Monday, December 20, 2010

Rightbloggers on DADT: A slow march toward tolerance, with side trips to insanity

Posted By on Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 6:00 AM

click to enlarge rightbloggers_thumb_200x230.jpg

This weekend the Senate repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell

-- the 17-year-old policy that allowed gays to serve in the U.S.

military only if they could conceal their sexual orientation. The bill

awaits Obama's signature.

You might expect rightbloggers to be angry about it, and some of them

are -- hilariously so. But homophobia isn't what it used to be (that is,

it's not as popular) so some have gotten with the new gay wave, while

others resort to a softer, more passive-aggressive approach.

Their behavior gives a little clue as to who's really running the right-wing show these days.



Let's start with the refuseniks. Generally, the less lunatic

rightbloggers went gently with the sad news, leaving the outrage to

their readers. Weasel Zippers,

for instance, got in and out fast ("DADT Repealed 65-31, Armed Forces

hardest hit..."), but his commenters were far more voluble ("We are Rome

and we are burning," "The problem is, you know how flamboyant these

sorts of people are. Yeah, I said these sorts..." "Okay, what happens if

a dyke lesbian insists on staying with the guys, and fighting as a

man?" etc).

"If only the President was this committed to fighting the war in Afghanistan to a successful conclusion," bemoaned This Ain't Hell. Dan Riehl said he wasn't "much of a culture warrior

and "I haven't paid much attention to this issue," then made a bunch

of gay jokes ("Do military uniforms allow for cross-dressing, by the

way?"). Stop The ACLU published the names of "The 8 Republican RINOs that voted for repeal."

Kevin McCullough

had questions. For one: "How can you possibly be allowing for the

flamboyancy of effeminate male soldiers to engage in sexual conduct and

their notorious ever wandering lust for the new on one hand, and hold

court martial for those who have discreetly hidden their sexual

escapades while destroying their families?" We're sure DoD is working on

it.

At The Astute Bloggers Alec Rawls -- best known for his tireless efforts to expose the proposed United 93 Memorial in Pennsylvania as a secret tribute to radical Islam

-- applied his fertile imagination to the newly-gay military. At

present, Rawls argued, military personnel serving overseas don't have

many sexual opportunities, which made him proud: "Heterosexual young men

are willing to join the military and put their sex lives on hold," he

explained, "because the manliness of fighting for their nation makes the

lack of access to females bearable."

sailors.jpg
The dissenting view.
​But

"if a subculture of active homosexuality is allowed to burst out and

grow amidst the suppressed heterosexuality of our military," Rawls

added, look out: military service will become "a gauntlet of having to

abide whatever in-your-face homosexuality the flamers want to throw up,"

like Tailhook,

only gay and 24/7. This, Rawls predicted, "will be a death sentence for

heterosexual recruiting." See how you like your all-gay armed forces,

America!

Another big-picture thinker, Jane Jamison,

identified herself to readers of Right Wing News as a "heterosexual

conservative" who lives in the "very liberal San Francisco area," where

she has been able to observe the gay menace at close hand. For example,

"God forbid you happen into San Francisco by accident during the 'Bay to

Breakers' race," she wrote, "you and the kids will see naked gay sex

acts on the sidewalk with police standing by watching." Along with this

travel tip, Jamison revealed that "there can be dire consequences for

being unabashedly heterosexual" -- for example, "being 'homophobed,'"

which sounds unpleasant.

Based of her experience, Jamison has determined that "repeal of DADT is

just one more progressive step to shrink our defenses and weaken us in

the world. That long-term goal has only a little to do with gays, but

they are useful tools for now. Gay soldiers are just one way to create

chaos and distraction and eventually end our military."

Jamison found relevance to this charge in the case of reportedly gay WikiLeaks soldier Pvt. Bradley Manning. She riffed off a post

at Gay Patriot, which actually supported repeal on security grounds,

that "gays have been lying for years to get hired into military jobs,

and knowingly setting themselves up to be bribed by people who would do

this country harm. What is patriotic about that? This is similar to the

argument about amnesty for illegal aliens." She also read the Gay

Patriot post to mean that "the gay community has been committing an

'extortion' against America - legalize us or we will keep joining the

military and doing what we can on the inside to jeopardize the system."

Also, gays will usher in "shariah law," but they'll have a hard time

with those radical Islamists once they take over, etc.

Deebow

of the milblog Blackfive found the news that the military will probably

"'expressly prohibit' heterosexuals from using separate showers,

bathrooms and bunking facilities from homosexuals" as proof that

"Liberalism is a Mental Disorder... I am pretty certain that if I have

to live in the same BEQ room with two other guys, who happen to be gay, I

am nigh on to convinced that there are going to be, um... issues."

Disappointingly, Deebow didn't follow up on this speculative fiction

opening, but did tell us that "even though it is the military, there are

things you still can't make service members think or do" -- like accept

gay people as comrades in arms. "I think the 'giant sucking sound' that

America is about to hear," he added, "comes from the members of our

military who are going to be leaving... So libturds, you might think

that you have given us a kinder gentler military that is more fashion

conscious and sensitive. All you did today was weaken a country." Deebow

also quoted Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men, presumedly for added authority.

