The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

‘The Fools That Bring Disaster’

Posted on | August 25, 2010 | 39 Comments

There were other things I wanted to write about this evening, but now I feel like I’m obligated to write a society-page feature because the Drama Queen decided to make her debut at the cotillion:

Ken Mehlman, President Bush’s campaign manager in 2004 and a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, has told family and associates that he is gay.
Mehlman arrived at this conclusion about his identity fairly recently, he said in an interview. . . .
“It’s taken me 43 years to get comfortable with this part of my life,” said Mehlman.

Excuse my derision, and denounce me as suffering from “homophobia” — Can I get an SSI disability check for that? Would Medicaid pay for treatment? — if that satisfies your craving for a sense of moral superiority. You’re not going to guilt-trip me into pulling punches. I’m heaping the most vicious ridicule I can on this twerp for a reason: To discourage others from emulating him.

It is a fact well-known but seldom publicly acknowledged, that gay people are crucial to the operations of the Republican Party. There have always been such people in staff positions, working as campaign operatives, contributing as donors, and serving the GOP in many other ways, both as professionals and volunteers.

Back when Ronald Reagan was governor of California in 1967, there was a scandal involving his chief of staff, Phil Battaglia. From pages 239-241 of Lou Cannon’s book, Governor Reagan:

Battaglia . . . had been brought into Reagan’s 1966 campaign by Holmes Tuttle as Southern California chairman and promoted to the state chairmanship after the primary. . . . Battaglia had . . . served as [USC] student body president and editor of the [USC law school journal] . . . When Tuttle tapped him for political service, he was an up-and-coming partner in a major Los Angeles law firm. In addition to these achievements, Battaglia met the Spencer-Roberts test of lacking a political history; Reagan’s campaign management team wanted bright young men who were unscarred by internecine party warfare. . . .
Bill Clark, the cabinet secretary, got along well with Battaglia but was mystified by his many absences. . . . During the crucial months of May and June, for instance, the cabinet minutes show that Battaglia attended only six of twenty-four cabinet meetings. . . .
Battaglia cultivated the media. Trying to control “background” communications, he laid down a rule that only he and [press secretary Lyn] Nofziger could talk with reporters. . . .
Battaglia behaved as if he ran the place, and some reporters sarcastically called him “deputy governor” . . . Battaglia patronized Reagan. He acted as if he were smarter than his boss. . . .

What you recognize here, if you have spent much time around political operations, is a certain troublesome type: The manipulative know-it-all who, when assigned to a position of responsibility, immediately begins abusing his authority for purposes of self-aggrandizement. Such narcissistic personalities are attracted to politics for all the wrong reasons, and they inevitably create toxic environments because they are incapable of being team players.

Battaglia’s position as chief of staff constituted a serious problem in Reagan’s gubernatorial administration, just as Don Regan’s position as White House chief of staff became a serious problem in Reagan’s presidency. And when it was discovered that Battaglia was gay, that became the weapon Battaglia’s numerous critics within the Reagan team used to take him out.

A report about Battaglia’s “inappropriate behavior” was prepared and presented to Reagan, and it was soon announced that Battaglia had decided to resign and return to private law practice. Reagan’s political enemies got wind of the real story and soon Drew Pearson published a column about the “homosexual ring that has been operating in [Reagan’s] office.”

The purpose of this attack was to torpedo prospects of a 1968 presidential campaign by Reagan, and the reader who spots this as a characteristically Nixonian tactic is probably not far from the truth.

