Santorum the reactionary

Jennifer Rubin's latest (on her Washington Post blog) is really quite interesting:

A number of social conservatives, sensing that Rick Santorum has hit a trip wire, are complaining that he’s being skewered for being a social conservative. That’s demonstrably wrong. The nonstop flaps (some of which concern past episodes that now have come to light) over the last couple of weeks have nothing to do with Santorum’s pro-life views or even his opposition to gay marriage. They have to do with his desire to uproot decades-old trends (e.g. women in the workplace, women in combat, use of contraception) and to use religious terminology and judgments to cast aspersions on his opponents (e.g. “phony theology,” the devil has infiltrated American institutions). In short, Santorum on social issues is not a conservative but a reactionary, seeking to obliterate the national consensus on a range of issues beyond gay marriage and abortion.

PM Carpenter lashes out at Rubin's perceived hypocrisy:

Is that in fact hypocrisy? Sure it is. But is Rubin even aware of it? It doesn't appear so. It seems to reflect more of a profound cognitive dissonance. She's simply oblivious, utterly oblivious, as she thrashes about in her shallow assaults on all but her partisan love, Mitt Romney. There's a word for her kind, which I won't use, but it ain't "commentator." And its essence is to be found, daily, in the once-respectable Washington Post.

"Santorum on social issues is not a conservative but a reactionary." Yeah, actually: that does seem like a bit of a stretch, doesn't it?