Is Breitbart’s ghost uninvited?

Andrew Breitbart. Does anyone remember what he used to say? The reason I’m posing the rhetorical question is that I well remember the man’s outspoken insistence that conservative tent ought to include all of those who share conservative and libertarian beliefs — including gay conservatives. In 2009, he told social conservatives that they cannot write gays off and have to come up with a coherent policy on gays that makes gays whole.

Then a couple of years later, Breitbart famously threw a party that “almost obliterated in one night the conception that Republicans are anti-gay and gave the impression that young libertarians — and some not so young — are taking over the GOP.

Not long after his untimely death, he was eulogized as the “Right’s Hero and Unexpected Gay Ally,” and this statement was widely quoted:

“If being conservative means rejecting gay conservatives because they are gay, then fine, I’m not a conservative.”

In an interview, Breitbart elaborated:

“I’ve seen gay groups estimate the percentage of gay people in our country as high as 10 percent, and I’ve seen groups that aren’t amenable to gay rights or whatever say, “No, no, it’s closer to 2-3 percent.” Well, when those people minimize the amount of people there are – two to three percent – what is their fear of that two to three percent coming into the Big Tent and disagreeing with you on three percent of the issues?” he said. “None of it makes sense to me.

“I just don’t get it. I go into middle America, and I don’t see people hating gay people as a part of their agenda. Are there anomalies? … Yes,” he continued. “The majority agrees on the humanity of gay people – and to treat gay people like you treat all people. It doesn’t make sense that the political polarities represent such a small percentage. It’s a two percent versus a two percent versus the rest of the 96 percent of the country that is living our lives integrated.”

Common sense to most people, but near treason to the raging antigay crowd and what I would call the WorldNetDaily right.

Considering how outspokenly gay-friendly the man was, I think it’s fair to say that were he alive today, he would have supported the purported spirit behind today’s panel on the “Uninvited” at CPAC:

The conservative movement, in particular, has to be willing to confront important issues, even if it causes some members discomfort. The left comes from a singular philosophy: increase centralized control over citizens. Conservatism is built on the sanctity of the individual, but its members are animated by different issues. Conservatives must address all issues where individual liberty is threatened, and it must allow all voices to be heard. That is the spirit underlying Breitbart News’ “Uninvited” session at CPAC on Saturday.

Andrew Breitbart’s animating vision was that all conservative voices deserve to be heard. Moreover, that all issues vital to our national interest deserve a hearing. If the conservative movement bows to the media or a political establishment and censors its discussions, it is cheapened and made weaker.

In that spirit, Breitbart News has organized an impressive panel of experts to address issues which are all too often swept under the rug.

Intrigued by this, I read on. It is certainly true that Breitbart’s vision was that all conservative (including libertarian and gay) voices deserve to be heard. So I was quite surprised — especially considering that this panel is being done in Breitbart’s name — not to find one single gay conservative group or spokesperson listed in the panel.

Or was that just an inadvertent oversight?

I realize that they can invite whoever they want to their uninvited panel. But it just looks odd to me that panel on the uninvited  sponsored by Breitbart.com can’t see fit to include gay conservatives even when Breitbart had boycotted CPAC over that very issue.

What could be going on? Is Breitbart’s outspokenly pro-gay past being airbrushed out by his own organization? And if this Salon article is any indication,  the left seems perfectly willing to work in collusion with the conservative airbrushers.

Considering how outspoken Andrew Breitbart was, I don’t think he would have liked this. In life, he couldn’t have couldn’t have made it more clear that he wanted to “allow all voices to be heard.”

Over at the Atlantic Wire, they’re saying that “The Ghost of Andrew Breitbart Is Alive at CPAC.”

They ought to be careful what they wish for.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

26 responses to “Is Breitbart’s ghost uninvited?”

  1. Simon Avatar

    There is no room in the current Republican Party for dissent. You either follow the Party line (sounds like communism) or they don’t want you. I have taken that to heart.

    From now on if they want my help they can ask for it. I ain’t volunteering.

  2. Kathy Kinsley Avatar
    Kathy Kinsley

    What Simon said.

    And I’ll add that Breitbart’s ghost is always invited anywhere I am. I didn’t agree with him on everything, but he was what we all need to be. Pardon me for quoting King James’ version of the bible…
    “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”

  3. Simon Avatar

    I predicted back in 2010 that economic problems would end the culture wars:

    http://classicalvalues.com/2010/10/wedge_issues/

    I was wrong.

    You have to wonder if American “conservatives” could do this:

    Israeli Settlers Shelter Gay Palestinian

  4. Kathy Kinsley Avatar
    Kathy Kinsley

    P.S. I was a “Jesus Freak” once upon a long ago time. Until I learned not to mess with cults. But I did a LOT of bible study. That’s why I’m no longer Christian. I learned too much.

