What’s Wrong with the World

Jeffrey S.,

The best defense is a good offense -- maybe the real problem for conservatives is that we are always playing defense to the latest liberal outrage and we don't do enough to aggressively promote our ideas and denounce liberals. To a certain extent, this is what folks like Andrew Brietbart were trying to do on the Right (and maybe, despite his kookiness, Glen Beck). I suspect we need more of this, but from our smarter and more polished intellectual wing -- the folks who are typically inclined to respond to the latest outrage, not plan and execute an assult on some liberal nonsense.

I do think that although the poll numbers are bad at the moment concerning marriage, the battle is not lost and our young leaders are starting to get more aggressive and develop a more robost defense of marriage (similar to what is happening in France -- which I think is a good model for us).

Agreed, agreed, agreed. I agree, based on what I read, that France's moves on the gay marriage and general gay culture issue has some things we could learn. I agree that we need to be more on offense as opposed to defense.

I also want to make clear: it's not as if I'm arguing an across the board 'whenever the liberals propose a law, we should propose one too, just watered down' move. I think sometimes this is the way to go, such as when the law is inevitable. Other times, it's better to fight and not give an inch. To use another example, I think rushing to support gun control would have been a disaster and not the best option politically besides.

Change the subject to unregulated abortion mills and the horrors going on there. I don't know if this is exactly what Crude had in mind, but this is kind of what I think Sailer means by the Israeli example -- answer liberals with firm stands on principle but with chutzpah and guile at the the same time. Keep them off their feet and reeling from all the counter-punches you throw their way -- they don't hesitate to throw those same punches so we might as well make it a fair fight!

Yes, this sort of thing broadly is what I have in mind. There's other things too, specifically about messages on the topic of gays and marriage and so on - but 'acting, not just reacting' is key too.

Jeff, could you get concrete about a "response to homosexual 'marriage'" that you think American conservatives should be making but aren't? As a bonus, could you suggest how this is somehow "modeled on France"? Several commentators have pointed out extremely relevant cultural differences. For example, the "kids need mother and father" is a point conservatives _are_ making in America and have been for decades. It's not a new idea by any means. But homosexual parenting is far more accepted here and is an integral part of the gay rights agenda and has been for a very long time. Homosexual adoption was pushed through long before homosexual "marriage" was even on the radar. Apparently it isn't in France, so it's easier to find homosexuals and others agreeing that "children need a mother and father." So what precisely is the idea that we need to do differently? It's not like we're _not_ arguing that children need a mother and a father. But the Obama administration just went into court a few weeks ago and submitted an amicus brief expressly denying that. By all means, emphasize children. But in what sense are we not doing this that the French conservatives are and that would garner more support? I just don't see it, myself. I think we're arguing and emphasizing it in all sorts of ways, shapes, and forms, so it's no new idea. And we should keep on doing it, but of course it's no guarantee of success.

The best defense is a good offense -- maybe the real problem for conservatives is that we are always playing defense to the latest liberal outrage and we don't do enough to aggressively promote our ideas and denounce liberals.

I think liberals would probably disagree that conservatives don't do enough to denounce them. The more salient criticisms of the conservative movement focus around how it has become little more than endless denunciations of liberals, with no new ideas of its own. This puts a lot of conservatives between a rock and a hard place. In the American zeitgeist, it is bad to "have no ideas" but on all of the hot-button issues of today most of us don't really want any "ideas" or "plans" to deal with them, as those things always mean sweeping new bureaucratic structures. When Republicans do come up with ideas, they are almost always bad ones, like Medicare Part D.

You also have to think of the cases where this has been tried and not gone so well. Back when Clinton proposed his health care thing, the Heritage Foundation came up with some sort of counter-proposal that included a mandate to buy insurance. Fast forward to today, someone finds this counter-proposal, and suddenly we have a nice, endlessly-repeated talking point that Obamacare is the "conservative" idea. Good thing we came up with a "plan" back then, huh?

Lydia,

In an article from today's National Catholic Register called "Is the GOP Caving on Defense of Marriage?", there is this revealing passage:

"Despite these apparent fissures, many leading Republicans still defend the traditional definition of marriage. On March 17, speaking on This Week on ABC, Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, said: “Listen, I believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. It’s what I grew up with. It’s what I believe.

Boehner, who is Catholic, added, “It’s what my Church teaches me. And — I can’t imagine that position would ever change.”

So while I agree with you that conservatives have been arguing that kids need a mother and father, apparently Speaker Boehner needs to get that memo!!!

In other words, we aren't doing a very good job of transmitting this basic, fundamental, smart truth to office-holders and leaders who can stand up and articulate this truth to the broader public. Yes, it is no guarantee of success -- nothing is. But I want leaders who will stand up and fight for our principles. How come Speaker Boehner (and others) not only don't talk about the importance of a mother and a father to children but how the left is shutting down adoption services from religious providers who seek to insure a child will have a mother and father? We should be attacking these laws in the courts and at the same time in the court of public opinion -- something like "stop the liberal attack on Catholic adoption". Suddenly all those Reagan Democrats who might be inclined to listen to the GOP's cultural messages might take notice that the party they have been voting for the past couple of elections (because they are sick of foreign wars and Wall Street bailouts, etc.) is attacking the Church and Christian values in an aggressive way.