There is nothing new under the sun, you see. There were gay people working for Republicans in 1967 and there are gay people working for Republicans today. What has changed is that gay-rights activists have turned sexuality into an identity-politics racket, so that any gay person who doesn’t share their agenda is made to feel inauthentic, a traitor to The Cause. And, as Marc Ambinder explains in his report at The Atlantic, this is now being used as a “wedge issue” by the Left:

Mehlman, who has never married, long found his sexuality subject to rumor and innuendo. He was the subject of an outing campaign by gay rights activist Mike Rogers, starting when Mehlman was Bush’s campaign manager. Rogers’s crusades against closeted gay Republicans split the organized gay lobby in Washington but were undoubtedly effective: he drove several elected officials, including Virginia Rep. Ed Shrock, from office, pushed out a would-be presidential campaign manager for George Allen well before Allen was set to run, slung rumors about Sen. Larry Craig’s sexual orientation well before Craig’s incident in a Minneapolis airport bathroom, and even managed to make homosexuality a wedge issue within the party’s activist circles.

Mike Rogers is a scumbag and the outing of Allen’s longtime aide Jay Timmons — a very effective political operative — was almost certainly orchestrated by supporters of rival Republican aspirants to the 2008 GOP presidential nomination. I’ve long had suspicions as to who was behind that dirty little trick, but there’s no need to get into that now. (David Nolan for U.S. Senate!)

Mehlman’s dramatic gesture is nothing but pure political theater. The only reason he “came out,” as the story makes clear, is so that he can now be a GOP drum major for the gay-rights agenda.

My ax to grind with Mehlman has nothing to do with his sexuality and everything to do with how he ran the White House Office of Political Affairs and the RNC in the Bush years. It was during the Bush years, with Karl Rove as deputy chief of staff and Mehlman as director of OPA (and later as RNC chairman), that the Republican Party began operating in a top-down fashion, with the smart guys in Washington calling all the shots, playing favorites in contested primaries and otherwise meddling in affairs that are properly the business of state parties and the GOP rank-and-file.

When you see debacles like John Cornyn’s NRSC trying to pick the Florida GOP’s Senate nominee 15 months ahead of the primary, you are witnessing a continuation of the Rove-Mehlman Method. When you see all the GOP Establishment types lining up behind a loser like Dede Scozzafava, Sue Lowden or Jane Norton, that’s the Rove-Mehlman Method in action.

While that kind of politics may work — or, at least, appear to work — when Republicans hold the White House and Congress and the Democrats are in disarray (as was true 2002-2005), it is ultimately a formula for failure because it is undemocratic

Instead of power flowing up from the grassroots and being exercised in proxy by duly-elected officials, the Rove-Mehlman Method involves power being arrogated by the insiders and political professionals — the staffers, the operatives, the consultants — so that the grassroots are squeezed out of the action.

Top-down political organizations tend to destroy grassroots enthusiasm, driving away volunteers and chilling voter enthusiasm, because Ordinary Americans aren’t stupid. You can fool the people only so long before they start wising up and figure out that there is a scam afoot. They may not understand exactly how the scam works, but when the people at the grassroots see powerful insiders trying to handpick their nominees — ask yourself, how did John McCain’s presidential campaign come back from its summer 2007 near-death experience? — they understand that it’s a crooked racket, and that’s when they decide they’d rather stay home on Election Day.

You’ll sometimes hear Rush Limbaugh remark sarcastically about The Smartest Guy in the Room, the arrogant types in politics who think they know all the answers and presume to be infinitely smarter than the stupid voters they’re paid to represent.

Listeners nod in recognition when Rush says that, because everybody knows the type: The new assistant manager — hired fresh out of  business school — who comes into the workplace and immediately starts changing things around, ignoring advice from guys who’ve been doing the job for years.

The Bush-era White House always comes to mind when I hear Rush talk about The Smartest Guy in the Room, because the Bushies acted like they had patented the secret of political success. They were going to “change the tone in Washington” with “compassionate conservatism,” remember? Rove was bragging about the “Permanent Republican Majority” and — for a couple of years after the 2004 election — they had nearly everybody convinced that they had all the answers.

And then the wheels fell off their bandwagon, so now we have Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Barack Obama.

Thank you, Karl! Thank you, Ken!