    Nonetheless, there is wisdom in the book. You just have to sift out the chaff.

  5. Kathy Kinsley Avatar
    Kathy Kinsley

    P.S. I suspect the Atlantic is one of the few media who could actually deal with Breitbart’s ghost.

    If the couldn’t, they could probably call Megan McArdle in, she worked for them long enough…

    They might not, they tend liberal, and I suspect he and “Jane Galt” would more likely be shoulder-to-shoulder than toe-to-toe… lol

  6. Frank Avatar
    Frank

    Simon, you may want to check this podcast from KGO in San Francisco. Two gay groups from Israel, HOSHEN and IGY, had representatives interviewed on the Karel show. While gay marriages are not performed there, the state recognizes them if legally done anywhere else. Fascinating interviews.
    http://www.stationcaster.com/player_skinned.php?s=861&c=5411&f=1173701

  7. Joey Avatar
    Joey

    I don’t know any conservatives who are “anti-gay.” I know some who object to homosexuality. Like me, for example.

    When the libertarian tent is big enough for people who support Israel, people who love the Fed, people who want to fight the war on drugs, and people support gun control, then maybe you can lecture us about the size of our tent.

  8. Joey Avatar
    Joey

    Simon, there is plenty of room for dissent within the Republican Party. More than in the Libertarian Party, I might add.

    In the Republican Party you can support homosexual “marriage” like Rob Portman or Dick Cheney or Ken Mehlman. You can support killing the unborn, like many northeastern Republicans. You can go either way on any number of issues. You name the issue and I’ll find you a Republican who takes another side to it. Guns? Chris Christie. Global warming? Jon Hunstman. Name an issue. Go ahead.

    I happen to score very libertarian on that well-known online political test. But when I say libertarian, I mean it. I don’t mean libertine. For example, I think two guys sodomizing each other in the privacy of their own should be allowed to do so without the interference of the state. But I still think it’s wrong. Just saying that will get you driven out of the Libertarian Party today.

    Because I think it’s wrong I don’t want them teaching my children in the public schools, and I’m not going to celebrate them when they come to CPAC.

    Libertarian does not mean “pro-gay.” What it means is that the state doesn’t prohibit homosexual behavior. Try explaining that to a college-aged Ron Paul superfan. They simply don’t understand the difference.

  9. Joey Avatar
    Joey

    Simon, per your first comment.

    If not for where a candidate stands on the issues, what else should we evaluate a candidate on? Do you expect me to vote for candidates with stances that I don’t like? I bet you don’t vote for candidates with stances you don’t like. That means that you’re demanding ideological conformity.

    It’s like COMMUNISM OR SOMETHING!!!!

  10. Eric Scheie Avatar

    I think two guys sodomizing each other in the privacy of their own should be allowed to do so without the interference of the state. But I still think it’s wrong.

    The same thing could be said about adultery, alcoholism, taking the Lord’s name in vain, or shooting up heroin.

    The question Breitbart raised goes to whether gay conservatives can simply be recognized as conservatives. If conservatism means having a philosophical opposition to homosexuality is an article of conservative faith, they clearly they cannot. Nor can anyone who is not philosophically opposed to homosexuality.

    You certainly have a right to your opinion, and a right to be repelled by homosexual conduct. But do these opinions and feelings define conservatism?

  11. Eric Scheie Avatar

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antigay

    ***QUOTE***

    anti-gay

    adjective

    opposed or hostile to homosexuals or to homosexual social reforms and institutions, etc.

    ***END QUOTE***

  12. Joey Avatar
    Joey

    “You certainly have a right to your opinion, and a right to be repelled by homosexual conduct. But do these opinions and feelings define conservatism?”

    Yes. It’s one part of it.

    My philosophy is perfectly attuned to libertarianism. I’m personally opposed to homosexuality but I think it should be legal. And it is.

    I think you’re confused by my line of reasoning because usually when people say that they’re “personally opposed BUT” what they mean that they aren’t really opposed at all. I actually mean it. The police shouldn’t be busting down the doors of adults have consensual sex, but that hasn’t happened in this country since 2003, and even before that it was very, very rare.

    I’m with Ron Paul, the 1988 LP candidate for president. “I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”

    Also, I’m with Ayn Rand. “I do not approve of such practices or regard them as necessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults.” I also agree when she said: “”[T]o proclaim spiritual sisterhood with lesbians… is so repulsive a set of premises from so loathsome a sense of life that an accurate commentary would require the kind of language I do not like to see in print.”

    No one’s liberty to have consensual sex with other adults is at stake here. All I’m saying is that these supposedly conservative homosexual groups aren’t really conservative and no one owes them anything. The American Conservative Union doesn’t have to invite them any more than it has to invite Handgun Control. They’re not conservatives.

