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.
For example, Andrew could have used the recent stories about the Vice President’s great realationship with his lesbian daughter to note how Cheney has publically dissented, unusual for this (or any) vice president, from the president’s support of the Federal Marriage Amendment. And given that Andrew has made gay marriage his signature issue, this should come naturally to him. But, in the fever swamps of the gay left, hatred of the Vice President is not mitigated by his positive attitudes toward gay people — more consumed are they by his overall support of the president.
Andrew is thus now not much different from most afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome. Instead of commending the Vice President for standing up to the president on this issue, he fires a cheap shot at the GOP, imagining that Karl Rove “would be preparing” attack ads for a Democratic politician in similar circumstances.
As reader Peg Kaplan put it on her blog, What If?: “Before Andrew became infected, he might have responded to Cheney’s comments about his daughter with a smile and some satisfaction that progress was being made.” But, since 02/24/04, Andrew seems only able to see the dark side of this Administration.
It took me a little longer to write this piece than I had anticipated. And I only touched the reasons for my disenchantment with a writer, all of whose books I own and whose blog (and columns) I once read regualrly, and an organization to which I once devoted much of my time (and money). Still, I don’t know that it will make much difference with those intent on attacking us for taking issue with Andrew Sullivan and Log Cabin.
But, by putting our ideas out there I hope that while we may not be able to convince everyone of our sound arguments, we may at least, cause a few people to take notice and engage us in serious discussion and rigorous debate.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
GPW, it isn’t hatred, and it isn’t unhinged. It’s criticism and it’s passionate.
Agape.
For those of you who are interested in doing something helping openly gay republicans who are in office, here is a race you might want to watch and support. Senator Paul Koering (R, Brainerd, MN) has a primary challenger from a candidate who is attacking Paul just for being gay.
Paul got endorsed by the Republican party – and the challenger is running against the endorsed candidate – his only issue is the marriage amendment and “moral values” – and we know what that means.
#0 – Well put together Dan. One nit – 3rd paragraph – I think you meant to write “…even while he did not reach the same conclusions…”
You wrote “[LCR] seems adrift, [with] only with a concern not to offend anyone on the gay left…” – I think that ties into the funding-by-gay-left issue that Bruce noted earlier. They can hardly bite the hand they now seem to be taking money from.
As for certain commentors’ accusations of so-called “obsession” with Sullivan and/or LCR – I have seen those comments, and they have always struck me as comments made just to hurt you or throw you off track. Don’t listen.
If you have put a lot of time and money into LCR in the past, e.g., it is right that you would comment on them – giving measured criticism and praise when appropriate (I have seen you carefully do both).
As for Sullivan, certain people/groups – such as LCR – constantly try to bring him up as a supposed “gay conservative”. Since he isn’t – and since he changed so dramatically on 2/24/04, alienating many of us who once gave him hard-earned dollars – it’s appropriate to comment on him, as he may pop up.
You post on so many things besides LCR and Sullivan. Obsession would look like this: if you were floundering for something truthful and relevant to say – like, oh, I don’t know, a few of your critics who fancy themselves bloggers; no names – and LCR / Sullivan were all you could ever come up with. Not so. Not even close.
Keep writing what you want to write about! 🙂
Dan, you’ll never convince me. Everything I get each month from the national office of LCR is very Republican. (I especially appreciate the support and kind words for those rare Republicans at local, state and national levels who support gays — or, even more rarely, run for office as openly gay.) While I don’t want a lovefest with HCR, I am glad LCR is reaching out to organizations like PFLAG.
Thanks, Calarato, I have fixed the paragraph.
Trace, I read Log Cabin’s e-mails and find them nearly indistinguishable from those I get from other gay groups. And that’s my main issue here.
While I agree Log Cabin should be cordial with all the gay groups, I don’t think they should honor a group which has lost sight of its noble mission — and past good works — at its convention. Are you comfortable with PFLAG’s drift to the left? Don’t you think a gay Republican group should call them on that — and remind them instead of what they have been — and could be once again?
Yet ANOTHER post on LCR and Andrew Sullivan. Now PFLAG, too?!?!
Did you ever think that by giving them an honor, they would cultivate a relationship with them and be able to influence the organization…without checking in with you?
The movie posts are great.
Love,
The Slutty Whore Moonbat with Bush Derangement Syndrome
(How’s that for reminding you of serious discussion and rigorous debate? Splitting my sides with lines like those…)
Jimmy, glad you like my movie posts. Your comment here indicates that you’ve answered the question of this post in the negative.
Did you ever think that by giving them an honor, they would cultivate a relationship with them and be able to influence the organization…without checking in with you?
As those of us who worked in politics used to put it, Jimmy….lobbyists and groups spend a lot of money on trinkets to find the tiny minority of stupid people who will trade their dignity and opinions for that price.
And for Eva, my opinion is split on Gordon Koering; while I applaud his stances, his willingness to be used as a propaganda tool by such slime as Mike Rogers greatly concerns me. Ultimately, as long as he remains associated with Rogers, the net damage is worse than the gain.