Maybe this has all been done, but it sure doesn't seem like it at a national level (like Obama ginned up the "war on women" at the national level).

"We shall never speak of this again." In terms of the manners and morals that your mother taught you, what Israeli society is doing in rubbing America's nose in Israel's crime against America sounds like lunacy.

Actually what Israel is doing is broadcasting to the world that if you spy for Israel, Israel will never forget you (UNLIKE the United States). Israel may not move heaven and Earth to protect you, but Israel will never throw you on the trash heap of history.

What Crude is arguing is reframing the argument. The only effective way to reframe a relationship or debate is to engage the other person in such a way that in the long term you put the balance of power on your side with them reacting to you more than you to them. This works as well at mass social movements as it does between individuals. The main problem conservatives have is knowing when they have momentum on their side. The NRA seems to be the only group savvy about that.

Matt,

I think liberals would probably disagree that conservatives don't do enough to denounce them. The more salient criticisms of the conservative movement focus around how it has become little more than endless denunciations of liberals, with no new ideas of its own.

Well, Jeffrey said we should aggressively promote our ideas too. Mere denunciation would just be yet more "no" and nothing else.

When Republicans do come up with ideas, they are almost always bad ones, like Medicare Part D.

I think the Republicans, as a party, tend to be lacking on the "coming up with new ideas" front at all.

And yes, absolutely, this method can lead to screwups. The problem is that on some issues, the current performance is so rotten that an alternative plan that seems like it may work, while carrying risks of it's own, may well be worth a shot. In fact, I think it's obviously worth it.

Jeffrey, if one of the major things you mean is that our GOP officeholders need to get more of a spine and need to start aggressively promoting the idea that a child needs a mother and father, I couldn't agree with you more.

But I don't know how to make them do it. I seriously don't. I wish I did. Right now, _they_ think they have a brilliant new strategic idea--throw the social conservatives under the bus. Downplay the social issues. That's their idea of being clever political strategists. They're killing the party, of course. Even from a strategic point of view, it's stupid. but you can't convince them of that.

And it's true that to the extent that politicians really give pushback to the zeitgeist on social issues they get branded by the media both as extremists and as blunderers.

I still think they should do it, but I doubt it would be successful in any dramatic way. That's okay, from my perspective, because I'm not all about political success. I'm _always_ up for supporting a really forthright social conservative for office who doesn't hesitate to say things the party leadership thinks are too pushy. And it might have unexpected strategic success. It would, at least, prevent the base from deciding that the GOP is finally dead and losing all their motivation to get out and vote for GOP candidates, which is important politically. But the idea of "Have politicians talk more about the importance of one man and one woman as parents for children" as some sort of new and strategic idea is a little puzzling to me. My perception is that the strategic types in the GOP would universally condemn such a proposal. I'd love to have federal and state GOP politicians talk like Robert P. George, but I doubt the party would thank them for it, more's the pity, and the people always thinking about strategy and "not blundering" would be, I'm afraid, the first to condemn them.

Now, it's interesting you shd. say that about politicians pushing against the laws that drove out Catholic adoption services in Boston. I presume you know what those laws were, right? They were laws banning discrimination against homosexuals. Does it seem remotely plausible that GOP politicians (in Massachusetts, say, or in Boston itself) are going to say, "We need to repeal these laws banning discrimination against gays, because this shut down Catholic adoption services"? It seems _wildly_ unlikely to me. In fact, the argument would presumably be that that would be a terrible strategic blunder, because it would appear that we are "for discrimination against gays" which is a no-no.

I myself would _love_ to see politicians push back on such laws and argue for their repeal. I think including "sexual orientation" in anti-discrimination statutes has been an absolute disaster, and wherever such statutes aren't in place I always urge people to fight against that extension. But good heavens! That's hard-line so-con talk. That's not strategic talk. Strategic talk is, "Of course I oppose discrimination against homosexuals."

The interesting thing is that Pollock will never be released, so if this metaphor works at all, it tells us that it can be worthwhile to have the chutzpah to demand something that sounds outrageous and that you'll never get.

I love that idea. But I find it difficult to imagine that someone like, er, Crude and I will agree on many concrete examples thereof.

Lydia,

I still think they should do it, but I doubt it would be successful in any dramatic way. That's okay, from my perspective, because I'm not all about political success. I'm _always_ up for supporting a really forthright social conservative for office who doesn't hesitate to say things the party leadership thinks are too pushy.

There's a difference between supporting a bold social conservative and defending statements that harm us unnecessarily. Mourdock's statement is an example of the latter. I think winning on these issues and persuading the public is more important than circling the wagons around Team Social Conservative, even when Team Social Conservative makes a mistake.

I'd love to have federal and state GOP politicians talk like Robert P. George, but I doubt the party would thank them for it, more's the pity, and the people always thinking about strategy and "not blundering" would be, I'm afraid, the first to condemn them.

Only if they blunder. And blunders exist, whether or not you recognize them as such. If you say something that immediately pissed off 60% of the voters and made them tune you out and it was easy to tell that your statement could have had such a profoundly negative effect, that is a blunder. It doesn't cease to be one just because you're part of some minority who agrees strongly with the overall statement.