This morning, I quoted Ronald Reagan’s famous aphorism, “You can accomplish much, if you don’t care who gets the credit.” Yet there are people whose success in the world of politics involves taking credit for the efforts of others. There are people who don’t understand that to hold a political position — even as chairman of the RNC — is to exercise an authority that ultimately is delegated to them, not by fat-cat donors and party insiders, but rather by millions of Republican voters across the country.

Ken Mehlman was a hired hand, a paid political operative who was designated RNC chairman at the behest of his patron, George W. Bush. Now, Ambinder describes him thus: “Mehlman is the most powerful Republican in history to identify as gay.”

The question is this: Whose power?

By what right, on whose authority, does Mehlman claim this power? While you’re pondering that metaphysical question, read this paragraph from Ambinder:

Chad Griffin, the California-based political strategist who organized opposition to Proposition 8, said that Mehlman’s quiet contributions to the American Foundation for Equal Rights are “tremendous,” adding that “when we achieve equal equality, he will be one of the people to thank for it.” Mehlman has become a de facto strategist for the group, and he has opened up his rolodexrecruiting, as co-hosts for the AFER fundraiser: Paul Singer, a major Republican donor, hedge fund executive, and the president of the Manhattan Institute; Benjamin Ginsberg, one of the GOP’s top lawyers; Michael Toner, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission; and two former GOP governors, William Weld of Massachusetts and Christie Todd Whitman of New Jersey.

So the contacts Mehlman made while in the pay of the Republican Party are now being mobilized for purposes alien to and in conflict with the political principles and interests of the GOP’s conservative grassroots.

During the winter of 1862-63, when command of the Union’s Army of the Potomac had devolved onto the incompetent Gen. Ambrose Burnside, a soldier in the 79th New York Infantry wrote a letter home:

“Mother, do not wonder that my loyalty is growing weak. . . . I am sick and tired of the disaster and the fools that bring disaster upon us.”

Indeed, and who could blame the loyal foot soldiers of the GOP if their “loyalty is growing weak”? Like that soldier of long ago, they are sick and tired of these fools that bring disaster.

Comments

  • http://saberpoint.blogspot.com Stogie

    Wow, I actually remember Drew Pearson’s cynical attempt to slime Reagan over gay staffers in the Reagan’s administration as California governor.

    If I recall correctly, Pearson wanted Reagan to out the gay members and Reagan refused to do so, saying it was an unnecessary invasion of privacy.

    That was one of the first times that I realized what a low-down skunk Drew Pearson actually was. Pearson, a Democrat, merely wanted to use this to hurt Reagan politically.

  • http://saberpoint.blogspot.com Stogie

    Wow, I actually remember Drew Pearson’s cynical attempt to slime Reagan over gay staffers in the Reagan’s administration as California governor.

    If I recall correctly, Pearson wanted Reagan to out the gay members and Reagan refused to do so, saying it was an unnecessary invasion of privacy.

    That was one of the first times that I realized what a low-down skunk Drew Pearson actually was. Pearson, a Democrat, merely wanted to use this to hurt Reagan politically.

  • Huey

    I always get a kick out of these late bloomers.

    I’m pretty sure that I’d know whether Tom Cruise or Katie Holmes, and, whether or not that was my normal reaction since puberty…

  • Huey

    I always get a kick out of these late bloomers.

    I’m pretty sure that I’d know whether Tom Cruise or Katie Holmes, and, whether or not that was my normal reaction since puberty…

  • http://theothermccain.com Robert Stacy McCain

    Good memory, Stogie. Pearson was a general-purpose scumbag who covered himself with dishonor with his vile attacks on Joseph McCarthy, James Forrestal and other anti-communists.

  • http://theothermccain.com Robert Stacy McCain

    Good memory, Stogie. Pearson was a general-purpose scumbag who covered himself with dishonor with his vile attacks on Joseph McCarthy, James Forrestal and other anti-communists.

