Liberty v Freedom

After reading through the Drudge Report this afternoon, I decided to tackle Instapundit to get the conservative take on the feds poor performance in New Orleans. Got sidetracked by a book review of Rick Santorum's It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good.

The review says:

In Santorum's view, freedom is not the same as liberty. Or, to put it differently, there are two kinds of freedom. One is "no-fault freedom," individual autonomy uncoupled from any larger purpose: "freedom to choose, irrespective of the choice." This, he says, is "the liberal definition of freedom," and it is the one that has taken over in the culture and been imposed on the country by the courts.

Quite different is "the conservative view of freedom," "the liberty our Founders understood." This is "freedom coupled with the responsibility to something bigger or higher than the self." True liberty is freedom in the service of virtue -- not "the freedom to be as selfish as I want to be," or "the freedom to be left alone," but "the freedom to attend to one's duties -- duties to God, to family, and to neighbors."

Funny, but Santorum, Mr. Ultra Conservative, is sounding very liberal to me. Appears that the good senator is rejecting Reagan's belief that government is the problem, not the solution to our problems. But rather than embracing the communitarian stance of Hilary's It Takes A Village, it seems Mr. Santorum wants us all to have the freedom that comes from good governance, but ONLY if we fit the right profile.

This kind of freedom depends upon and serves virtue, and virtue's indispensable incubator and transmitter is the family. Thus "selflessness in the family is the basis for the political liberty we cherish as Americans." If government is to defend liberty and promote the common welfare, then it must promote and defend the integrity of the traditional family. In doing so, it will foster virtue and rebuild the country's declining social and moral capital, thus fostering liberty and strengthening family. The liberal cycle of decline -- families weaken, disorder spreads, government steps in, families weaken still further -- will be reversed.

There you go...what Santorum wants to conserve is the traditional family. While he escapes the precious individualism of Reagan and Bush, he just can't quite embrace the concept of liberty for all. He has reversed the cause and effect of traditional conservatives (less government = more personal freedom) by claiming that "If you shore up the family, you will strengthen the social fabric and ultimately reduce dependence on government."

A list of the government interventions that Santorum endorses includes national service, promotion of prison ministries, "individual development accounts," publicly financed trust funds for children, community-investment incentives, strengthened obscenity enforcement, covenant marriage, assorted tax breaks, economic literacy programs in "every school in America" (his italics), and more.

While I am thrilled to hear that Mr. Santorum believes in national service and economic literacy, I am troubled that he has absconded with liberal applications of liberty by impliciting promoting the paternalistic vision of family. I think I am more comfortable with less government conservatives. I wonder what he thinks will happen to us non-traditionals in his perfect vision of the future.