  13. Joey Avatar
    Joey

    By the way, why doesn’t CPAC invite a group called Heroin Addict Conservatives? Or Adulterous Conservatives?

    Maybe you should argue with Simon, who thinks that people voting for candidates according to the issues is somehow akin to Communism. News flash: that’s how the democratic process works! People vote for the candidates whose ideas most closely match their own. If you’re out of step with a party, that’s not Communism, that just means you’re in the wrong party. Personally I think that Libertarian Party is a very small tent, which might explain why it has no governors, state legislatures, congressmen, or senators. I won’t denigrate you for sticking to your principles. You nominate candidates based on how closely they adhere to your principles. But why is it like Communism when another party does it?

  14. Eric Scheie Avatar

    Correct me if I am misinterpreting you, but you seem to be saying that there is no such thing as a gay conservative. Are there adulterous conservatives? Pot smoking conservatives? Alcoholic conservatives? Drug addicted conservatives? Tattooed and pierced conservatives? Or is engaging in disapproved personal conduct politically disqualifying?

    If supporting gay rights causes a forfeiture of the conservative label, I’m also wondering whether conservatives are allowed to oppose the War on Drugs. What is the conservative position on federal laws against personal possession and consumption?

  15. Joey Avatar
    Joey

    Yes, there are conservatives who fit all those descriptions. They do not however, form groups and expect that CPAC will invite them. I don’t think that drug addicted conservatives would get very far.

    I recall the great GOProud kerfuffle at CPAC. Was that 2010? I saw an interview with the leader of GOProud and he listed off the conservative credentials of his group. Basically, he supports the war on Islamic radicalism because Muslim fanatics want to drop walls on homosexuals, and he likes lower taxes and less spending. Apparently that was it because that’s all he named.

    Well that all wonderful and I agree with him on those issues, but there are issue groups for that, like Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform. What does a homosexual group add?

    As I think we saw at CPAC, the point of these homosexual conservative organizations is not to sell homosexuals on the merits of conservatism but to convince conservatives that “gay rights” (a misnomer if ever there was one) is really a conservative cause. Those who weren’t convinced were shouted down. The “big tent” was big enough for homosexuals and their allies but oddly enough too small for people who disagreed with them.

    Everywhere “gay rights” has made strides, the individual rights of others to object to the behavior has been curtailed. Free speech, the free exercise of religion, property rights? They don’t care about any of those things. You want to know what America will look like in twenty years? Look at Canada and Britain and how authoritarian they have become in handling “hate speech.” We’re gettin’ there. If you want to know where the real attack on classical values is coming from, it’s from the homosexual movement.

    Here’s a link for just one story: http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/27/supreme-court-upholds-canadas-hate-speech-laws-in-case-involving-anti-gay-crusader/

    Homosexuals wanted the government out of their bedrooms and it is. Great. Now they want the government back in their bedrooms in the form of marriage. A state-sanctioned marriage contract is only a piece of paper that submits a relationship to legal (state) recognition and yes, regulation. People who want the government out of their lives don’t fight to get a marriage license from the government. Homosexual couples in states that don’t recognize same-sex marriage ALREADY have the government out of their lives!

    “What is the conservative position on federal laws against personal possession and consumption?”

    I would say that’s a tenth amendment issue to be left to the states.

  16. Joey Avatar
    Joey

    I really flummoxed by this Simon character.

    Two points for Simon. First, not towing the conservative line in the Republican party is no crime. I live in the Northeast. It’s all RINOs all the time. Remember Dede Scazafava? (sp?) Scott Brown, Olympia Snow, Christine Todd Whitman, Chris Christie, Bill Weld, Chris Shays. I actually knew the Speaker of the New Hampshire House, a Republican, who voted for same-sex marriage. The Republican Party is very big and we rarely, if ever, excommunicate heretics. I would say that heretics are running the joint so they don’t have much to complain about.

    Second, even if some RINO fails to win the party’s nomination because he veered too far away from the party’s principles, that’s not Communism. It’s the democratic process. The voters saw where the candidate stood on the issues and they rejected him. That’s how the system is supposed to work! Every party does it. When you call it Communism you sound like a hyperventilating child.

    Are you taking my message to heart?

  17. Eric Scheie Avatar

    I understand your position, but bear in mind that this post was not about gay marriage (a subject I have discussed for many years btw), nor was it about CPAC per se. Rather, I wanted to simply agree with what Andrew Breitbart said, (“If being conservative means rejecting gay conservatives because they are gay, then fine, I’m not a conservative.”) and point out that his own organization does not seem to be living up to his ideals.

  18. TheAJ Avatar
    TheAJ

    point out that his own organization does not seem to be living up to his ideals.

    Totally didn’t see that one coming.

