Sometimes in their bile, our angriest critics make serious points. In comment #15 to my post faulting Log Cabin for using the rhetoric of the gay left to spinGovernor Schwarzenegger’s speech last week to Log Cabin (more on this in my next post), a critic, hiding behind his anonymity, said that when talking about equality, Log Cabin President Patrick Guerriero “was talking about equality of opportunity and equality of access.” He’s right to note the distinction between the abstraction of equality and the expresson “equality of opportunity.”
Indeed, had Patrick made clear that he meant “equality of opportunity” when he used the word “equaity,” he would be more in line with the agenda of the GOP than with that of the left-leaning gay groups. So, I decided to search Log Cabin’s website. (I was delighted to see an ad there favoring repeal of the Estate Tax–kudos to Log Cabin on that one.)
Not finding a search engine, I scanned a few recent releases and while I frequently found the word equality unmodified, I didn’t find the expression “equality of opportunity.” So I tried a google search. Searching for “‘Patrick Guerriero’ ‘equality of opportunity'” yielded 12 hits, 3 to comments on this blog. Not a single hit referred to remarks Patrick made using that expression. (By contrast, a google search of “‘Patrick Guerriero’ equality” yielded about 21,400 hits.)
I know that some think I make much of Log Cabin’s excessive use of this word unmodified. (BoiFromTroy devoted an entire post to it today.) Words matter and I believe Log Cabin would have a better chance of making itself heard in GOP circles if it used the same language the Republicans use. Focusing on freedom and making clear that by equality, it means “equality of opportunity” would be a good start.
Anonymous is right to distinguish the abstraction of equality (which has socialist connotations) from the expression “equality of opportunity.” It’s too bad Patrick Guerriero doesn’t use the latter expression more often.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
GPW–
First, if your blog didn’t have a reputation for banning and censoring people who criticize you and for calling them “terrorists”, I wouldn’t need to be anonymous. If you don’t like the fact that people don’t feel free to post on your blog under their own names, you really have only yourself to thank. (I would note that until very recently, you yourself felt obliged to hide behind a pseudonym… and your actual name only appeared on this blog after others posted it elsewhere and the proverbial cat was out of the bag. Why do you decry others doing what you yourself have done?)
Second, IF YOU WILL READ MY POST (isn’t that annoying when people say that?), you will see that the GOP platform ALSO talks about the unspecified “equality of women” and “the ideal of equality for every citizen”. Did you miss those? Is the GOP talking about equality of opportunity there? I can’t tell.
Of course, this doesn’t resolve the issue that the term “equality” is liberally (heh!) sprinkled throughout the GOP party platform, depsite your own unsupported assertion that “conservative groups avoid the term”. Really, did you just make that up? Did you think no one would bother to check?
More to the point, if you can’t tell what Patrick was talking about and if you don’t know what he meant, then why is your original post peppered with hot-button mischaracterizations of his statement as being “leftist” and “socialist”? How can you so characterize something you admit you don’t understand? Methinks you read what he said and then conveniently spun it in the most negative light you could cast it in. His statement, you reasoned, COULD be “socialist”… so let’s just call it that NOW and worry later about what he really meant. Is that it? It seems a little dishonest, for you to throw labels like “socialist” at a statement that you yourself concede you don’t fully understand. Being vague isn’t socialist, either, and that seems to be Patrick’s only crime here.
Um, Anonymous, what does this comment, which I believe you also attached to another post, have to do with this post?
You don’t even acknowledge that I gave you credit for acknowledging the distinction between the abstract notion of equality and the expression “equality of opportunity.” Nor my failure to find any references to Patrick’s use of the term “equality of opportunity.”
When George W. Bush proclaimed “Women’s Equality Day” in 2002, for example, he didn’t make any distinction, either. He said much about “our important achievements in equality”. But that was it. And in his second inaugural address, he pledged to “make our society more prosperous and just and equal”. So what is your point? That Bush is a leftist or socialist? That Hillary writes his speeches? What?
My point here is that your assault on Patrick was a dishonest one. First, you accuse him of being a socialist… and when that doesn’t fly, the blame is STILL on him for not being precise enough to avoid your purposeful mischaracterization of his words. It seems like his main failure here is that he didn’t see you coming. I knew what he meant, so it wasn’t THAT vague.
If you are going to pursue this line of attack, then at least have the good grace to admit that you are giving A BUNCH of other Republicans a pass for doing the same thing. The only person who gets called to account for slinging around the word “equality” is Patrick. Not the GOP platform. Not Bush. Just Patrick. Your outrage is just a little too fickle to be taken seriously.
