Is hiring a gay spokesman “not conservative“? I don’t know. Some self appointed spokesmen for conservatism seem to think that it isn’t. And some of them are screaming loudly that Romney should be made to atone.
So what is “conservative”?
As a libertarian, am I supposed to care? Should I be battling to be able to use a label on myself if that label means refusing to hire gays? I don’t think so.
Is there such a thing as a gay conservative? Not according to some, who see it as an oxymoron. To them conservatism is defined as a believing in what they call Biblical truths. Anything that deviates is less than conservatism. I don’t know whether “conservative” has become a religious term, but if it has, then the debate is shifting.
Or is the determination of whether one is on the right or the left now determined by sexuality? I know I’ve asked repeatedly, but seriously how did sex become a left versus right thing?
I think genitally driven politics is a very bad idea. Not only is it illogical, but the primary beneficiary is the left. I’ve called it “bad political math” — because all the Democrats have to do is nothing, and occasionally admit they’re human if they get caught having sex:
…sex — whether practiced by Republicans or Democrats — is absolutely guaranteed to occur. While the vast majority of people agree that adultery is wrong, politicizing it by saying that the Republicans are really really against adultery (more against adultery than anyone else) distorts all reality.
If the Republicans are more against adultery than everyone else, it does more than merely set them up for a fall. By putting them on a high horse, it makes ordinary people want them to fall. For some reason, the Republicans do not understand the basic, anti-elitist, populist mindset at work here. It’s why people sympathized with Bill Clinton. Not because they really sympathized with or “approved” of what he did. Few thought what he did was OK (despite the charges many moral conservatives made at the time). What they objected to was the scolding, and it is important to understand that not liking scolding does not equate with approval of the conduct in question.
Clinton, it should be remembered, won elections and survived impeachment despite repeated sex scandals. More remarkably, the conservative reaction to his sex life caused many people to disregard his perjury, which is a serious crime. Moral scolds need to remember that the voting booth is a very private place where people can do what they want.
I may be wrong, but I think this means that Romney may have played his cards well in hiring a gay spokesman. The attacks from the anti-gay right may very well help him with ordinary voters, while infuriating both the “sexual left” and the “anti-sexual right” who are bound and determined to link politics to penises.
I only wish the process wasn’t so tedious.
UPDATE: What I said earlier — “Clinton, it should be remembered, won reelection despite a sex scandal” — seemed misleading, as his most notable scandal — the Monica Lewinsky affair — broke during his second term, so I reworded it. Other affairs, however, were so well known that they can honestly be said to have characterized — and even eclipsed — his career.
Looking back, I think that Bill Clinton did a great deal (whether intentionally or not) to politicize and polarize sex along right/left lines.
Nothing rational about it.
Comments
10 responses to “Do conservatives hate penis freedom? Should I care?”
I was always a “dress right” kind of guy. Even when I was on the left.
You post a comment as though you wish to have a debate on this issue, yet every time I answer you, you run away.
It is my personal opinion that homosexuality is indicative of a psychological problem, a point made all the more likely by the tendency of Adult homosexuals to be represented by people who were molested as children.
If someone tried to convince everyone that they were a “Vampire” or a “Warlock” it would be approximately the same sort of psychosis.
People would immediately recognize that there is something seriously wrong with this individual, but because THIS particular mental disorder has such a large following, we dare not suggest these people are ill.
Now we have the EEOC ruling that “gender-identity discrimination is covered by Title VII”, so we have in the years to come the opportunity to look forward to people in positions of authority who are so screwed up they want to pretend they are the opposite sex.
It won’t be long before they start pushing the reduction in the age of consent again, but of course you (et al) keep thinking “that’ll never happen.”
Stay tuned.
My opinion as a conservative is that I don’t support the gay lifestyle. I’m not in your face protesting against gays. If you ask I’ll say it’s wrong. Then I’ll continue to love you because you’re my brother or my friend. Yes I’d hire you if I thought you were the best candidate for the job. The gay thing has nothing to do with it.
You post a comment as though you wish to have a debate on this issue, yet every time I answer you, you run away.
This post was about whether gays can be conservatives, and the larger issue of whether sexuality should be a right versus left issue. I wasn’t talking about whether homosexuality should be considered a mental illness, whether gays were molested as children, or gender identity, but you raised these issues, and then accuse me of running away from them.
To think that every time I write a post that doesn’t discuss something, that I am running away from what I didn’t say but a commenter brings up — that is mind boggling. Because it means that I am running away from every new issue raised that I don’t address. An impossible standard.
I don’t want to run away from you, or from what you consider the truth. Honestly, I only wanted to argue against sexualized politics. Who was born what way, who has mental problems, who was molested as a child, who has gender identity issues — these things have been discussed at length in many other posts over the years. So has the War on Drugs, the War in Iraq, and even the War on Pit Bulls.
I am an adult gay man, and I was never molested as a child, I have no psychological problems (that I’m aware of), and I have no gender-identity issues. I am also in a committed, monogamous relationship. If Romney’s spokesman is like me, and is the best person for the job, why shouldn’t he be hired?
Oh, and I also consider myself a conservative with libertarian tendencies.
[…] the sex life (or lack thereof) of a football player, it is not surprising, because sex has become so thoroughly politicized that something like this becomes a “right versus left” issue, with […]
[…] the sex life (or lack thereof) of a football player, it is not surprising, because sex has become so thoroughly politicized that something like this becomes a “right versus left” issue, with […]
This post was about whether gays can be conservatives, and the larger issue of whether sexuality should be a right versus left issue. I wasn’t talking about whether homosexuality should be considered a mental illness, whether gays were molested as children, or gender identity, but you raised these issues, and then accuse me of running away from them.
Those aspects are salient to the point. Again, if they believed themselves to be “Vampires” or “Warlocks” you would think them crazy and would not want them in a position of authority.
To think that every time I write a post that doesn’t discuss something, that I am running away from what I didn’t say but a commenter brings up — that is mind boggling. Because it means that I am running away from every new issue raised that I don’t address. An impossible standard.
I have in the past, brought you face to face with some dichotomies of your thinking, and you simply ignore them. You say you are against pedophilia because it is illegal, and ignore the fact that Homosexuality was illegal too, but you are tolerant of that now that it’s legal.
My point is, will you support Pedophilia when that is legal too? Is there a bottom depth to which you will not lend your acquiescence, and if so, where is it and by what criteria is it defined?
Certainly asserting that something is “legal” is a poor way to judge the rightness or wrongness of it. Slavery comes to mind.
I am an adult gay man, and I was never molested as a child, I have no psychological problems (that I’m aware of), and I have no gender-identity issues.
Didn’t say all were molested, just an inordinate number, but the second part of your response begs a question. Do you consider a gender-identity issue evidence of a psychological problem, and if so, on what basis?
I am also in a committed, monogamous relationship.
That is likewise a seemingly outlier condition.
If Romney’s spokesman is like me, and is the best person for the job, why shouldn’t he be hired?
Why shouldn’t women be in combat? Because they are not the best pick for the Job. Romeny’s indulgence on this issue certainly rubs a large part of his constituency the wrong way, and I have read countless messages from people who assert they will simply not vote for him as a result of it.
It would have cost him nothing to have avoided the issue, and is therefore an unforced error. Possibly a politically fatal one, though I doubt it.