Gloss on the Santorum post in light of the latest post, and dividers, not uniters

In a post below I criticize Rick Santorum's attributing of the Catholic Church's abuse epidemic to liberalism. I don't think Santorum is being biased or conservative: I just think he's wrong. For him to be right, he would need to be able to show that liberal beliefs are strongly correlated with child abuse. I think this is completely not the case: I don't think "liberals" are any more likely to molest children than conservatives are. And even IF a correlation was found, it would have to be shown that liberalism was causing the molestation, and it was not a third thing (factor X) causing both the liberal beliefs and the abusive behavior. Santorum and his aides would really have to do their homework on this one.

Let's be clear: Santorum equates liberalism, relativism, homosexuality and tolerance; these 4 concepts are bound up in his mind, and as he is one of the most powerful men in America, he is unlikely to unhitch them from each other and attempt nuance in his statements. That's fine. But he's still incorrect, and the burden of proof on this statement is enormous, as any sociologist would tell you.

In fact, this is in the same vein as Karl Rove's statement that conservatives saw the "savagery" of 9/11 and prepared for war, while liberals saw the savagery of 9/11 and offered therapy. I don't really care what Rove says to his troops: it's irrelevant whether he believes it or not, because it wasn't designed to be tested. It's equivalent to statements uttered at high-school pep fests. I want to point out that it's a gross generalization, and clearly false; nearly the whole country supported (and supports) the war in Afghanistan, a clearer battle against terror than Iraq.

Another statement that falls into this category is Richard Durbin's mini-diatribe equating Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib with the gulags or the concentration camps. Not only is Durbin wrong, but he's contradicting himself; he coasted along with everything the administration did, and for him to raise his voice against our troops and the (almost exclusively) brave and hard-working guards at this point in the game is pathetic--at least Republican politicians are consistent.

BUSH: I'm going to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. It's not going to be easy, and it's not going to be fun. There are going to be problems across the board; it's going to be rough on insurgents, terrorists and the prisoners we take. In fact, I'm going to get really flaky on intelligence, and also try to get the country to believe that Iraq, al-Qaeda, terrorist, and Saddam Hussein are interchangeable terms.
DEMOCRATS: Fine by us.
BUSH (stunned): Really?
DEMOCRATS: Absolutely. Go for it.

*two years later*

DEMOCRATS: Wait, so one of our guards KICKED a prisoner?
BUSH: Well, yes, I mean, what did you expect?
DEMOCRATS: Not kicking! We're upset. Very upset.

Our role as bloggers should be to question ruthlessly every statement and action by those in power, be they Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, on a case-by-case basis.