Hey GPW – glad to see you’re continuing this discussion. I enjoy your thoughts on it (though I continue to disagree) and I think it’s more important that the wrangling over semantics that it may seem. That said, here goes my riposte. (pray forgive the length)
There are some purely practical reasons for preferring “equality” over some of the alternatives you’ve suggested. “Equality of opportunity and equality under the law” is long and cumbersome, and in many ways, incomplete and just as inprecise. “Equal rights” implies a focus on rights over responsibilities that conservatives don’t and shouldn’t want to imply. But really, I think the problem is that this discussion isn’t about mere policy, as “equality of opportunity” suggests, but about the principle on which our rights as Americans are founded, and that is our equality as human beings. It’s an old idea, and maybe obsolete in today’s political realm, but as I learned it, conservatives should have a respect for the founding principles and documents, even if it means coming across as anachronistic now and again.
You keep making the point that the GOP is based on freedom, and that that is its preferred term. While I’d say there is plenty of evidence that equality (as opposed to entitlement) is just as significant – while the anonymous poster’s tone is unfortunate, he does provide some solid evidence – I’ll concede that for a moment. The thing is, there is always something higher than party to appeal to, and that’s the foundation of the country itself. Republicans know this, while Democrats tend to forget – I believe it to be one of our strengths. Hence my reaching back to the founding documents, and the founders attitudes towards things like “tolerance.” Equality is at the heart of this debate, and I don’t think you can really dodge it.
Finally, it seems your greatest complaint is that by using the word equality Patrick sounds like the gay left. Well, perhaps I’m going to commit anathema here, but what if the gay left is right to use the term? I don’t believe they are correct in some of the things they feel follow from the claim of equality – in my belief those rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not freedom stifling hatespeech codes, socialized medicine, or anti-religious oppression – but that’s a debate that’s gone on forever. What does it mean that we are equal? Good question, but you have to get there first, and on this, it seems both the left and right gay groups have the right of it. Too many refuse to grant us that equality, so we’re fighting for it – what’s the problem with that? And what’s the alternative?
Dick Cheney stood up in Vilnius two months ago and said:
“We have learned through hard experience that nothing is more important than proclaiming an ideal of freedom, equality, and justice — and, despite difficulties, always reaching for that ideal. … The ideals that you and I believe in — liberty, and equality, and justice under law — speak to the best in mankind.”
Let us note that the Socialist Mr. Cheney did not say “equality of opportunity”, as all good conservatives should. And damn Patrick Guerriero for repeating Cheney’s leftist rhetoric!
GPW’s latest beef with Patrick is a small thing, but it’s based on a history that Patrick has made for himself and that GPW has pointed out repeatedly on this blog. In a vacuum, it would be a silly argument over semantics, but it’s not in a vacuum.
Thank you, Dale, exactly. It’s just one more example of Log Cabin using the same rhetoric as the gay left.
This is not a dishonest disagreement with Patrick, Anonymous, but a philosophical one.
And Anonymous, please note that when the Vice President used the word equality, he did not use it as Patrick does, standing alone, but accompanied by the words liberty and justice under law.
And I’m sure we could find countless examples of conservatives using the expression “equality of opportunity,” but I have yet to find a single time where Patrick uses it.
Casey, simply put, the idea is liberty. And that the idea we should be focusing on. The freedom to live our lives as we choose free of state interference. Oh course, conservatives should have respect for the founding principles of our country. And Freedom is at the heart of those principles. Please note that while Thomas Jefferson said we are created equal, the rights with which our Creator has endowed us are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I disagree that equality is at the heart of this debate.
Oh, and Anonymous, I am so delighted that my blogs so stir you to do so many searches. Delighted and flattered.
One more thing–Anonymous when are you going to address my failure to find any references to Patrick using the expression “equality of opportunity”?
“sometimes in their bile, our angriest critics make serious points. In comment #15 to my post faulting Log Cabin for using the rhetoric of the gay left to spinGovernor Schwarzenegger’s speech last week to Log Cabin (more on this in my next post), a critic, hiding behind his anonymity, said that when talking about equality,….”
I love this. You just can’t EVER resist the ad hominem, can you, GPW? As Mr. Anonymous himself said in #1, you were yourself anonymous until you were outed. And, um, what does this have to do with your post (as you ask in #2)? Well, what does your remark about anonymity really have to do with the issue? It’s just another example of your taste for the gratuitous insult, especially when your argument is so weak.