  • http://threebeerslater.blogspot.com richard mcenroe

    Roy Cohn is with us always.

  • http://threebeerslater.blogspot.com richard mcenroe

    Roy Cohn is with us always.

  • http://thetraitorsamongus.blogspot.com Thrasymachus

    I was a Bush-Cheny ’04 community chair. This shows what a joke the Republican Party and our so-called “democracy” is. In the Soviet Union the KGB ran phony dissident groups, to occupy and keep track of those with inclinations to be disloyal. The Republican Party serves much the same purpose in the US. The people who run it- the Bush family in particular- are there to ride herd on the rubes, to make sure they don’t get too crazy. A certain portion of the elite is tasked to run the con, although at important moments they show their colors, as we saw with all the liberal “Republicans” endorsing Obama in the last election.

  • http://thetraitorsamongus.blogspot.com Thrasymachus

    I was a Bush-Cheny ’04 community chair. This shows what a joke the Republican Party and our so-called “democracy” is. In the Soviet Union the KGB ran phony dissident groups, to occupy and keep track of those with inclinations to be disloyal. The Republican Party serves much the same purpose in the US. The people who run it- the Bush family in particular- are there to ride herd on the rubes, to make sure they don’t get too crazy. A certain portion of the elite is tasked to run the con, although at important moments they show their colors, as we saw with all the liberal “Republicans” endorsing Obama in the last election.

  • Estragon

    The idea that Nixon tipped off Pearson about Battaglia is preposterous. They hated each other. Nixon was a conservative Republican anti-communist and Pearson was a Democratic muck-raking journalist who I believe holds the all-time record for being sued for libel (although he only rarely lost in court and there were a few quiet settlements).

    Mehlman was never quite hailed as the super-genius Rove was made out to be, but he was fairly effective. Rove had a period of years where it appeared his every move was golden, so it is little wonder Republicans took his suggestions and Democrats despised his name.

    ~~~~~

    “When you see debacles like John Cornyn’s NRSC trying to pick the Florida GOP’s Senate nominee 15 months ahead of the primary, you are witnessing a continuation of the Rove-Mehlman Method. When you see all the GOP Establishment types lining up behind a loser like Dede Scozzafava, Sue Lowden or Jane Norton, that’s the Rove-Mehlman Method in action.”

    `

    Bull feathers! Blaming a bunch of idiotic decisions made after both Rove and Mehlman were long gone on them instead of the actual perps requires more evidence than mere assertion.

    But slander and guilt by association are typical “stalinist-libertarian” tactics, such as when they assert their own authority to interpret the Constitution and use the parts they like and ignore the rest.

    ~~~~~~~

    But how is Mehlman not within his rights to advocate for whatever issues he wishes? That’s what liberty is all about, isn’t it (although there is a recurring theme in the lines “libertarians” will cross to crush their opposition, odd as it might seem)? If he met big donors while working for the Party, so what? They don’t have to donate to his new cause celebre . . . and there IS no loyalty oath to an agenda required to work for the Republican Party. You confuse us with other parties which seek ideological purity as a condition of membership and employment – like Democrats, Communists, and Libertarians.

  • Estragon

    The idea that Nixon tipped off Pearson about Battaglia is preposterous. They hated each other. Nixon was a conservative Republican anti-communist and Pearson was a Democratic muck-raking journalist who I believe holds the all-time record for being sued for libel (although he only rarely lost in court and there were a few quiet settlements).

    Mehlman was never quite hailed as the super-genius Rove was made out to be, but he was fairly effective. Rove had a period of years where it appeared his every move was golden, so it is little wonder Republicans took his suggestions and Democrats despised his name.

    ~~~~~

    “When you see debacles like John Cornyn’s NRSC trying to pick the Florida GOP’s Senate nominee 15 months ahead of the primary, you are witnessing a continuation of the Rove-Mehlman Method. When you see all the GOP Establishment types lining up behind a loser like Dede Scozzafava, Sue Lowden or Jane Norton, that’s the Rove-Mehlman Method in action.”