In fact, the argument would presumably be that that would be a terrible strategic blunder, because it would appear that we are "for discrimination against gays" which is a no-no.

You will appear poorly if you go around talking about how you're 'anti-gay-rights' and frame yourself as launching an attack on gays. If you sidestep that and argue you are simply in favor of children growing up with a mother and a father - a 'strong female figure in the household' - I think you'll have more success.

If someone tries to bring up the gay issue, say it's not about gays - that two STRAIGHT women or two STRAIGHT men adopting children should also be turned down, even if they both make a lot of money and are best and lifelong friends.

I myself would _love_ to see politicians push back on such laws and argue for their repeal. I think including "sexual orientation" in anti-discrimination statutes has been an absolute disaster, and wherever such statutes aren't in place I always urge people to fight against that extension. But good heavens! That's hard-line so-con talk. That's not strategic talk. Strategic talk is, "Of course I oppose discrimination against homosexuals."

If you really want to pursue this, then I think your best bet is to oppose - loudly oppose - discrimination against homosexuals, but argue that discriminating based on behavior is a different issue. Be ready with examples of heterosexual behavior you think should be grounds for a fireable offense - and be damn sure you pick the most sympathetic examples. "Pre-marital sex"? No. "Affair with a co-worker's spouse or girlfriend"? There you go.

I love that idea. But I find it difficult to imagine that someone like, er, Crude and I will agree on many concrete examples thereof.

I would be more than willing to compare my examples with yours. If everyone here thinks yours are better and I remain unconvinced, well, I shall argue onward but that will be that.

Another example I'd use? Denouncing the antics of people like Michelle Shocked. Do it loud, do it in public, do it when it occurs.

I have a positive idea conservatives can get behind. The Marriage Protection Amendment endorsed by Michael Farris of the HSLDA. (It also bans civil unions.) To me, that's a "free Jonathan Pollard" move. "Intimidate skeptics with your sheer brass."

Lydia,

I think we are in close agreement, which is why I suggested in my OP that I was thinking both you and Crude had made good points in the previous debate. I know Crude is going to disagree with me (and you), but I think you are on to something here:

"I myself would _love_ to see politicians push back on such laws and argue for their repeal. I think including "sexual orientation" in anti-discrimination statutes has been an absolute disaster, and wherever such statutes aren't in place I always urge people to fight against that extension. But good heavens! That's hard-line so-con talk. That's not strategic talk. Strategic talk is, "Of course I oppose discrimination against homosexuals."

The interesting thing is that Pollock will never be released, so if this metaphor works at all, it tells us that it can be worthwhile to have the chutzpah to demand something that sounds outrageous and that you'll never get.

I love that idea. But I find it difficult to imagine that someone like, er, Crude and I will agree on many concrete examples thereof."

The problem with Crude's idea of defending anti-discrimination laws is that they would protect homosexual couples who want to adopt -- as you already pointed out this is why Massachusetts Catholic Charities was forced out of the adoption business -- they sensibly wanted to discriminate with respect to which couples should and should not be able to adopt a child. Now maybe the law can be re-written to just protect religious institutions in these situations, but there are still all sorts of problems related to employment that you have already pointed out that make such laws problematic from a moral standpoint. I actually think that if we had folks like...well, like you in public arguing for sensible discrimination we would make progress with the public -- we all discriminate all the time (talk to a liberal about the kind of public school they will send little Johnny) and conservatives used to make these kinds of arguments in their sleep.

Crude,

We agree that conservatives need to change -- I just agree with Lydia that we need to change to distinguish ourselves more clearly from liberals and to stop responding to liberal attacks and go on the attack ourselves.

Again, for me it is more about how we make the argument, how we stay on offense rather than defense, and how we present ourselves to a hostile media (and broader culture). I love the Marriage Protection Amendment -- love it. Keep our opponents off balance, or as Mike T. says, keep the "the balance of power on your side with them reacting to you more than you to them."

Jeffrey S.,

The problem with Crude's idea of defending anti-discrimination laws is that they would protect homosexual couples who want to adopt -- as you already pointed out this is why Massachusetts Catholic Charities was forced out of the adoption business -- they sensibly wanted to discriminate with respect to which couples should and should not be able to adopt a child.

Actually, I think anti-discrimination laws should be defended - even proposed, when necessary - but with a different emphasis. Argue that it should be against the law to discriminate against couples based on, say, their sexual orientation - but argue that it's entirely legal to discriminate against someone based upon their sexual acts, whether gay or straight. And come armed with all manner of examples of straight sexual acts that would be a red flag for adoption. Be graphic. Advance the law in a way that in practice would rule out gay adoption, but in principle is aimed at a far broader, more objectionable class of people.

We agree that conservatives need to change -- I just agree with Lydia that we need to change to distinguish ourselves more clearly from liberals and to stop responding to liberal attacks and go on the attack ourselves.

I agree we should. But we should also know what attacks are going to work and what won't. If a given attack is almost guaranteed to be unpopular and generate a backlash, then we shouldn't do it, no matter how much we personally like the rhetoric.

