Rick Santorum’s defense of his vote in favor of President Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” education bill was one of the low points of a dismal debate performance last night. His explanation that being a “team player” meant that sometimes you have to “take one for the team” was not exactly the sort of ringing defense of principle that wins applause from partisan crowds. In fact, it earned him some boos and allowed Mitt Romney and Ron Paul to brand him as a political “insider” who is part of the problem in Washington rather than its solution.
To the extent that the bill was symbolic of the willingness of the Bush administration and the Republican majority in Congress in 2002 to spend the public’s money like drunken sailors or at least like Democrats, it is fair game for criticism of Santorum. However, the impulse to trash any rationale put forward for team play in Congress is more than a bit overblown. More to the point, the idea that any member of the House or Senate should be condemned for attempting to govern rather than merely spouting off purist declarations of principle in the manner of Ron Paul is not only unfair, it is a prescription for chaos. It should also be noted that Santorum’s regret about “No Child Behind” is no ex-post facto rationale. I happen to know his support for the bill was in fact quite reluctant.
In 2001, just after the bill’s passage, I spoke with Santorum when he was in my office for a meeting with the editors of the Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia where I served as executive editor. I pressed him about “No Child Behind,” and his response was he had grave misgivings about the bill and would not have voted for it but for the importance the president placed upon its passage. He explained then as he did last night that being part of the Senate leadership imposed obligations on him that meant he could not always vote as he pleased. As lame as his defense of that decision may have seemed last night, there is no doubt about the honesty of his position.
To understand the vote is not necessarily to excuse it. But to treat his decision to honor his obligation to his party and his president as being a dishonest or even dishonorable act is to misunderstand the nature of politics in a democracy. For something to be accomplished in any legislature, someone needs to compromise–at least some of the time. And in order for a majority to function, its leaders must, as a matter of course, pull together or cause the entire enterprise to collapse. When a matter of conscience arises, legislators must oppose their party and accept the consequences, which means resignation from a leadership role. One can argue that Santorum should have done so over “No Child Left Behind.” But had he done so, that would have meant he would have lost the ability to influence the Senate on many other issues that were just as, if not more important, to him. Even the most principled of politicians cannot be expected to fall on their swords about every issue.
What the storm over Santorum’s “team player” remark reveals is not just the hypocrisy on this issue of men like Mitt Romney, who have in other contexts been quintessential “go along to get along” types of politicians. It is the way anger at Washington has discredited the entire concept of members of the House and Senate acting in concert with each other. Although one could disagree with Rick Santorum’s senatorial decisions, it is unfair to treat his obligations as a senator as a black mark against his record.
