One of the signs of success is when you drive your enemies batshit crazy. And one of the signs that leftists are being driven crazy is when they let down their guard and reveal themselves to be the very sort of bigots that they condemn.
In John Hawkins’ interview with Andrew Breitbart, I found a classic example:
One thing you do that’s pretty unique is consistently re-tweet the nasty attacks made on you by liberals on twitter. Why do you do that?
Because it exposes what leftists are — that they claim to be hippy dippy and live and let live, but at the end of the day, I have found that leftists are intolerant, hateful, and totalitarian and they don’t like to hear other people’s points of view. They, in the name of tolerance, call me gay all the time, too many times for it not to be called a trend. The media does a great job of creating the perception that hope and change is the mindset of the lefty, but I see people whose first tendency when they get into a rally is to throw a trash can through a Starbucks window. When a camera is on them they say we want a revolution. They wear socialist T-shirts, hand out socialist and communist literature at their events, and my goal is to expose the Left. Re-tweeting is a very, very effective tool for exposing the Left and it’s more fun than you can possibly imagine.
They “call me gay all the time.”
That speaks volumes about the political bankruptcy — and homophobia — of the shrill hardcore activists who think it’s just fine to hurl the word “gay” as an insult against their opponents. (Especially when the opponent is the much-demonized Andrew Breitbart.)
I did not say “homophobia” lightly, as it’s an often misused word conflating fear of homosexuals with anti-gay bigotry. But in the case of the people calling Breitbart gay, homophobia is a total fit. Remember, these are the same people who would object vehemently if an adolescent school boy who hadn’t thought much about it used the expression “that’s so gay!” They would be the first to pounce on him about the evils of homophobia, and their argument runs along the following lines: if you insult someone or put something down by using “gay,” you are saying that gay — and gays — are bad, inferior. And when they call Breitbart gay, it’s the same sort of putdown they would condemn in a school boy, except unlike the school boy, they aren’t just using an expression. They know exactly what they are doing.
To understand how truly homophobic the insult is, it is important to note two significant things about Andrew Breitbart. Not only is he not gay, but neither is he anti-gay. Far from it; he has told social conservatives that they cannot write gays off and have to come up with a coherent policy on gays that makes gays whole.
So insulting him by calling him gay is not grounded in a belief that he is gay (which would make him some sort of Uncle Tom hypocrite in the eyes of the left), nor is it grounded in the belief that he is a raving anti-gay bigot who will be reduced to a foaming frenzy by being called gay.
Nor can it be the intent to call Breitbart gay with a hope towards discrediting him among anti-gay conservatives, for that does not compute politically. No one on the right — not even the anti-gay right — is going to think less of Andrew Breitbart because angry left-wing activists have called him gay. They may be many things, but they simply are not that stupid.
Nor do I believe that the lefties imagine that hurling “gay” as an insult at Breitbart is going to change his mind about gays one way or another. Why would it?
This leaves only one explanation, which I think is the simplest one.
They call him gay because they think it is an insult to call a straight man gay.
That is the essence of homophobia. I can’t remember the last time I saw anything like that on the right, and again, I include the anti-gay WND types. I’m not saying it hasn’t happened, but it sure as hell isn’t routine, and it’s easy to see why. If anyone on the right were to castigate a non-gay political enemy as gay, it would be de facto proof of homophobia.
To understand the dynamics, imagine if Breitbart had been likened by leftists to some other minority group (to which he did not belong) as an insult. Black, Jewish, Hispanic, Asian, Muslim, I don’t care which group. It’s hard to imagine because it simply would never happen. Nor would they liken him to a woman as an insult, because it would be sexist, and they damned well know it.
But insulting political enemies by calling them gay is still perfectly acceptable on the hard left. So much for their sanctimony.
This is not new, of course. It’s just more proof of something I’ve seen for years.
Little wonder the phrase “tea bagger” is so popular on the left. What else could be expected from people who think “gay” is the worst thing they can call someone?
HT: Dr. Helen
Comments
9 responses to “To progressive homophobes, “gay” is the ultimate insult”
That is the essence of homophobia. I can’t remember the last time I saw anything like that on the right, and again, I include the anti-gay WND types.