    `

    Bull feathers! Blaming a bunch of idiotic decisions made after both Rove and Mehlman were long gone on them instead of the actual perps requires more evidence than mere assertion.

    But slander and guilt by association are typical “stalinist-libertarian” tactics, such as when they assert their own authority to interpret the Constitution and use the parts they like and ignore the rest.

    ~~~~~~~

    But how is Mehlman not within his rights to advocate for whatever issues he wishes? That’s what liberty is all about, isn’t it (although there is a recurring theme in the lines “libertarians” will cross to crush their opposition, odd as it might seem)? If he met big donors while working for the Party, so what? They don’t have to donate to his new cause celebre . . . and there IS no loyalty oath to an agenda required to work for the Republican Party. You confuse us with other parties which seek ideological purity as a condition of membership and employment – like Democrats, Communists, and Libertarians.

  • http://ehvogel.blogspot.com ehvogel

    I offer a different take. The outing of Mehlman is politics as usual – throw a bone to a certain constituency (no pun intended) in hopes of gaining their support. The Republican Party is still trying to commandeer the Democrat’s path to power. This is a really lame attempt to segregate and recruit American voters along the lines of self-interests, not national interests. Instead, all one has to do is follow the conservative mantle (aka, Rush Limbaugh) and redirect those self-interests to ones of national interests.

  • http://ehvogel.blogspot.com ehvogel

    I offer a different take. The outing of Mehlman is politics as usual – throw a bone to a certain constituency (no pun intended) in hopes of gaining their support. The Republican Party is still trying to commandeer the Democrat’s path to power. This is a really lame attempt to segregate and recruit American voters along the lines of self-interests, not national interests. Instead, all one has to do is follow the conservative mantle (aka, Rush Limbaugh) and redirect those self-interests to ones of national interests.

  • Pingback: GayPatriot » Ken Mehlman & the Politicization of Gay Identity()

  • http://washingtonrebel.typepad.com/washington_rebel T.L. Davis

    It reminds me of a radio show I was on once and the topic was the “courageous” move of a teacher who, after 24 years as a father and teacher, came out as gay.

    My reaction was this: “He lies to everyone he knows for 24 years, then one day he comes out and he’s courageous? He’s primarily a liar.”

    I don’t have anything against homosexuals, but coming out today ain’t courageous, not like it was 30 years ago.

  • http://washingtonrebel.typepad.com/washington_rebel T.L. Davis

    It reminds me of a radio show I was on once and the topic was the “courageous” move of a teacher who, after 24 years as a father and teacher, came out as gay.

    My reaction was this: “He lies to everyone he knows for 24 years, then one day he comes out and he’s courageous? He’s primarily a liar.”

    I don’t have anything against homosexuals, but coming out today ain’t courageous, not like it was 30 years ago.

  • Pingback: A Round-Up Of News To Make Your Blood Boil | Liberty Pundits Blog()

  • Joe

    no one cares about teh geyh.

  • Joe

    no one cares about teh geyh.

  • Joe

    How about thinking, hmmm, it took me 43 years to develop my career and personal life to where I feel pretty good about what I have accomplished.

    If all you did was get out of some self imposed closet, well all I can say is BFD.

  • Joe

    How about thinking, hmmm, it took me 43 years to develop my career and personal life to where I feel pretty good about what I have accomplished.

    If all you did was get out of some self imposed closet, well all I can say is BFD.

  • http://chrisisright.wordpress.com ChrisIsRIGHT

    I’m very confused by this issue. On one hand, his gayness is a non-issue. On the other hand, it’s totally an issue, as he plans on mobilizing the troops (which he obviously does.)

    But hadn’t he already mobilized the troops on the gay marriage issue? If the “gay rights agenda” (which I would love it if a more socially conservative person than me would explain, because I’m not sure we all agree on what that is, exactly) is counter to the GOP’s grassroots base, can Mehlman hope to have much success?