I'm not against something like a Marriage Protection Amendment. Clearly it can still pass in some states. How that amendment is proposed and argued for, however? That's where the real differences will come in. Lydia apparently wouldn't rely on support from gays (like in France) even if they were willing to offer it for such an amendment. Because hey, gays should shut up and not publicly identify themselves. I think that's a mistake, to give one example.

Another problem with just exempting religious orgs. from non-discrimination statutes, even if we just limit the issue to adoption for the moment, is that it guarantees that any non-religious adoption service in the legal jurisdiction will have to allow homosexuals to adopt from their service. So if there's a mother in a crisis pregnancy situation and there doesn't happen to be a nearby Christian adoption agency using the exemption, she'd have to work with a secular agency or with the state, and she'd have to be thinking that maybe her child would be placed with a homosexual "couple." This could discourage placing the child for adoption even when that would be the best thing for the baby. Naturally it's better to have religious exemptions than nothing, but better still is to repeal the laws altogether or to oppose them when they come up in a new jurisdiction.

The biggest strategic question mark right now for any proposals is the Supreme Court. To what extent will they make homosexuals a fully "protected class" on a par with women and blacks? The signs are not good. And if SCOTUS takes a really radical position, then that could undermine almost anything. For example, I would like to advocate as a "chutzpah" move reinstating or instating state laws banning homosexual from adoption. But I much fear that SCOTUS would strike down such a law as unconstitutional.

It may become necessary to propose a federal amendment in addition to the Marriage Protection Amendment declaring that "nothing in this Constitution shall be interpreted to forbid either any level of government or private persons from taking sexual orientation or sexual behavior into account in their policies or decisions" or something like that. That would also strike down Lawrence, by the way.

Sailer says a lot of smart things and a lot of stupid things, and this was one of the really stupid ones. Israelis and Americans all know that Pollard is going to stay in prison. Most Israelis don't really care about him one way or another. The perennial, pro forma Israeli requests for a pardon are mostly just a symbolic gesture towards a certain small group of Jews, Israeli and American. No one on either side expects it to actually do anything.

That's why this is such a bad analogy. Back to America: It's not enough that conservatives look like they're doing something. They have to actually do something, something good. That doesn't mean they have to respond to anti-bullying legislation with legislation of their own. I don't mean anything that crude. But if some alleged problem has become the crisis of the week, conservatives do have to either address it, or find another crisis of the week to replace it.

I've already ridden one of my two hobby horses here (Israel), so now I'll give the obligatory David Frum reference. Frum wrote that in elections, people vote for results, not for programs. I think that applies here.

But if some alleged problem has become the crisis of the week, conservatives do have to either address it, or find another crisis of the week to replace it.

Could this involve saying, "This isn't actually a crisis, it's just an attempt by the left to manufacture a crisis for political ends," or is that too blunt? :-) (You know they'd say it in a heartbeat if the shoe were on the other foot.)

I don't know about all this Jew-Jitsu stuff, but I have learned a Hong Kong Phooey chop that is awesomely fun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWrJkW-axzc

Crude,

Let's talk about Todd Akin for a moment. Objectively speaking, I agree what he said DID NOT help him or the GOP in Missouri win the Senate race (which is an understatement to say the least). But here's the thing. I also think, objectively speaking, that the GOP, both in the State of Missouri and more importantly nationally, HURT HIM EVEN MORE with their hysterical reaction to what he said.

Contrast Todd Akin to someone like Al Sharpton -- how is it that Democrats, all the way up to the President take Al Sharpton seriously and treat him with respect but the RNC and all the good and great in the Republican Party had to declare anathema on Akin or serious people wouldn't take us seriously anymore? Nonsense. While I don't think anyone had to defend Akin's specific remarks, everyone could have immediately come to his general defense as a good man who misspoke for a righteous cause and 'how dare the media get on his case when they refuse to talk about the slaughter of innocent life on a daily basis in this country, when they ignore the horrors going on at Dr. Gosnell's clinic, etc., etc.' In other words, stand up for principle and for our side -- stop running away from good people when they trip and fall -- and always turn around and bring the fight back to the liberals who like nothing more than to mock us and tear us down anyway.

This puts a lot of conservatives between a rock and a hard place. In the American zeitgeist, it is bad to "have no ideas" but on all of the hot-button issues of today most of us don't really want any "ideas" or "plans" to deal with them, as those things always mean sweeping new bureaucratic structures.

Conservatives DO have ideas, "plans" that deal with them, that DON'T involve sweeping new bureaucratic structures. For example, if you put a tax credit in place that is worth up to 4/5 of the average cost of a public education for a child, any parent who can come up with the extra 1/5, or who can find a private school charging only 4/5, can put his kid in a private school. No new bureaucracy at all. In time, 3/4 of the kids will be in (mostly newly formed) private schools, and the remaining public schools will have to compete and get better or cease to exist. It costs the taxpayer LESS money than they are paying now, we get better education out of it, and no bureaucracy rears its ugly head.

