listen to more of his speeches, one thing is striking, he REALLY doesn't like the idea of libertarianism or individual freedom.  He's mentioned it in speeches, at compassionate conservative social justice forums (just that name should scare people) and even in debates he makes sure you know that he isn't a libertarian.  Now this goes way beyond just trying to differentiate himself from Ron Paul, this actually seems like some sort of deep seeded hatred, as if he were scarred in the past by libertarians.  Was he dumped by a libertarian girlfriend because he wouldn't sleep with her before marriage?  Was he jealous of a bunch of libertarian friends in college who liked to smoke pot and galavant around?  Who knows, but whatever it is, it has left him a man who really doesn't think people should be allowed to do what they want to do, even if they aren't hurting anyone else.  It's not like this anti-libertarianism makes any actual political sense.  10% of the GOP are practically down the line libertarians and another 40-50% are what I would call libertarian sympathizers.  These would be believers in the free market who don't necessarily want to get involved in other people's private lives even if they are socially conservative themselves.  Ronald Reagan himself fits that bill as you can see from these comments he made to Reason Magazine in 1975:

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

...

I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves. I have illustrated this many times by saying that I would recognize the right of government to say that someone who rode a motorcycle had to protect the public from himself by making certain provisions about his equipment and the motorcycle–the same as we do with an automobile. I disagree completely when government says that because of the number of head injuries from accidents with motorcycles that he should be forced to wear a helmet. I happen to think he's stupid if he rides a motorcycle without a helmet, but that's one of our sacred rights–to be stupid.

...

I think the government has legitimate functions. But I also think our greatest threat today comes from government's involvement in things that are not government's proper province. And in those things government has a magnificent record of failure.

Now let's take a look at what Rick Santorum said at the horribly titled "The First International Conservative Conference on Social Justice" of which he was Chair:

The competitor to conservatism's future, I believe, is libertarianism. It is a consistent and vibrant, although I believe misguided, strain of conservatism.

America's conservative heritage never pursued a limitless freedom to do whatever one wants so long as no one is hurt. That kind of "freedom" to be and do whatever we want, irrespective of the choice is a selfish freedom that cannot be sustained or afforded. Someone always gets hurt when masses of individuals do what is only in their own-self interest. That is the great lie of liberal freedom, or as I like to say, "No-Fault Freedom" -- all the choice, none of the responsibility.We here today believe in something altogether different. It is the liberty America's Founders understood properly defined. Freedom is liberty coupled with responsibility to something bigger or higher than self. It is a self-less freedom. It is sacrificial freedom. It is the pursuit of our dreams with an eye towards the common good. Freedom is the dual activity of lifting our eyes to the heavens while extending our hand to our neighbor. The only orthodox conservative philosophy that matches with this is compassionate conservatism.

Huh?  So we fought the American Revolution for the idea of sacrificial freedom?  I thought we fought the revolution because:

All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

I don't see any talk about sacrificing for the common good in the Declaration of Independence.  It talks about how individuals have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that if a government doesn't let them do that, the citizens have a right to overthrow it.  The only sacrifices they are making are for their own freedom, their own happiness.   So not only does Santorum have a warped view of conservatism and libertarianism, he has a warped view of history as well.  It actually seems that if he were around during the Revolution he would probably be a Tory.

Now let's get back to the present.  Right now there is a battle going on over Obama trying to force Catholic institutions to offer their employees free contraception.  This battle has the potential to sweep the GOP to victory as people are repulsed by government overreach into their religious freedom, now do we really want a nominee who will say something like this?:

One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, "Well, that's okay. Contraception's okay."

It's not okay because it's a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They're supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also [inaudible], but also procreative. 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. I'm not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues. These how profound impact on the health of our society.

Does that sound like a winning argument?  Santorum would actually be the perfect guy for us to put up in order to completely defuse the uproar over Obama's contraception stand and instead make it about Santorum's overreaching moralism and anti-individuality.  I really don't think most people want a President of the United States talking about what we do or don't do in our bedrooms.

This is why I continue to be with Newt and will continue to be with Newt to the bitter end, whatever that might be.  He is the only candidate in the race who is a true Ronald Reagan conservative (Mitt Romney is more like Gerald Ford or Lowell Weicker and Rick Santorum is probably closest to Pat Buchanan in terms of his moralism though not his foreign policy stance).  He believes in the free market, believes in a strong national defense and will fight tooth and nail to defend our religious institutions without turning off those that aren't terribly religious.