I dismiss her as just an entertainer, with the outrageous remarks are meant only to get attention, but Ann Coulter is one exception that breaks your rule.
“I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I’m – so, kind of at an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards, so I think I’ll just conclude here and take your questions.”
“CNN calls them teabaggers, which is the gayest thing I’ve ever heard on CNN other than Anderson Cooper.”
We’ve discussed Stacy McCain at length, so no need to rehash that.
And then of course there is Michael Savage, but we don’t need to go there either, Coulter’s quite enough.
Otherwise, I agree with you about liberals being homophobic. And it’s a great point, since it exposes their hypocrisy.
Yeah, I should have remembered Coulter’s “faggot” remark, as I blogged about it extensively:
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/03/i_denounce_ann.html
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/03/post_257.html
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/03/post_258.html
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/03/i_confess_i_am.html
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/03/coulters_cunnin.html
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/03/isaiah_washingt.html
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/03/andrew_coulter.html
She also called Bill Clinton gay:
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2006/07/the_coulter_gay.html
Not only does it not typify the right, it’s so rare that I haven’t seen it for years. This is not to say that it doesn’t happen, but the difference is that the right doesn’t get a pass for it. The rule is that when someone on the right does it, it’s always called homophobia. But the left gets a pass.
I get your point about the pass leftists get. But the reason is because they are usually in the forefront of pushing gay rights legislation, some which shouldn’t be law, like hate crimes.
On the other hand, to say that Republicans and conservatives in particular, are gay friendly is a stretch. So when ANY of their leaders spout off, they are preaching to a receptive crowd. Yes, they are called on it, but the rabble loves it.
I didn’t include Pat Buchanan because he’s become a useful tool of the left. However, his religious based homophobia is vicious, and he’s certainly not afraid to vent – in writing.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=40720
I’m sorry if the remarks seemed snarky, but I take exception to the impression your post leaves. There is a whole group of Republican Senators and Congressmen who are anything but gay friendly, like those who boycotted CPAC this year.
The homophobia oozes from the young and upcoming Senator Marco Rubio. But like him they are smart enough to leave the dirty work to campaign underlings. All smiles and decorum in public, but repelled and revolted by homosexuality.
Pat Buchanan sums up their attitude, from the article linked above:
To these folks, homosexuality is associated with a high incidence of disease, HIV/AIDS, early death, cultural decadence and civilizational decline.
Please share specifics. Who called Mr. Breitbart gay and when/where can I find this? Interesting.
Frank, I slammed the CPAC boycott too, but I wanted my focus to be on Breitbart because I think he has been targeted for abuse because he does not fit the leftie narrative.
As to who called him gay, one of them was identified as a Democratic official:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/report-protestor-who-called-andrew-breitbart-gay-identified-as-a-democratic-official/
The “Breitbart is gay” meme is a well established one on the left:
http://wonkette.com/413474/andrew-breitbart-will-kill-all-of-you-decadent-bastards
http://heloise8.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/andrew-breitbart-the-gay-jew-with-a-plan/
“They call him gay because they think it is an insult to call a straight man gay.
That is the essence of homophobia.”
Maybe, coming from the hypocritical left.
But the Coulter comment I took as Insult, rather than Phobia.
Tongue in cheek, this is the Art of the Insult:
To insult a straight man, call him gay.
To insult a gay man, call him bitch.
To insult a bitch, call her a dick.
Long live Don Rickles.
I have had online interaction with a certain commenter at website A who self-identified as gay, and very militantly so. On website B the same commenter had no hesitation at all to call those to the right of him politically as “teabaggers.”
This is a nice howdy. I actually have nothing against Andrew he’s closer to being gay/feminine in my mind that’s all. He helped blogcritics get on the blogging map. Politically I’m a classic indie.
Sometimes I use hyperbole as a blogger. Like the doc that sent the witch doc email about Obama. He had an Irish name and I called him a Jew knowing full well he wasn’t. Why? Bcz Jews are the masters of propaganda and taught hitler everything he knew. So guilty as charged. But I remain an over the top independent.
Heloise
You call yourself a classicist? they invented all things gay and pedophiliac so it is not the insult you propose it to be. They lived by their own rules. Andrew was surely one of them in a former life.
Heloise