Crude is right that conservatives should being willing to craft messages that are not unnecessarily antagonistic to the swing-voters who might be convinceable. But no matter how much you try, you can never get a leadership that doesn't make judgment mistakes, there is no such thing. Liberals make the same mistakes too. Pointing to specific mistakes by conservatives is not proof that overall we are "going about it wrong", nor is just saying "we need to be smarter on our feet" an actual direction. Those are untenable descriptions of what's "wrong" or how to "fix it".

Plus, we just plain DISAGREE about what "smart" means for some things, like whether it makes more sense to play to just a small enough portion of the swing voters to get elected this time around, and have an energized base, or instead play toward a larger mass of the swing vote and turn off the base of the party. That's an inherently insoluble question in general, because it depends entirely on the particular candidate, the particular issues, and a host of accidental situations you have no control over. And anybody who is sure he can answer that riddle time and again in 100 different races is going to be just wrong 50 times. Or more.

Jeffrey S.,

Let's talk about Todd Akin for a moment. Objectively speaking, I agree what he said DID NOT help him or the GOP in Missouri win the Senate race (which is an understatement to say the least). But here's the thing. I also think, objectively speaking, that the GOP, both in the State of Missouri and more importantly nationally, HURT HIM EVEN MORE with their hysterical reaction to what he said.

You're right. In fact, what you're saying is something I thought shortly after the denunciations came in, once I had time to get a better view of the situation. I realize that these situations, in context, are more complicated. That's why I'm not yelling here about how I have a sure-fire recipe for electoral success. I have various ideas I think are valid, many of them complaints about how we handle ourselves, some of them suggestions, all of them appropriately qualified.

But I do not find it difficult to regard what Akin or Mourdock did as mistakes. They were, and it's obvious they were, unless we're using some metric where it doesn't matter if voters and the culture at large aren't turned off to our views. In which case, it's a pointless metric for most of our purposes.

I am not suggesting that the solution for us is to have the Republicans run to the left or start running pro-gay-marriage, pro-death candidates. But I think it's clear that we could act smarter, and we should also fully appraise exactly what we're fighting for and how to have success at getting what we want.

Aaron,

I've already ridden one of my two hobby horses here (Israel), so now I'll give the obligatory David Frum reference. Frum wrote that in elections, people vote for results, not for programs. I think that applies here.

I question this for one reason: until a law or program is passed, there are no results for them to see. They may vote for what they think will give them the results they want. Sometimes that's a program. Other times it's a vision or a policy. But, unless someone is running on their record, it's almost never 'results' themselves.

Crude,
You may have already read it, but this article outlines your policy problems.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/double-bind_706659.html?page=1

Step2,

You may have already read it, but this article outlines your policy problems.

Those aren't my policy problems - they're someone else's, on rather different subjects. And a lot of their analysis is just bizarre. Somehow they take 'reform of the federal role in education' to mean giving the DoE even more power, then point out libertarians and social conservatives would oppose both. Why such a reform would have that result is anyone's guess, because the article hardly explains it. On immigration, the article's writing is shallow to say the least. It does not mention Rand Paul's recent move on civil liberties and why that may be a positive development (no doubt because it goes off in a direction the Weekly Standard finds too terrifying to contemplate.)

I will be terse today. I don't think conservative ideology have anything substantial to offer to anyone except merely be the antagonistic to liberal ideals and policy suggestions. I remember predicting that Obama would win after the 2008 election when my conservative father suggested Obama would be a one-term president because Obama would allegedly exacerbate the recession by enacting liberal regulation the trammels the dynamicism of private enterprise. I did not agree with that, but even if it was true, it seemed likely Obama would be re-elected because the Republican Party had nothing tangible to offer anyone except lower taxes and "economic freedom".

I am dissatisfied with Obama, but at least I have the satisfaction of being correct.

Gays SHOULD shut up and not publicly identify themselves. Whoops, is that insensitive?

So I wonder if Crude will distance himself from M.E.'s remark, ignore him completely, or if he will defend M.E. while encouraging him to apologize? That whole political spin thing, how does it work?

Step2,

So I wonder if Crude will distance himself from M.E.'s remark, ignore him completely, or if he will defend M.E. while encouraging him to apologize? That whole political spin thing, how does it work?

We are on a low traffic blog on the internet having a conversation, and in my case I am an absolute nobody writing under a pseudonym. The stakes could not get lower here.

What's more, I've already distanced myself from Elephant's remarks, if you've read anything I've written here. This isn't just about political spin - I think it is a moral mistake to discriminate against homosexuals in many cases, and I think telling them all to shut up and not even let anyone know they're gay is a mistake as well. Which is why I've been spending as much time as I have defending gay celibates and critics of gay marriage, and so on.

Elephant,

If that question was aimed in my direction - you may misunderstand me. I really don't care about 'sensitivity'. I'm probably the least civil person of anyone in this comment thread, yourself included. Really, in the other thread Lydia kept censoring my posts because I was casually describing the realities of sodomy in the tamest language around. What I advocate will be regarded as 'insensitive!' to many people, and I know it. What I care about is, you know - actual success. Actually persuading people.

