Had a reader not alerted me to Andrew Sullivan’s post excerpting my first post on Richard Grenell’s resignation, I might not have seen the link. In his post, Andrew quotes me generously and acknowledged the challenges gay conservatives face:
I’ve only ever been a gay conservative (never a Republican), and back in the 1990s, it was brutal living in the gay world and challenging liberal assumptions. I cannot imagine the social isolation of Grenell in Los Angeles today, doing what he did.
Yes, it is brutal living in the gay world and challenging liberal assumptions, but a lot less so today, in large part due to Andrew’s own pioneering iconoclasm and his courage in standing up in the 1990s and into the 2000s to the gay bullies, continuing to speak out even as they vilified him. We follow in his footsteps on the path he helped clear.
That said, Andrew goes to offer in trying to blame the whole mess on Republicans by the parting shot he offers at the end: “I mean: what do Republicans call a gay man with neoconservative passion, a committed relationship and personal courage?” The response he offers is not a pretty one.
Given that the Romney campaign expressed regret at Grenell’s departure and given the evidence that top aides to the former Massachusetts governor asked Grenell to change his mind and remain on the campaign — even enlisting conservative leaders in that effort — it seems that Republicans didn’t smear this supremely qualified foreign policy spokesman as Andrew suggests. Quite to the contrary. In making such an effort to keep him on the campaign, they showed how much they valued his experience and particular skill-set.
Instead of smearing an entire political party, Andrew should instead direct his fire at the handful of social conservatives who raised a ruckus at the appointment. The Romney campaign may have handled this matter in a clumsy fashion, but they didn’t demonstrate any animus against a qualified individual because of his sexuality.
Andrew recalls the brutality of those who dared challenge the liberal orthodoxy. He should not become like them and define an entire political party by its most extreme elements.
Yeah — I guess that Sullivan missed my post on the subject when Grennel’s hiring was announced. That reaction was much more common than the negative ones.
Of course, given that <a href="http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/176511.phpAndrew Sullivan is the gay equivalent of an Islamist, I’m not surprised by his attack on the entire GOP because of the actions of a few
In the last decade or so, Sully has turned into a complete nutter; marked especially by his obsession with Sarah Palin’s uterus. Even before then, however, his writing has always been marked by malignant narcissism; the assumption that he and only he is right and pure and so anyone who disagrees with him must be evil and corrupt.
What is interesting is how the liberals resist similar treatment in defining liberals by the actions of a few. 5 men in OH with connections to OWS who plotted to blow up a bridge are considered to be “fringe” and not indicative of the entire movement. If you try to make that connection in a conversation with a liberal, they get all flustered and angry. Then when you point out that liberals applied the “racist” label to all Tea Party members based upon similar “fringe” members, their response is “duh, all Tea Party members are racist”. I used to think most liberals behaved like teenagers. Now, I think their behavior is closer to that of a 4 year old.
21st century Sullivan != 20th century Sullivan
Though the specific dividing line was, if I remember correctly, 2/24/04 (Bush announcing his support for FMA) which triggered a massive preference cascade among the (hitherto isolated) left-wing voices in Sullivan’s head.
I forget who said this first (except it wasn’t me): Sullivan’s writing – with its twistings and turnings that never quite shed his tone of self-obsession mixed with hysteria, no matter which side of the issue he’s chosen ‘this time’ – is designed by Sullivan to do one thing: To have people see him exercising his exquisite moral conscience. Nothing else. Helping with a difficult issue, e.g. by seriously figuring it out? Forget that.
Nicely written article, Dan, but I find it interesting that you are asking Andrew Sullivan to “direct his fire at the social conservatives who raised a ruckus at the appointment,” when your recently blog articles about this issue have downplayed this issue.
Your recent articles have suggested that Grenell “wanted to keep his private life private” and that the Romney campaign tried to get Grenell to stay.
But there has been comparatively little mention (on your site) of the fact that Richard Grenell was bullied by the social conservatives (American Family Association, Focus on the Family, Bryan Fischer, Tony Perkins, Phyllis Shiafly, etc etc) since the moment it was known that Richard Grenell was openly gay and has a long-term male partner.
Even when GOProud was not invited to participate at CPAC this year, it was implied or stated on this blog that it was only Chris Barron’s fault, even when the new CPAC chairman and his wife had made some denigrating comments, on the record, about gays. People on this blog made the claim that if Chris Barron was a little more “polite”, GOProud would have been invited to CPAC. Which is BS. GOProud was not going to be allowed at this year’s CPAC regardless of how nice you were to social conservatives.
Apparently, it’s always the gays’ fault — never the social conservatives.
At least Chris Barron & Jimmy LaSalvia spoke out & did express some frustration at the Romney campaign bowing down to social conservatives.
Well, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – AIDS-related dementia is a bitch, ain’t it Sully?
Regards,
Peter H.
James, very fair point. And it’s actually on my list of things to consider on this topic, but there are only so many hours in the day I can devote to blogging and have wanted to first focus on the issues that others have not addressed.
Bear in mind that we try to offer a perspective not offered on other gay blogs. And those criticisms of social conservatives have been widely aired.
You’ll have to provide a cite for “people on this blog” on the CPAC issue. And don’t cite the commenters; they may agree with us, but they don’t speak for us.
And how do you know that “GOProud was not going to be allowed at this year’s CPAC regardless of how nice you were to social conservatives”, do you, a regular critic of conservatives, have a unique insight in their way of thinking?
(I actually think that is an open question.)
That is because, James, people are fully aware of what you and your fellow shills in the Obama Party were saying about Richard Grenell since the moment it was known that he is openly gay and has a long-term male partner.
Now, James, certainly you and your fellow bigots wouldn’t be so patently stupid as to scream about how Grenell was being “bullied” while posting these sort of things about him, would you?
Unless, of course, you are even more pathologically idiotic to state that such things do not constitute bullying.
This is where the utter lack of self-awareness among the narcissistic gay leftists such as yourself becomes useful. You are very good at screaming at people to keep specks of mud off their shoes while you’re rolling around and wallowing in it.
And as I have said before, AIDS-related dementia is the kind explanation for Milky Loads’s derangement. The alternative is that he really believes the crap that comes off his laptop.