Gay Patriot Header Image

The Prejudiced Minds of Those Who Call Us, “Self-Hating”

I can no longer remember the first time someone called me, “self-hating” for being a gay Republican. Such language has become a ready response of many of our critics.  While using the comment section of our posts to offer this standard left-wing view of gay conservatives, they rarely address the arguments actual gay conservatives have made.

In a post yesterday, Michelle Malkin reminds us that it’s not just gay Republicans who are so labeled. She finds that some liberals trot out the slur on a regular basis when describing minority conservatives:

Minority conservatives hold a special place of gutter contempt in the minds of unhinged liberals, who can never accept the radical concept of a person of color rejecting identity politics.

The haters have it bass-ackwards. In fact, “self-loathing” minorities love themselves, their families, and their liberty too much to succumb lazily to Big Nanny, race-card ideology.

One-time comedienne Janeane Garofalo used the “self-loathing” slur most recently to describe Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele.  So narrow-minded are these people that they assume that an individual’s skin color, ethnic background or sexual orientation means he or she has to hold a particular point of view.

That’s a pretty prejudiced attitude toward minorities as it assumes individual members of those groups can’t think for themselves.

Once again, I wonder why it is that so many on the left so readily label those holding different points of view rather than respond to (or even recognize) their arguments.  Garofalo thinks there’s “something wrong” with people who “follow” the GOP.  That attitude is not too far removed from that of Soviet Communists who would submit those who disagreed with the regime to psychiatric treatment.

Let me repeat:  why do such liberals choose to insult their ideological adversaries rather than consider our ideas?

Is the President a Pessimist?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 5:28 pm - February 28, 2009.
Filed under: Big Government Follies,Economy,Obama Watch

One of the Gipper’s favorite jokes involves a father who took his two young sons to see a psychiatrist because he was concerned about their contrasting personalities, one had become an extreme pessimist, the other an extreme optimist:

First the psychiatrist treated the pessimist. Trying to brighten his outlook, the psychiatrist took him to a room piled to the ceiling with brand-new toys. . . . the little boy burst into tears. “What’s the matter?” the psychiatrist asked, baffled. “Don’t you want to play with any of the toys?” “Yes,” the little boy bawled, “but if I did I’d only break them.”

Next the psychiatrist treated the optimist. Trying to dampen his out look, the psychiatrist took him to a room piled to the ceiling with horse manure. . . . [The boy] clambered to the top of the pile, dropped to his knees, and began gleefully digging out scoop after scoop with his bare hands. “What do you think you’re doing?” the psychiatrist asked . . . . “With all this manure,” the little boy replied, beaming, “there must be a pony in here somewhere!”

I’d always interpreted that joke to mean that optimism and pessimism are innate qualities.  We are either one or the other.  Now, I’m not sure I believe that, but watching the Barack Obama these past few months (at least since his election) I’m beginning to wonder if he’s like the boy who burst into tears at the sight of a pile of brand-new toys.

Just watching him speak, I don’t get how he fills so many people with rapture.  His smiles seem forced and rarely linger on his face.  When he pauses for effect or to wait for applause to die down, his face rests in this very earnest look of determination.


Steele: short-sighted on same-sex civil unions

Sometimes the most amusing thing about reading the comments is noting how readily so many of our critics ignore the points we make (frequently misrepresenting them if they address them at all) to wonder why we don’t blog on this or that subject.

It’s as if we have all the time in the world and unlimited resources at our disposal.  They’d rather bait us for what we don’t say than engage us for what we do.

I do grant that, in the past week, they were right to wonder about our silence on one issue, RNC Chairman Michael Steele’s recent comments on same-sex civil unions.  It is something that we should take up–and if it were not for the press of other obligations this week, I would have done so sooner.

On Michael Gallagher’s radio talk show earlier this week,

Mr Steele was asked if “Republicans ought to consider some sort of alternative to redefining marriage and maybe in the road, down the road to civil unions.”

“No, no no,” he told talk show host Mike Gallagher.

“What would we do that for? What are you, crazy?

“No. Why would we backslide on a core, founding value of this country?

“I mean this isn’t something that you just kind of like, ‘Oh well, today I feel, you know, loosey-goosey on marriage.'”

I don’t expect the Republican chairman to come out in favor of gay marriage.  After all, the Democratic president opposes it as well.  But, I think it’s incredibly short-sighted of him to rule out same-sex civil unions.  While he must know he risks earning the ire of social conservatives if he himself comes out for civil unions, he makes them such conservatives seem the dominating faction in the party on such issues if he rules them out civil unions altogether.