Here's something to consider. Westboro Baptist is obnoxiously offensive by any measure. The Cult of Gnu, when they were throwing their poorly named 'Reason Rally' last year, expressly invited them to show up at their rally. Let me repeat: they wanted Westboro Baptist there. Because, and WBC probably knows this: WBC are useful to them. If you want to get support for gay marriage and 'gay rights', don't invite gay marriage supporters to march. Invite the WBC.

Once you realize why the WBC is useful to supporters of gay marriage (among other things), you should start to understand how other people who pride themselves on how daring they are for being so insensitive may be being used in the same way.

I agree that the WBC is offensive. However, they go far beyond the homosexuality issue---picketing soldiers and such. Regardless, the majority of sensible, mainstream evangelicals have already distanced themselves from WBC. Or hadn't you noticed?

Elephant,

I agree that the WBC is offensive. However, they go far beyond the homosexuality issue---picketing soldiers and such. Regardless, the majority of sensible, mainstream evangelicals have already distanced themselves from WBC. Or hadn't you noticed?

The problem with the WBC isn't only with their picketing soldiers' funerals. It's with how they talk about homosexuals. "God Hates Fags!" and so on.

And sure, I think far and away the majority of Christians distance themselves from WBC. The point is, if WBC is worth distancing themselves from - both in a moral sense, and in a pragmatic sense - then what other language and attitudes may be worth distancing ourselves from for either or both reasons?

If you thought saying "homosexuals should shut up and never identify as gay!" would hurt your cause instead of help it, would you knock it off? Or would you go "okay this may hurt us - but I don't care, I need to say it!!!"?

Perhaps that depends on what our "cause" really is.

Perhaps that depends on what our "cause" really is.

Good question. What IS our cause?

Is it protecting the sanctity of marriage? And if we simply roll back gay marriage, is it 'mission accomplished'? Or is there a lot more involved than just that?

Is it getting the culture to accept what a healthy sexuality is? In a specifically Christian sense? A general Natural Law sense? And again, is it 'mission accomplished' if we get same-sex sodomy viewed with distaste by most people? Or is heterosexual sodomy and other excesses also a problem? (As much of a problem? More? Less?)

See, I'm under the impression that have a few goals on this subject. Turning the tide on gay marriage and defending the sanctity of traditional marriage, not just in a religious sense, but also a secular sense. Turning the tide on generally liberal attitudes towards sex and 'families'. Not to achieve cultural perfection - an impossible goal - but to get things far closer to the societal norm they should be.

I also think there are some other goals that sometimes show up, but which I don't endorse or which I think are flawed. 'Getting anyone with same-sex attraction reviled' simply doesn't register as a noble cause or a valuable one for me, anymore than I feel the need to denounce people tempted by masturbation, exhibitionism, or whatever other urge, so long as they control themselves (and having a properly, not warped, forgiving attitude towards those who screw up.) I have little urge to send gays back into the closet in the sense of 'even if you're a celibate gay who agrees with Catholic teaching, be quiet and never reveal your sexuality', and I fail to see why that should be a priority, especially a priority over the other two causes.

But it's not as if I think someone either agrees with me completely or they're terrible. That would be foolish. But among like-minded people, I'll argue for my view on its moral and practical merits. Maybe I'll even change my mind in the face of a persuasive reply.

...then what other language and attitudes may be worth distancing ourselves from for either or both reasons?

Well, the reason I distance myself from the WBC is that they're repulsive, sooooooo...

Argue that it should be against the law to discriminate against couples based on, say, their sexual orientation - but argue that it's entirely legal to discriminate against someone based upon their sexual acts, whether gay or straight. And come armed with all manner of examples of straight sexual acts that would be a red flag for adoption. Be graphic. Advance the law in a way that in practice would rule out gay adoption, but in principle is aimed at a far broader, more objectionable class of people.

I think the problem is a bit deeper than just rhetoric and argument. The way people live has set up our society to have these problems. The issue is far deeper than politics or campaigning. To restore our society, we must "fundamentally transform" it to get it back to where it was before our present day conditions. That will not happen overnight, but I think it may be the most promising direction to work on.

MarcAnthony,

Well, the reason I distance myself from the WBC is that they're repulsive, sooooooo...

I agree. I just think it's worth keeping in mind why they're repulsive, to us and others.

Anymouse,

I can easily get behind this. I can see it being overruled by the supreme court, however.

Maybe. Who knows anymore? The court does as it pleases, sometimes with little justification.

I think the problem is a bit deeper than just rhetoric and argument. The way people live has set up our society to have these problems. The issue is far deeper than politics or campaigning. To restore our society, we must "fundamentally transform" it to get it back to where it was before our present day conditions. That will not happen overnight, but I think it may be the most promising direction to work on.

I agree it's more than rhetoric and argument. But I think rhetoric, argument, presentation and the rest are important, and has some areas where it's easy to gain (intellectually) some ground on. I also more and more reject the idea that we have to 'get it back' anywhere. Just because I want marriage to be viewed, even in secular terms, as between a marriage and a woman and primarily for family, even though I want a lot of what are called 'traditional values', doesn't necessarily mean a return to the past. The past had problems too. We can have all these things and still view ourselves as advancing and gaining ground, rather than 'turning back the clock' so to speak.