    Is it just gay marriage and repealing DADT? Or is there more to it? I know what I think it means.

    I lack the political history knowledge to put this in perspective in relation to Mehlman specifically.

    Sometimes, your writing on gay issues bothers me, frankly. I’m not sure why that is – whether it’s something built into myself or something I see in you. I will state, however, you are obviously NOT a homophobe or a bigot.

    Is there just a perception that anyone who “comes out” is going to jump on the gay rights agenda as Mehlman is doing?

    There is such a broad spectrum of thought on where gay people fit in (if at all) in the conservative movement that I’m still trying to figure it all out.

  • http://chrisisright.wordpress.com ChrisIsRIGHT

    I’m very confused by this issue. On one hand, his gayness is a non-issue. On the other hand, it’s totally an issue, as he plans on mobilizing the troops (which he obviously does.)

    But hadn’t he already mobilized the troops on the gay marriage issue? If the “gay rights agenda” (which I would love it if a more socially conservative person than me would explain, because I’m not sure we all agree on what that is, exactly) is counter to the GOP’s grassroots base, can Mehlman hope to have much success?

    Is it just gay marriage and repealing DADT? Or is there more to it? I know what I think it means.

    I lack the political history knowledge to put this in perspective in relation to Mehlman specifically.

    Sometimes, your writing on gay issues bothers me, frankly. I’m not sure why that is – whether it’s something built into myself or something I see in you. I will state, however, you are obviously NOT a homophobe or a bigot.

    Is there just a perception that anyone who “comes out” is going to jump on the gay rights agenda as Mehlman is doing?

    There is such a broad spectrum of thought on where gay people fit in (if at all) in the conservative movement that I’m still trying to figure it all out.

  • Estragon

    Gay people should adopt conservative positions in most areas in their own self interests.

    Now, if “acceptance” of behavior, “gay marriage,” and such agenda items are deal-killers, so be it. But they should not be.

    “Social conservatives” (Read, for the most part: “church-attending Christians”) are not going to condone these things, but if they are practicing their faith they will recognize that no sin is greater than another and we are all sinners, so there is no reason not to love all sinners. And no reason not to welcome them to the table to advance our common interests, either.

  • Estragon

    Gay people should adopt conservative positions in most areas in their own self interests.

    Now, if “acceptance” of behavior, “gay marriage,” and such agenda items are deal-killers, so be it. But they should not be.

    “Social conservatives” (Read, for the most part: “church-attending Christians”) are not going to condone these things, but if they are practicing their faith they will recognize that no sin is greater than another and we are all sinners, so there is no reason not to love all sinners. And no reason not to welcome them to the table to advance our common interests, either.

  • http://knappster.blogspot.com Thomas L. Knapp

    Courageous? Not really. Courageous would have been coming out and telling Rove et al to knock it off in 2000-2008 when the GOP was screaming “TEH GAYZ ARE GONNA GETTTTTTT YEWWWWW!” in a desperate last-ditch effort to hold on to Congress and the White House.

    Now that it’s obvious that the end is in sight — i.e. that same-sex marriage will be legal in most states and recognized for federal purposes within a few years, legal in all 50 states no later than mid-century and probably long before, and increasingly unserviceable as a culture war item (it’s already becoming so, actually), gay conservatives/Republicans are coming primarily to keep the GOP to stop publicly stomping on its own crank over the whole thing.

    In War Between the States terms, this is July 5th, 1863. Vicksburg fell yesterday and the Army of Northern Virginia is limping south from Gettysburg. The war ain’t over yet but there’s little doubt as to which side is going to win it.

  • http://knappster.blogspot.com Thomas L. Knapp

    Courageous? Not really. Courageous would have been coming out and telling Rove et al to knock it off in 2000-2008 when the GOP was screaming “TEH GAYZ ARE GONNA GETTTTTTT YEWWWWW!” in a desperate last-ditch effort to hold on to Congress and the White House.