  19. […] As Eric asks, Is Breitbart’s ghost uninvited? […]

  20. Simon Avatar

    Joey,

    What I evaluate a candidate on is smaller government. I don’t care about his stance on any number of issues.

    The only stance I care about is government involvement.

    I would gladly vote for an anti-abortion, gay hating, dope hating candidate as long as he said the magical words: “But there is no Constitutional authority for Federal law making in this area”.

  21. Simon Avatar

    I’m a small tent libertarian. And that tent consists of:

    “Stick to the Constitution MotherFuckers”

  22. Simon Avatar

    Which is to say the Republicans ought to stop being the Progressive Right in opposition to the Progressive Left.

  23. Joey Avatar
    Joey

    @Eric: I guess Breitbart’s organization doesn’t live up to the ideals of Breitbart. He probably would have invited GOProud. I liked Breitbart too. I think he actually wanted a big tent rather than a tent that’s big enough for thee but not for me.

    @Simon: As you said, “I would gladly vote for an anti-abortion, gay hating, dope hating candidate as long as he said the magical words: “But there is no Constitutional authority for Federal law making in this area”.”

    I think you use misnomers like “gay-hating”, but let’s unpack that for a second. On some issues, the Constitution does give the federal government legitimate authority to make law in such areas, such as the DADT policy. Are you trying to tell me that if a congressman supported DADT (as I did), a legitimate federal issue, you would be okay with that? The military falls under the purview of the federal government.

    Also, are you trying to tell me that you oppose federal meddling in the states’ business when it comes to, say, birth control? Connecticut had a ban on birth control pills until the Supreme Court struck it down. Do you oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Do you think that Loving v. Virginia was an unconstitutional power grab by the federal government? I’m just trying to see if you are consistent here. If you are, good for you.

    Also, on the topic of abortion. I would say that I agree with you that abortion is a state issue too, but Roe v. Wade says otherwise. The supreme court made it a federal issue when they overturned the laws of 48 states. The abortion battlefield is now federal. Why shouldn’t we fight on that battlefield? If we overturned Roe v. Wade (which I wholeheartedly support), the issue would go back to the states. But we aren’t there yet.

    I’m for sticking to the Constitution too, yet I can’t get hip to the young libertarian movement because they’re hypocritical and they aren’t very tolerant of differing ideas. The Republican Party, by contrast, tolerates differing ideas to an absurd degree. It’s hard to discern what it really stands for.

  24. […] Is Breitbart's ghost uninvited? […]

  25. Frank Avatar
    Frank

    It’s hard to discern what it really stands for.

    Not really. It stands for pragmatism, whatever works, in the long range goal of achieving power for power’s sake. It wraps itself in a fake aura of standing for freedom, except when freedom gets in the way. There is a very long list of stated principles that it supposedly adheres to, like economic freedom. But that never stops the party from making exception after exception in an all consuming rush to sell out when it’s convenient, or it needs a donation. If you want specific examples, here are a few:

    Republican Earl Warren as California Attorney General …is most remembered for being the moving force behind Japanese internment during the war: the compulsory removal of people of Japanese descent to inland internment camps in Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, Arkansas, Idaho, and Utah, away from the war zone along the coast.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren
    Promoting concentration camps for an ethnic minority, most of whom were legal citizens and born here is how Republicans made one exception.

    Or take Saint Ronald. He gained political recognition and prominence espousing libertarian principles. He got himself elected Governor of California traveling the state and speaking at college campuses, during the buildup of the Vietnam War, with a strong stand against the military draft. I heard him in person pledge that if elected Governor, he would use any and all of his political muscle to convince “those in Washington” to end “the evil of involuntary servitude to a military/industrial complex that Ike warned us about.” He also pledged unequivocally to veto any attempt to pass a state income tax withholding law. One of his famous lines was that “taxes should hurt” and that having them quietly removed from a paycheck would give politicians cover to piecemeal rob us blind. One of his first acts as Governor was to make a deal with the Democrats and sign an income tax withholding law. As to the draft, I got a personal letter from him saying that while he still believed that the draft should be abolished, maybe “right now in the middle of a war” isn’t the right time. Just like raising taxes as President was another campaign pledge broken, the man was one of the biggest liars and hypocrites to ever be elected to office. At least with a Democrat you know from the beginning that you are going to get fucked.

    And finally, this recent national election. The Republican Party nominated a man who was the architect of Obamacare while Governor of Massachuetts. And we were supposed to believe he would repeal it if elected? Even dumb shits like me can see through that.

    As to libertarians being hypocritical, Joey March, it is very much the opposite. They stand for freedom, period. No exceptions. And that is why they are not welcome in the Republican Party.

  26. Frank Avatar
    Frank

    And another thing, Joey, the federal government has no right asking if someone is a homosexual, or kicking them out of the military when they find out. It is none of their goddamn business.