Lydia, the problem with the "This isn't a real crisis" reaction is not that it's blunt, but that it doesn't work.

I don't know what shoe you're imagining on the other foot, but if you're imagining a liberal reaction to a conservative made-up crisis, then you're ignoring the whole structure. It's the liberals, not the conservatives, who frame the political discourse on most issues, certainly including this one. Only the foot wearing the discourse-framing shoe can say, "This isn't a real crisis" and expect that blunt response to have some effect.

If that shoe, the discourse-framing shoe, were on the other foot, then your suggestion would be very reasonable. The problem is that moving that shoe to the other foot is an incredibly hard task that can't be accomplished in the short term. You can't seize control of the discourse just by saying one right thing. Both feet would be advised not to deny the reality of the shoes they're wearing.

Of course it's not as all-or-nothing as the analogy suggests. Every participant has some influence in framing the conversation. But the balance of power (or "hegemony") is way skewed in favor of the liberals.

Well, for one thing, part of our goal should be to oppose specific measures that will expose children to the perverse normalization of homosexuality and foster sexual confusion/experimentation (e.g., sex curriculum in public schools, gays in the Boy Scouts, etc). If gay people were in the closet, revealing their temptations only to a few family members and spiritual advisors, we wouldn't even be thinking of this issue. It seems obviously right and good that gays should be in the closet, and we shouldn't hesitate to say so.

My goal certainly isn't getting homosexual people "reviled." If I were running a Christian or political organization, I would want to serve all of my goals in the best way possible for everyone involved. If a bunch of homosexuals show up at a march for life or a march to save marriage, I'm not in a position to tell them to go home, and obviously, they're already "out." However, if I'm asked to hire someone for my organization or (if I'm running a Christian college) to bring someone in to speak, or, if I run a blog like First Things, to bring a blogger on board, in other words, to put someone forward as a spokesman or as in some sense endorsed by my organization, then I have a bunch of other decisions to make and considerations to take into account. Or if I'm on some committee at a church and we're thinking of having someone speak. At that point, the considerations all come into play: Do we want to encourage people's identifying themselves as homosexual and talk-talk-talking all the time about their sexuality? Is that good for them? Is it good for our own young people? Are these particular people really ideologically sound, or are they going to pull our organization and our constituency to the left? What "affirmative action" effects should we guard against in considering the person for this position? Would we put a heterosexual person in this position if he held such-and-such views? Is this person going to talk in broad and sweeping ways about "acceptance" or about the evils of "lack of acceptance," and how is that problematic? Is this person going to teach and promote the view that homosexuality is a positive identity, which is a bad view for young people to believe? Is this person going to take a kind of pleasure in shocking people? Is this person going to make sweeping statements about "hypocrisy" and "hate" and engage in grievance mongering, even when I don't believe that the audience in question deserves to be pummeled in that way? Is this person going to leave the audience with the impression that when they deal with homosexuals they should avoid ever saying that homosexual acts are wrong, because this is hurtful or unnecessary or is going to turn people away?

I could go on and on with these questions, and I have specific reasons for each and every one of them based on previous promotion of homosexual spokesmen, speakers, etc.

That isn't a matter of saying, "Hey, I want to promote hatred for homosexuals." It's a matter of arguing for ways of handling this issue that are somewhat different from the ways that even some of my fellow conservatives handle this issue.

If someone says that I'm doing something horribly embarrassing and too much like WBC because I make these points and raise these issues, I really don't care. As far as I'm concerned they are reasonable issues that Christians and conservatives ought to face instead of just embracing or, especially, seeking out homosexual spokesmen or encouraging people in their churches to "come out" and so forth.

By the way, I have more ideas for taking the offensive, etc.

--The defunding Planned Parenthood campaign in Congress.

--A Congressional push to pass a law exempting women from combat to prevent women's being drafted.

--A congressional attempt to defund USAID if they keep funding coercive population control programs. (Billed as the real War on Women.)

Lydia,

I love your ideas for going on the offensive!!!

I see us forming a strategic political consulting firm this weekend -- now we just need clients ;-)

Specifically, it is shameful how conservatives in Congress (and really the Republican Party) rolled over on the issue of gays in the military AND women in combat. These would have been great issues for us to highlight and go on the offensive with (i.e. they get our base riled up and demonstrate to the wider public that we are still the serious party when it comes to issues of national defense). Here's a good article reminding folks of some of the very basic problems related to women in combat:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/congress-goes-awol_706674.html

We conservatives will never make any headway socially and culturally as long as we act as if economics and culture are hermetically sealed off from one another. Until we realize that our current economic ideas are inherently and directly subversive of the sort of social and cultural ideals we espouse, we will be forever spinning our wheels and wondering why we don't get anywhere.

The "real war on women" idea isn't mine, I confess. I've been seeing it on Facebook recently. I believe they were chiefly relating it to targeting girls for abortion and infanticide, but it certainly relates as well to coerced-bribed-pressured sterilization and abortion.

The cause of defunding Planned Parenthood highlights another problem conservatives have, which is that their political representation ranges between apathetic and subversive towards their goals. Were the Republicans remotely serious, they could have already defunded PP. In fact they had it in the cards a few years back, only to scuttle it at the last minute.

