You've doubtless seen the news from yesterday; obviously I am pleased to see Mr. Santorum do well. The key thing about yesterday's events, though, is not that they change the race all that much: they put Mr. Santorum in the lead in terms of the number of states won, but given the structure of the primary that has no bearing on who actually becomes the nominee.
What it may do is give him the airtime he needs to become better known to the voters. There is a certain sense in which our archetypes about how stories should be told influence our view of the world. News stories about elections almost always take on the form of The Favorite and The Underdog; this race so far has been chiefly about competition for the role of The Underdog. If yesterday cements Mr. Santorum in that role, we'll be ready to tell the story; much of The Favorite's strength comes from the fact that he has had no clear challenger, but rather a series of characters moving in and out of the role.
Though I often write about elections, it is not my habit to participate more than by voting. This year may be different. We are seeing a substantial fracture in the Democratic coalition because of the Obama administration's move to force Catholic charities to do things that are sins according to Catholic doctrine. Much has been written about that lately, and I don't have more to add to it than to say that it is an important question in determining the degree to which we expect religion's submission to the state. It is a difficult moral question even for Army chaplains who have binding oaths in both directions; but private citizens engaged in a religious charity have only one such binding obligation, and it is not to the state.
This is an attempt to redefine a basic part of the bargain at the root of our social contract. John Locke wrote of his desire to see churches give up all coercive force to the state, in return for freedom from coercion in matters of faith. The state's lane does not include using its coercive force to command a voluntary religious society into sin. This is something we ought all to oppose, and I think Mr. Santorum is uniquely placed to do so. (However, in fairness, I would like to note that Mr. Romney's organization believes its record on the same issue in MA has been distorted in the press; scroll to "Another false claim" for his perspective on the matter.)
We have always opposed the Affordable Health Care Act, precisely because massive Federal involvement in health care entails loss of freedom in the most intimate areas of our lives. The loss of practical religious freedom is only the first such command. If we are not successful, others will follow.