Gay Patriot Header Image

The Pavlovian Response to Gay Conservatives

In studying the digestive systems in mammals, Russian scientist Ivan Pavlov made an important discovery about canine reflexes:

. . . he struck a bell when the dogs were fed. If the bell was sounded in close association with their meal, the dogs learnt to associate the sound of the bell with food. After a while, at the mere sound of the bell, they responded by drooling.

Just as these dogs respond by drooling to the mere sound of a bell, so do some on the left, particularly the gay left, respond to the mere sound of the descriptors, “gay conservative” or “gay Republicans.”  As soon as they hear these words, they shout “self-loathing,” “self-hating,” calling those defined by said descriptors the equivalent to “Jewish Nazis” or “black Klansman.”

So Pavlovian is their response, it’s almost like a comedy routine.

The other day Bruce alerted me to a comment on a blog linking my first piece on the Iowa marriage decision.  I laughed out loud when I read the latest left-wing response to our ideas.  While often claiming to be more intelligent than their conservative counterparts, many on the left insist on insulting conservatives rather than addressing our points.  (Please note that this does not apply to all of our critics as, in the comment thread to my post, a number offered thoughtful counterarguments in a civil tone.)

As I consider the Pavlovian response of all too many critics of gay conservatives, I better understand Barney Frank’s preference of insult to argument when addressing his adversaries.  It’s just part of the political culture in which he was brought up.

Obama’s Support of “Card Check:”
Further Evidence of the Rhetorical Subterfuge
of his Campaign Rhetoric

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 6:26 pm - April 5, 2009.
Filed under: Liberal Hypocrisy,Obama Watch

While in the campaign, Barack Obama defined himself as a new kind of poltician, it was the man whose legacy he’s trying to undo who embodied in his actions the ideals Obama promotes in his rhetoric.

Once elected in 1980, Ronald Reagan governed as he had campaigned.  He did not cast aspersions on her adversaries, blaming them for our nation’s problems.  He did not propose sweeping new federal programs at odds with his campaign rhetoric.  He sought to build bridges with his political opponents.  He did not push legislation merely to appease the various interest groups who formed his coalition.

And yet that’s what Obama and the Democrats are doing in their support of card check, legislation that would make it easier for union organizers to intimidate workers to join their ranks.  Democrats push their so-called “EFCA” bill even as polls show that overwhelming majorities of non-union workers are not interested in joining unions.

The primary support for this proposal comes not from workers clamoring for tools making it easier for them to organize, but from unions interested in swelling their ranks in order to increase their power — and that of their favored political party, the Democrats.

Jennifer Rubin sums it up:

But there is something more fundamental at stake. This is legislation for and by a  special interest group. There is no popular groundswell or demonstrable need for it. We don’t have tales of woe from employees unable to organize. We don’t hear about frustrated employees who, but for the secret ballot, would have union representation. Some may have a visceral reaction to losing the secret ballot or feel badly about the “plight of workers.” But they are not clammoring for any change in the law.

Emphasis added.

The president’s support of this legislation is yet another sign that his “new kind of politics” is mere rhetorical subterfuge.  It shows him pushing a policy not to promote the national interest but to appease an interest group.

And I had thought that kind of appeasement was something he had run against in his campaign.

The Hypocrisy & Hubris of Obama’s “Responsibility” Rhetoric

While I found much to praise in the president’s speech in Strasbourg, one line stood out as defining the hypocrisy and hubris of his young Administration.  It shows his hypocrisy because he says one thing while governing in a different direction.  The hubris lies in his belief that his rhetoric defines the world’s reality, that if he says a noble quality defines his Administration, then it must be so.

That line, one which echoes the title of his budget, “We are ushering a new era of responsibility, and that is something we should all be proud of.

How presumptuous of him to say we should be proud of era that has not yet begun, of something not yet achieved!

And to use the term responsibility to define his work is the height of hypocrisy.  In the third debate, he echoed a point he had made during the campaign, implicitly faulting the supposedly spendthrift policies of the Bush Administration:

But there is no doubt that we’ve been living beyond our means and we’re going to have to make some adjustments.

Now, what I’ve done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut.

Instead of giving us a net spending cut, his self-described responsible budget gives us a severe spending explosion.  No wonder the tea party movement is burgeoning.

How can he, after contending we’ve been living beyond our means and campaigning on a “net spending cut,” offer a budget under which the government spends far, far beyond its means with deficits and treble those he decried under his predecessor’s Administration and call that an “era of responsibility”?

Does he understand that his very actions undermine his rhetoric?

The Gay Crusade Against Traditional Marriage

I’m not sure I’ve seen a more succinct summary of why most Americans oppose the strategy, tactics and language used by the Gay Left in the marriage debate than this excellent comment by GP Reader Ashpenaz in Dan’s posting yesterday.

Here’s why—gay advocates want to undermine the traditional understanding of marriage as a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship and change it to include multiple partners, open relationships, and serial monogamy. They are not trying to be included in the tradition—they are trying to warp the tradition because they believe they are victimized by a cruel patriarchy who uses marriage as a tool of oppression.  Attempting to justify their inclusion in an established tradition would be contrary to their desire to destroy that tradition.  It’s that simple. Now you know why.

As a gay American, it is hard to argue with those points.

And if you are a straight American, it is easy to see why you would recoil at judicially mandated gay marriage when anyone with honest intellectual capacities can figure out the real agenda.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)