At The American Spectator, W. James Antle III

said that while DADT was "flawed and unstable," it had attempted "to

balance two competing realities: Many individual homosexuals serve

honorably and effectively in the miltary even as, all other things being

equal, open homosexuality as such is a disruptive force... Now instead

of trying to avoid the incidence of sexual attraction within the armed

forces, there will have to be myriad rules and regulations trying to

cope with its consequences."

If you think this argument is flawed because heterosexual women serve

with men in the military without much difficulty, you should know Antle

doesn't approve of that either. "...introducing into the military women

as a group ensured that some of the women will inevitably be attracted

to some of the men (and vice versa) over time... DADT repeal ensures

that this element of sexual attraction and tension will be repeated in

still more intimate settings and in combat situations." So the trouble

all really started with the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps, or perhaps Florence Nightingale.

Ah, such larks. But there were rightblogger repeal supporters, and those whose position might best be described as Tolerant, But With An Explanation.


Several prominent rightbloggers including Tom Maguire ("John McCain is fuming but Barry Goldwater would have applauded"), Ann Althouse ("I don't like all this lame duck action, but I'm greatly pleased to see the awful old law repealed at last"), and Allahpundit

("I support the move, but if you don't, look at it this way: As Gates

has often said, if it didn't happen here it probably would have happened

in the courts"), gave repeal a categorical thumbs up. Even the coverage

of the Senate vote in National Review's The Corner was generally sober and straightforward (though we haven't heard at this writing from John Derbyshire yet).

Some strained a bit to show their conservative credentials while

supporting, or at least staying out of the way of, this progressive

policy change.



"I've been on record as favoring repeal for a long time," said Donald Douglas at American Power, "but that doesn't mean I don't find the military's rationale compelling." Then Douglas pointed to another post

of his from last February in which he said "I oppose Don't Ask, Don't

Tell,'" but which is titled "Against Gays in the Military" -- and, like

his current article, consists mostly of reasons why gays shouldn't

serve. Douglas seems conflicted (might we say Questioning?), or maybe

he's just expecting readers to pick up only the buzzwords of which they

approve.

William Jacobsen

of Legal Insurrection was slippery, allowing only that "there were a

number of arguments in favor of (and against) repeal," and turning the

occasion into a lecture on the preferability of passing possibly-good

social reforms via legislation rather than by judicial fiat, e.g. Roe v.

Wade.

Others saw the repeal as bad news for the Democrats. When repeal supporter Ann Althouse

had a laugh at a CNN front page that played a "Mom defies doctor, has

baby her way" story big and the DADT story small, real supporter Instapundit

interpreted thus: "A SUGGESTION THAT DON'T ASK DON'T TELL REPEAL may

not be so good for the Democrats. If it were, would they be downplaying

it?" A special prize is due Jim Hoft, who headlined, "Senate Repeals Bill Clinton's Discriminatory 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Law."

All this gives us a little insight into who's running the rightwing agenda these days.

wasserman.jpg
   See? It's bipartisan!
​Time was, you had hunt high and low to find a conservative who supported any kind of gay rights. When rightwing pioneer Marvin Liebman

came out as gay in a letter to William Buckley in 1990, it was a big

deal. When Barry Goldwater made pro-gay-rights statements in the 90s,

the Washington Post portrayed it as "Barry Goldwater's Left Turn," apparently considering it so far out of character for a conservative politician as to constitute apostasy.

Over time general American attitudes toward homosexuality have softened.

On the evidence of their writings and policies, this would seem to be

happening more slowly on the right. To some extent this has to do with

principles and prejudice, but we think it has to do with politics, too:

With the rise of the Moral Majority in the 80s, the evangelical movement

became a major player in the Republican coalition, and there was no

motivation to upset them by bucking their anti-gay-rights agenda.

That coalition came a-cropper in the 2006 and 2008 elections, and today

the evangelicals have lost their mojo to the Tea Party, whose primary

loyalty is to capitalism rather than Jesus. Christian Right orgs like

the American Family Association

are denouncing DADT repeal, with particular contempt for the "Benedict

Arnold Republicans" who joined with the Democrats to "destroy [the]

military and our national security." But secular conservatives aren't

giving them much cover. When they do talk about morality, it's more likely to be about the morality of the market, as in William McGurn essay in the Wall Street Journal

earlier this month ("the heart of the tea party's objections to the

Beltway status quo is fundamentally a moral one: that Washington is

arrogant about how it takes and spends our money").

So while some of the brethren will continue to fume over gay this or gay

that, most seem to find such talk a poor use of resources -- at least

when the battles are lost and the return on political investment thereby

diminished. There's still a place for culture warring, but it will be

mostly about the overthrow of a putative "ruling class," and Jesus will be reduced to guest appearances.

Unless there's a big ruling on gay marriage. Then, all bets are off!

Tags: ,

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

Most Popular Stories

Slideshows

All contents ©2014 Kansas City Pitch LLC
All rights reserved. No part of this service may be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of Kansas City Pitch LLC,
except that an individual may download and/or forward articles via email to a reasonable number of recipients for personal, non-commercial purposes.

All contents © 2012 SouthComm, Inc. 210 12th Ave S. Ste. 100, Nashville, TN 37203. (615) 244-7989.
All rights reserved. No part of this service may be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of SouthComm, Inc.
except that an individual may download and/or forward articles via email to a reasonable number of recipients for personal, non-commercial purposes.
Website powered by Foundation