Dan, I agree with you that LCR shouldn’t involve itself with HRC and some of the other groups. But I know a lot of parents involed with PFLAG. Most of those I know were pretty consistently Republican until they repeatedly found local and state Republican organizations turning a deaf ear to their messages urging fairness. The final straw was the fact that anti-gay constitutional amendments were being put on the ballots by Republicans.
Yes, Kerry and Edwards and other Democrats pandering to the blue collar, lunchpail wing of the party supported the state amendments, but the greatest push for them came from Republicans. So I don’t blame parents and siblings of gays tilting a little to the left in their politics.
I love how you make dislike of Bush a mental illness (“Bush derangement syndrome”) characterized by coming “unhinged” (your new favorite word). It’s always about irrational “hatred” of da preznit.
I think it’s quite unhinged to give Andrew your BDS diagnosis for reflecting what the vast majority of Americans think: that Bush does an almost unprecedentedly shitty job. You understand that the majority of Americans now feel that the Preznit is not only lousy at his job but dishonest, yes? And it’s not just the marriage business that has Andy in a tither; it’s also the spying and the allegations of torture.
I don’t see how his critique of Bush makes him less conservative. He still believes the Iraq invasion was warranted — just miserably botched by the administration. It’s almost analagous to your own claim: He doesn’t dispute the general principles, but their lousy, failing style of enactment.
I am curious what good it would do to celebrate the positive relationship Mary Cheney has with her father. When Kerry did that, he was accused of politicizing a personal matter. That seems to be just what you’re advocating. Both the VPOTUS and Mary have been adamant that they don’t want their relationship to be part of the discourse over gay marriage. So you don’t want to honor that?
I”m wondering when for you the expression of disapproval of the Preznit turns into BDS. Is it when a person doesn’t SPIN things the way you’ve done with the Cheney story? Many people in this country feel PASSIONATELDY that Bush and his circle have done great injury to our democracy. You don’t really provide us any guidance about where the line should be drawn except to spin the Cheney story. Would you feel better if all progressives emulated you and just called you wingnuts who hate democracy?
#9’s comment about PFLAG is right on. My partner’s parents were founders of one state’s PFLAG chapter. They were Republican church goers — virtual stereotypes of Bush’s base. They were turned into Democrats in exactly the way #9 describes. I thought they were unique in that, though–had no idea others had the same experience.
NitPicking, how am I spinning the Cheney story? It’s Andrew who has spun it by imagining things that just don’t exist — Republican operatives making an issue of a Democratic opponent’s attitude toward his (or her) gay child. Please understand my points before suggesting what I “seem to be advocating” as you put it. And given your continued mischaracterization of my ideas and your juvenile tone, I should just delete your post, but I’ll let it stand. That said, it doesn’t deserve a response, just another sign of a critic who would rather bait than engage.
And to a critic who does engage, Trace, as to PLAG, it was once a great group, but it should, by its very nature, not involve itself in politics, particularly the left-wing antics that are identified in the link provided. By getting involved in politics, it makes it that much more difficult for socially conservative parents of gay children to warm up to its message.
When it works to help parents deal with their gay children in a positive manner, it is engaged in a noble effort, but when it joins left-wing gay groups in taking issue with the president, it should not receive an invitation to a Log Cabin gathering. In short, they may have good reasons for tilting left, but a gay organization has no business inviting them to its “convention” except as part of a debate.
#10 – “Many people in this country feel PASSIONATELDY that Bush and his circle have done great injury to our democracy….”
And Nit, they can continue feeling it as PASSIONATELDY as they want… be my guests, by all means…
However, no amount of them feeling it will ever suffice to make it true.
This universe isn’t the Star Wars universe, where “feeling” something automatically means it’s true, or that you’re right to “feel it”.
Sidebar: Nit, I believe you never answered Matt’s question in this thread. So, what are some of the other names you go by on here? You asked Matt what difference does it make, and we explained it here.
Here’s the problem, Trace: PFLAG dumped one candidate for supporting antigay state constitutional amendments and picked up another one who supported antigay state constitutional amendments — and called him “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
PFLAG is now nothing more than another group perverted by liberals who trade away gay rights to please their Democratic massas. Expect to see them at the next pro-terrorism rally.
I think at least part of the reason that GP and GPW lose it over Andrew is that regardless of the topic at hand he is well-spoken, intelligent, and excellent writer. In short, he is a formidible threat when he takes a position contrary to what they believe.
As much as they have been trying, you just can’t quite pigenhole Andrew into the moon-bat category. (Onless you are an unhinged moon-bat yourself).
Um, Patrick, I agree (and have said as much) that Andrew is “well-spoken, intelligent, and excellent writer.” Indeed, in this very post, I said his criticism is “a tad more eloquent (than much of the bile emanating from the fever swamps).” While there is much to criticize in Andrew’s latest posts (& columns), one cannot (justifiably) accuse him of bad writing.
But, I’m more amused by his latest rants than anything else. He is no longer a formidable threat because much (but not all) of his criticism of the president (& the GOP) is more reactionary than rational, especially his imagining that Rove et al. would launch attack ads based on a Democratic candidate’s acceptance of a child’s sexuality.
You may well be right than one can’t quite pigeonhole him into the moon-bat category . . . well, that is except when he blogs on the president, his top advisors and their supporters.
#8: Oh, now I am a Stupid Slutty Whore. Any more names to add to the list?