Thursday, March 15, 2007

Conservatives: all grown up now

According to noted columnist Cal Brown, conservative voters may be becoming more tolerant of non-traditional sexual lifestyle choices. His latest column, entitled "The Maturing of the Right", opens thusly:

Conservative Evangelical Christian voters have come a long way in a short time. From their nearly unanimous condemnation of Bill Clinton for his extramarital affairs, a growing number of these "pro-family" voters appear ready to accept several Republican presidential candidates who do not share their ideal of marriage and faith.

Thomas then goes on to detail a virtual phone directory of potential Republican Presidential nominees who aren't exactly modern day avatars of Ward Cleaver-like family values, such as Rudy Guliani and Newt Gingrich, both of whom had extramarital affairs with their current wives while married to their previous ones, and Mitt Romney, who is, after all, a goddam hellbound Mormon, not to mention a former governor of Faggachusetts.

Thomas goes on to pontificate:

That substantial numbers of conservative evangelical voters are even considering these candidates as presidential prospects is a sign of their political maturation and of their more pragmatic view of what can be expected from politics and politicians. It is also evidence that many of them are awakening to at least two other realities - (1) they are not electing a church deacon; and (2) government has limited power to rebuild a crumbling social construct.

Now, some of my very small readership may be at this point snidely snorting something along the lines of "Bullshit, fucko, the only reason Christian conservative voters are 'even considering these candidates as presidential prospects' is because conservative voters are all dumbasses and hypocrites who only hold people outside their tribe accountable to their bullshit values, while allowing the most ridiculously false facades and charades of moral living to pass entirely unquestioned in their own annointed tribal leaders." Except, of course, given that my readers are all smarter than I am, nearly any of you might have found a more elegant and concise way of putting it. Nonetheless, I can see the suspicion in your eyes -- you're thinking, well, sure, they'll give Rudy and Newt a free pass, because they loooooove those guys, but if the Democrats were to put up someone who'd been divorced twice as their Presidential candidate, the wingnuts would fall all over themselves screaming 'adulterer, adulterer, adulterer'.

But I want to say, I simply don't think this is true. Thomas makes a persuasive point, and, frankly, I'm sick to death of people hating on the right wing simply because they still adhere to the kind of traditional values that made America strong. Those who say the right wing is full of two faced lying hypocrites are simply demeaning their fellow Americans without foundation. If Thomas says the right wing is maturing as regards tolerance of non-traditional lifestyle choices, well, then, I am willing to take him at his word. And I'll prove it. I'm certain that, given this new maturity on the right, nobody in the conservative blogosphere is continuing to obsess on The Clenis --

There was always a kind of primitive Golden Bowl fertility cult aspect to the Clintons' popularity in the 1990s: So long as the divine king was boffing maidens in the Oval Office, the harvest would come in healthy and rich. Then the king departed to his great tower in the sky, and since then we have had nothing but trouble. Can Hillary tap into this great primeval instinct? Might she subtly suggest that she would restore the orgiastic rituals that brought affluence in the past? Rationalists might doubt that presidential sexual hijinks really enrich the nation. But believers can retort: They sure didn't hurt!

Uh... okay, that's David Frum, in a post dated Wednesday, March 14, 2007. And, um, well, he sure doesn't seem to have gotten to a point where he's willing to accept "presidential candidates who do not share [his] ideal of marriage and faith". But hey, he must be an anomaly, because Cal Brown wouldn't bullshit me! He insists that "Conservative evangelicals have grown up". So while David Frum may still be hatin' on Billy's willie, I'm sure there's no one else on the right wing who is going on and on and on about other people's sex lives --


How To Bomb A Gay Bath House, by Mike S. Adams

But enough about what Ann [Coulter] ought not to do. Here’s what she should do immediately:

1. Start a website called “Global War on Fags” today.

2. Begin writing essays calling for the cleansing and purification of society via the mass murder of homosexuals.

3. Distribute videos on the website showing the actual murders of homosexuals.

4. Circulate instructions on how to bomb gay bath houses in San Francisco.

5. Circulate a “battle dispatch” to give people specific information on America’s most notorious bath houses.

6. Apply for a job at Kent State University.

It... I... but...

Okay, fine, I admit, it doesn't seem like the right has matured any, in terms of becoming more tolerant of other people doing things they might not approve of, that aren't any of their business anyway. But appearances could be deceiving! After all, if indeed the whole conservative movement can get behind someone as permissive towards things like the gay lifestyle as Rudy Guliani is, then, indeed, there are promising signs of personal growth across the entire --

In addition, Giuliani is not in a position to defend family values, given his history of defending special rights for people who actively engage in a homosexual lifestyle. As Michael Long of the New York state Conservative Party said in 2004, “I just don’t see Rudy Giuliani being able to sway conservatives within the Republican Party. The gay marriage issue draws a line down the middle of the street, and Rudy Giuliani is something of a champion of gay rights.” As mayor of New York, Giuliani signed a “domestic partnership” bill; he has supported civil unions for homosexuals; and he lived with two homosexual men.

