For the past few weeks, I have been collecting information for posts articulating how I became disenchanted with Andrew Sullivan’s writings — and Log Cabin’s policies — to respond to critics who have accused us of “obsessing” about the two. In these posts, I would seek to make clear the reasons for my disenchantment. The long and the short of it is, that as a gay conservative blog, taking issue with prominent gay individuals and institutions who claim to be conservative, while acting like liberals, is essential to what we do.

Given how much effort I would have to put into making each of these posts comprehensive, I have wondered it would really be worth my while to write them. Most (but not all) of those who fault us for taking on Andrew and Log Cabin fail to address the substance of our posts. And I wonder if they would react any differently to a comprehensive piece on each.

I was pleased when a reader, generally supportive of Log Cabin, wrote me to say that after rereading my posts, he had a “handle” on my “areas of concern with the Log Cabin Republican organization.” It was clear that, for this reader, my posts did make a difference — and that even while he did not reach the same conclusions about the organization as (Bruce and) I have, he did at least appreciate my arguments.

What this reader got was that one of my primary “areas of concern” with Log Cabin was that it is at pains to make itself indistinguishable from the gay left. Given the statist ideas which dominate most gay organizations, it would seem that a Republican gay group would be eager to distinguish itself, by putting foward an agenda of liberty, consistent with our party’s principles (but, alas, not always its practice).

For example, when a gay group starts acting like a “knee-jerk, Daily Kos-ite arm of the Democratic National Committee,” gay Republicans should denounce its transformation. Instead, as I’ve noted before, Log Cabin invited the Executive Director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) to its recent national “convention.”

A Republican friend who was there wrote me saying, “I went into the dinner not knowing what Log Cabin does and I left the dinner not knowing what Log Cabin does or intends to do.” The group seems adrift, without a clear a purpose, but only with a concern not to offend anyone on the gay left.

Much as Log Cabin seems eager not to offend anyone on the gay left, Andrew Sullivan seems eager to appease those on the gay left who once reviled him. And he appeals not to the best of their ideas, but instead to the worst of their passions — their unhinged hatred of President Bush. It’s not merely that he has become critical of the president, it’s that his criticism, while a tad more eloquent (than much of the bile emanating from the fever swamps), has become substantively almost identical to that unhinged hate.

(more…)

Last night, I watched a movie, Super Troopers that I had quite enjoyed when I saw it a few years back on the big screen. A couple weeks ago when I found the flick on sale at Best Buy, I snapped it up, thinking that it would entertain me as it had when I first watched it. Only last night, it left me cold. And while I did laugh a few times, I was generally bored with the feature. I had a similar experience with Spaceballs a movie I loved when the first time I saw it.

I am fascinated that certain movies that we once enjoyed just don’t hold up for a second viewing. A few days ago, a friend and I noted that while as kids, we both loved Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, as adults, we found it interminable.

Perhaps it’s that while some children’s movies (e.g., The Wizard of Oz, Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King) have characters and themes which resonate for adults as well as kids, some children’s movies are just that, movies for children. I highly doubt that I would have enjoyed Ice Age: The Meltdown as much as I had, had I not gone to see it with the second eldest PatriotNieceWest. A few years back, I thoroughly enjoyed seeing 102 Dalmations with her and her cousin (the third eldest PatriotNieceWest).

So it seems it’s our circumstances at the time we see a movie which effect how we enjoy it as much as how we relate to the film’s content itself. A movie which we enjoyed as a child leaves us a cold as an adult. But, if we see that same flick with a beloved niece, nephew or godchild, we have entirely different experience. Similarly, a movie which leaves us cold when we first see it moves us when, for some reason, we see it again. (I experienced this with the Matrix, finding the movie off-putting the first time I saw it, yet when I won a free DVD at a party, I watched it again and was thoroughly captivated.)

Edmund Burke wrote that, “Circumstances give in reality to every political principle its distinguishing color and discriminating effect.” It seems this applies to moviegoing as well as politics.

Finally getting caught up on my reading after the craziness of these past few weeks and discovered this gem in Peggy’s column last week:

To criticize the White House–if the criticism is serious, well-grounded and well-meant–is helpful, and part of a long and good tradition. But allowing philosophical estrangement to leave you wishing the administration ill is to give in to the destructive spirit of the age. That too has a tradition, but not a good one. Five years ago this September history took a dark turn, and though we can forget it in the day to day, we’re all in this together.

With this paragraph, Peggy provides words which help me better describe what so irks me (and so many others conservatives) about Bush-hatred. Every time some conservative takes issue with an unhinged critic of the president, those critics (or their defenders) say we can’t tolerate criticism of our, to use an expression oft-heard in the fever swamps (but not among Bush supporters and others on the right), “Dear Leader.” What bothers us though is not criticism of the president, but Bush-haters’ manner of expressing it.

Odd how some of those who refuse to see anything positive in the president’s actions assume that his supporters never see anything negative in his actions — even when there is abundant evidence that many such supporters often criticize “our” man.

When getting back to regulalry reading blogs (after returning from my trip to the Buckeye State), I realized that every conservative blog I read regularly has criticized the president at some time or another, some quite frequently, others less so. Not only that, many conservative columnists like my Athena herself, while usually supportive of the president, are often quite critical of him.

The difference is one of tone. They do not wish ill on the Administration — or delight in the suggestion of scandal. (And yes, there were many conservatives who wished ill on the previous Administration and delighted in its scandals.) It is this wishing the Administration ill that so troubles us, especially, as Peggy notes, in the days after 9/11 when we are ever aware how much certain islamicists hate us — and are willing to devise diabolical means to murder thousands, if not millions, of innocent civilians.

When I wrote my piece “Grading the President on Reagan’s Legacy, Bruce asked me to make two sentences into a separate paragraph of their own:

Perhaps, we spend so much time defending the president because his critics, particularly those on the gay left, make such outlandish (and very often inaccurate) accusations against him. Had they made more responsible critiques, they might find us less critical of them.

I didn’t realize until Bruce called my attention to this passage how significant it was. Our critics assume are such slavish followers of the president because we spend so much time defending him. But, we wouldn’t be defending him so often if they weren’t attacking him with such venom and ill will.

Peggy has penned a powerful piece where she offers a smart agenda for the last one thousand days of the president’s term. And once again, my favorite columnist* has taken issue with the president and like this column and this one, she not only criticizes, but also offers suggestions for improvement. Perhaps as part of the shakeup at the White House, new Chief of Staff Josh Bolten could bring Peggy in for regular briefings with top Administration officials — and the president himself.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

*Though Charles Krauthammer, Mark Steyn and Victor Davis Hanson give Peggy a run for her money.

UPDATE: Over at Classical Values, Eric Scheie fisks Paul Krugman’s latest where that columnist claims that “administration supporters” have “built a personality cult around” the president. Sounds like some kind of reverse projection to me. Instead of acknowledging that he (and his Bush-hating ilk) have built some kind of negative personality cult around the president, blaming him for no end of ills and seeing him as incapable of doing anything right, they claim his supporters worship the man. At least, Krugman helps confirm the accuracy of the second paragraph of this post.

If you’re going to take the time to comment to our blog, please take the time to read our posts before you attach your thoughts. Thanks!