The entire diatribe about use of the word “equality” as some kind of demonic liberal signifier is, at best, a symptom of your own bilious attitude toward LCR. Perhaps when you’re done with this, you can resume nipping at the ankles of Andrew Sullivan.
This is getting to be ridiculous.
From the post
Anonymous is right to distinguish the abstraction of equality (which has socialist connotations) from the expression “equality of opportunity.” It’s too bad Patrick Guerriero doesn’t use the latter expression more often.
Maybe Guerriero hasn’t used the phrase “equality of opportunity” because he prefers to use the more compact–and more easily understood–phrase “equal opportunity” in his public pronouncements, when he uses the word “opportunity.”
Found, after only a few seconds of googling using the search string “‘Patrick Guerriero’ equal opportunity”:
Guerriero named new Log Cabin leader
…Commenting on his new job, Guerrero said: “The November elections reinforced my belief that we need a thoughtful two-party strategy if we want to advance civil rights and equal opportunity for all Americans in the year ahead. LCR will play an important role for all who care about the advancement of personal freedom, personal responsibility, civil rights and equal opportunity in our nation.”
Guerriero named new Log Cabin leader
The google search turned up a number of other hits, but I didn’t bother looking at them.
BTW, if you were really curious–which I doubt that you are–you really should have taken a look at at least the digests that Google gives you of your hits in relation to your search terms. An interesting one of them–which showed up on page 10 of the Google search results–was
AEGiS-WashBlade: Anti-gay Republicans win US Senate races: Gay …Patrick Guerriero, the executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, … According to Mass Equality, local issues dominated the races rather than a …
indicating that one of your hits would have been to a page on which appeared both “Patrick Guerriero” and “Mass Equality,” the latter of which is the name of an organization in Massachusetts. The page did not indicate that Guerriero had used the word “equality” at all. There appear to be more than a few similar hits using your search terms. Just because the words “Patrick Guerriero” and “equality” appear on the same web page, and hence would be picked up in a Google search using such a search string, does not mean that Guerriero himself had used the word “equality.” I would have believed that anyone who is not a complete computer novice would have known that, but I guess I erred.
GPW–
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
“I’m convinced that the only way we’re going to see advancement in civil rights — whether it’s ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act) or hate-crimes legislation — is to have Democrats and Republicans on our side.”
This is from one of Patrick’s early interviews. I remember reading this and groaning. And yet I still had high hopes for him. My bad. GPW, you have great advice for LCR, but remember the advice your mother gave you. You can’t change a man. Let’s just hope the next LCR leader will be a tad more conservative, but I’m not holding my breath.
Raj, thanks for all your googling in #10. I agree with you that “just because the words “Patrick Guerriero” and “equality” appear on the same web page, and hence would be picked up in a Google search using such a search string, does not mean that Guerriero himself had used the word “equality.”” I would have thought it was implicit that I understood that point when I noted that of the 12 hits I found for Patrick and “equality of opportunity,” none referenced remarks he had made.
And thanks very much for tracking down that quotation/link from the time Patrick was named to head Log Cabin. I would have done a number of other google searches, but please bear in mind that I have other obligations and did not have the time to do so. Should I have time in the coming days (which I doubt), I will do a number of other searches.
That said, it’s striking how Patrick’s tone has changed since he first took office as head of Log Cabin as he uses the terms “personal freedom” and “personal responsibility” far less frequently.
Perhaps further google searches will cause me to change my view. If they do, I will let you (and other GayPatriot readers) know.
Thanks for taking the time to follow up. While I disagree with your ideas, I very often appreciate your persistence in expressing them, especially, as in this case, when you go out of your way to search out evidence to back up your points.
I can’t help but throw this in the stew:
“America is the land of opportunity; it is not the land of guarantee.”
(said by somebody in Iowa, I think, on a BBC site sticking up for the US, when all the Euro-whiners were blaming the US for…well, fill in the blank!).
I like the quote. Although not pollyanna-ish by any means, quite true.
#13 GayPatriotWest — July 6, 2006 @ 12:46 pm – July 6, 2006
Regarding googling, glad to be of service. Some of us actually have become quite adept at using search engines, since it is an integral part of our employment.
Regarding
While I disagree with your ideas…
Actually, you really don’t know what my ideas/beliefs are. I am merely responding to your posts and the comments. If you had been up and running 10 years ago–during the Clinton administration, you might be quite surprised at the difference would have been in my comments. But Clinton hasn’t been in office for over five years, and it strikes me as a bit silly to beat on his administration now, as more than a few conservative blogs do.