Is Giuliani the most liberal candidate running for the White House? Hillary and Barack could certainly give him a run for his liberal money. But the hero of 9/11 is no conservative, and it would be a mistake for the mainstream media to count out conservatives this Presidential election season — even if it would cause them trouble meeting their deadlines.

Who wrote that? Certainly not one of the "pro family" "maturing right" conservative voters that Cal Brown is extolling so glowingly. I mean, that would be crazy. That would mean that Brown might have been wrong, and, in fact, conservatives are still the same provincial, pissy ass, tiny-minded, intolerant, joy hating xenophobes they've always been. So whoever wrote that, it couldn't be a conservative...

Nathan Tabor is a conservative political activist based in Kernersville, North Carolina, where he owns a successful small business and was recently a candidate for Congress. He has his Master’s Degree in Public Policy from the Robertson School of Government at Regent University.

No, no, it's not true! He must be a liberal plant! Because that would mean that all you guys were right all along, and in fact, Cal is only Brown because he's so full of crap, and conservatives aren't becoming more mature or tolerant, they're just, you know, doing the same fucked up shit they've always been into... ignoring the reality (bungling cokeheaded drunken dumbass bullshit slinging draft dodging power hungry control freak scion of privilege and wealth with no work ethic) in favor of the carefully constructed image (down to earth straight talking flightsuit wearing good ol' boy who will defeat the Terrorists with his bare hands) while insisting that only the people they don't like must somehow live up to their insane medieval moral strictures.

Jesus. It's getting so you can't even trust a conservative columnist these days.


At 11:38 AM, Blogger Opus P. Penguin said...

My lawyers have advised me not to comment because it often seems to get me into trouble...

Given that, they can all go to hell.

Plant or not, what I want to know is if liberals are growing up and becoming more tolerant of anyone who doesn't think the same way they do...

And Guiliani is no dummy. There is no way a "true" Republican can get elected in New York, because there are fewer Republicans in NYC than there are Christiain Conservative congressmen in a DC bathhouse...OK, bad he is forced to be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.

And just to throw my lawyers a bone, I will not comment in my usual way on generalizations and stereotypes and such.

So there.

At 12:12 PM, Blogger Highlander said...


Believe it or not, there is a difference between (a) demanding that everybody love Jesus OR DIE BY HOLY HAND GRENADE BLAST, INFIDEL!!!! and (b) demanding that everybody tolerate those who love Jesus, or who do not love Jesus, or who only like Jesus, or, y'know, whatever, or, we'll withhold Federal funding.

Conservatives love to spin loss of privileged status as being an actual infringement on their basic civil liberties. It just ain't so. Progressive policy demands tolerance of ALL lifestyle choices that do not pose a clear and present danger to the citizenry. That includes Jebus worship, but it ALSO includes Allah worship, Bast worship, Mammon worship (a favorite among Repubs), Satan worship, and (my own particular choice o' poison) no goddam worship whatsoever.

Conservatives hate this, but it's the hatred of a monopoly for upstart competition, and it simply won't fly. Liberals do not demand that everyone think, feel, or behave exactly the same way they do, they simply demand that everyone TOLERATE those who think, feel, and behave... however the fuck they want to. And liberals do not tolerate intolerance... and contrary to the best conservative philosophy, intolerance is not a right.

Now, moving on beyond that, when you can show me a lot of liberals pointing to reporters and conservatives and anyone else who disagrees with them and demanding that these people be deported, or arrested, or tortured, or horsewhipped in public, or executed, as far more conservative and Republican mouthpieces than I even want to bother listing here have done, over and over again, well, I'll listen to you when to talk about "liberals growing up and becoming more tolerant of anyone who doesn't think the same way they do".

I suspect you know this, and I understand your personal reasons for resenting anyone who attempts to tar every conservative, or every Republican, with the same brush. I really honest to God do. But trying to say that those who stand for tolerance are on equivalent moral or ethical ground to those who want to see us killed/tortured/arrested/deported for being tolerant of everything except their hatred... that's just silly.

At 5:44 PM, Blogger Opus P. Penguin said...

I do know that. As for getting into moral and ethical arguments with you...well, I'm just too tired.

I suppose I simply have this overdeveloped sense of fairness. Or, marrying a Republican has given me, a born and bred lefty and evolved atheist, a greater sense of the double standard that Repubs face in the media and elsewhere.

It's not like I AGREE with him on everything...but hey, nobody's perfect. If we thought in lock step about every issue, I suppose it would be...let's just say, not as interesting.

At 8:54 PM, Blogger AaA said...

"Bullshit, fucko, the only reason psuedo-Christian conservative voters are 'even considering these candidates as presidential prospects' is because conservative voters are hypocrites who only hold others accountable to Christian values (never themselves), while allowing the most ridiculously false facades and charades of moral living to pass entirely unquestioned in their own annointed tribal leaders."

There. Speaks for me now.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home