    Now that it’s obvious that the end is in sight — i.e. that same-sex marriage will be legal in most states and recognized for federal purposes within a few years, legal in all 50 states no later than mid-century and probably long before, and increasingly unserviceable as a culture war item (it’s already becoming so, actually), gay conservatives/Republicans are coming primarily to keep the GOP to stop publicly stomping on its own crank over the whole thing.

    In War Between the States terms, this is July 5th, 1863. Vicksburg fell yesterday and the Army of Northern Virginia is limping south from Gettysburg. The war ain’t over yet but there’s little doubt as to which side is going to win it.

  • Pingback: Virginia Right! News Hound for 8/26/2010 | Virginia Right!()

  • Pingback: DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » ‘The Fools That Bring Disaster’()

  • Pingback: The Micro Effect » Blog Archive » A Round-Up Of News To Make Your Blood Boil - Alternative News – Alternative Thinkers()

  • Pingback: Is a story a story if everyone already knows it? « Da Techguy's Blog()

  • http://www.sundriesshack.com Jimmie

    “Now that it’s obvious that the end is in sight — i.e. that same-sex marriage will be legal in most states and recognized for federal purposes within a few years, legal in all 50 states no later than mid-century and probably long before…”

    That’s an awfully bold statement to make considering that every gay marriage initiative that’s been put before the voting public has lost (in most cases handily).

    Wishing doesn’t make it so, sir. Never has.

  • http://www.sundriesshack.com Jimmie

    “Now that it’s obvious that the end is in sight — i.e. that same-sex marriage will be legal in most states and recognized for federal purposes within a few years, legal in all 50 states no later than mid-century and probably long before…”

    That’s an awfully bold statement to make considering that every gay marriage initiative that’s been put before the voting public has lost (in most cases handily).

    Wishing doesn’t make it so, sir. Never has.

  • Pingback: WOLVERINES Prepare! « The Camp Of The Saints()

  • Chuck Vekert

    You are certainly right that there have always been conservative gay Republicans. But your next comment (“What has changed is that gay-rights activists have turned sexuality into an identity-politics racket, so that any gay person who doesn’t share their agenda is made to feel inauthentic, a traitor to The Cause.”) is breathtakingly outrageous.

    The Republican party has promoted homophobia, in the guise of “strengthening family values” or fear mongering about “weakening marriage”, in concert with Christian right evangelicals, as an election strategy. A gay GOP operative, as opposed to a gay conservative, must therefore be a hypocrite. It is bad enough when any person promotes intolerance and inequality, much less a member of affected group.

  • Chuck Vekert

    You are certainly right that there have always been conservative gay Republicans. But your next comment (“What has changed is that gay-rights activists have turned sexuality into an identity-politics racket, so that any gay person who doesn’t share their agenda is made to feel inauthentic, a traitor to The Cause.”) is breathtakingly outrageous.

    The Republican party has promoted homophobia, in the guise of “strengthening family values” or fear mongering about “weakening marriage”, in concert with Christian right evangelicals, as an election strategy. A gay GOP operative, as opposed to a gay conservative, must therefore be a hypocrite. It is bad enough when any person promotes intolerance and inequality, much less a member of affected group.

  • http://knappster.blogspot.com Thomas L. Knapp

    Jimmie,

    You write:

    “That’s an awfully bold statement to make”

    Not really. I’m pretty sure Jonah Goldberg made it oh, four or five years ago. It was bold then. Now it’s pretty much the conventional wisdom.

  • http://knappster.blogspot.com Thomas L. Knapp

    Jimmie,

    You write:

    “That’s an awfully bold statement to make”

    Not really. I’m pretty sure Jonah Goldberg made it oh, four or five years ago. It was bold then. Now it’s pretty much the conventional wisdom.