The Republicans need to be held accountable. The Bush years were such a disaster for conservatism not because of anything Bush did, but because of the sycophantic reaction to him from conservatives. If the latest push to expel social conservatives from the party bears any fruit, then social conservatives should take their votes over to the Democrats. The Republicans are indeed a stupid party, but a few landslide losses will eventually drive the point home.

Nice,

Not only do we disagree with your premise (i.e. I think smart conservatives DO link economics and culture) but I also fundamentally disagree with your economic ideas, so I'm not sure what the heck you are talking about!!!

For example, someone like Arthur Brooks, the President of the American Enterprise Institute wrote an excellent little book about the moral and cultural foundation for a market economy and why supporting such an economy is necessary for our economic growth AND our cultural renewal.

So thanks but no thanks for the advice.

Jeff, even a committed self-proclaimed neo-con like yourself should realize that there is a vast difference between a "market economy" and today's corporate capitalist leviathan. Forget Arthur Brooks -- have you read Belloc's The Servile State lately?

Just as it's inconsistent and wrongheaded for the Left to promote sexual libertinism while condemning economic libertinism, as the two play off of and feed each other (see Lasch on this), it's equally inconsistent and wrongheaded for the Right to promote economic libertinism while condeming the sexual libertine. The ascetic Fathers knew what they were on about when they linked gluttony and lust, just as St. John links the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life.

Put simply, consumerist capitalism undercuts traditional morality. Earlier conservatives understood this. The sooner the contemporary Right in this country learns it the better.

That Weekly Standard article is really depressing. So Marco Rubio supports women in combat. Grrrrr. And I notice no mention of forcing women to register for the draft and possibly be drafted into combat. No mention at all. If Congress asked the public what they think of that, would they get a 66% approval rating on that from the public? I certainly hope not, and I kind of doubt it. But the Republicans have their heads in the sand. It's like they don't even want to know.

I notice the role that allegedly strategic worries about _perception_ play in all of this. "Oh, we've been portrayed as waging a war on women, so we don't want to be perceived as being anti-woman, so we support women in combat."

Elephant,

Well, for one thing, part of our goal should be to oppose specific measures that will expose children to the perverse normalization of homosexuality and foster sexual confusion/experimentation (e.g., sex curriculum in public schools, gays in the Boy Scouts, etc). If gay people were in the closet, revealing their temptations only to a few family members and spiritual advisors, we wouldn't even be thinking of this issue. It seems obviously right and good that gays should be in the closet, and we shouldn't hesitate to say so.

Well, here are the problems. I'm against the normalization of homosexuality, in the sense that I think that all same-sex sexual activity - and all sodomy, including heterosexual - should be regarded as morally wrong. I am against public schools, period - I would like us to get to a point where public schooling is the exception for student education rather than that rule. I think an increase in discretion generally would be ideal, getting the culture to a point where there's less sex in popular culture, etc.

But I think a complete return to the closet is less than ideal. For one thing, the end result is that you put gays in a position where they feel as if they have to lie. Trying to set them up on a date with someone of the opposite sex? Well, now they need to come up with excuses, or worse, go out on the date and fake it. Think they'd be a good idea for a boy scout troop leader? Time to come up with another excuse. Etc, etc. The examples could go on. I think it's better if they are able to be open about their sexuality and are held to proper standards not only of sexual conduct, but a proper attitude about their own sexuality and how to view it, how (and when) to discuss it in public, etc.

That does not mean endorsing every person who 'comes out' or talks about their sexuality. I think it can be done to death. I think too much of an emphasis on it is harmful, just like someone who talks every single day about their alcoholism is probably making a mistake. There are plenty of times where it's far more appropriate to just keep something like that utterly quiet, and for some gays it may be better if they're able to go with your standard and keep things between 'a few close friends' and a spiritual advisor. I also think we need to try and foster a culture or subculture among gays that asks for treatments that can change their sexual preferences - which, again, requires that they can be public about them to begin with.

I can understand why people would disagree. But, that's my view.

Lydia,

That isn't a matter of saying, "Hey, I want to promote hatred for homosexuals." It's a matter of arguing for ways of handling this issue that are somewhat different from the ways that even some of my fellow conservatives handle this issue.

Great. But you just gave a list of incredibly reasonable questions you're going to have about having someone who is 'out' in a position of educational or political or social power. I have no objection to asking those questions at all. If you're not saying that you think someone should never admit in public that they have SSA, but instead that a lot of consideration has to go into what authority or status is granted to someone with SSA, great - I agree. I do not think that someone being gay and, say... economically conservative means 'Well hell, give this guy a leadership post in the GOP!'

That Weekly Standard article is really depressing. So Marco Rubio supports women in combat. Grrrrr. And I notice no mention of forcing women to register for the draft and possibly be drafted into combat. No mention at all. If Congress asked the public what they think of that, would they get a 66% approval rating on that from the public? I certainly hope not, and I kind of doubt it. But the Republicans have their heads in the sand. It's like they don't even want to know.

Well, do you have more ideas on how to handle this? I have a few of my own, though I haven't thought them out very far yet. Should we demand women be forced to register for the draft? Should there be new policies, more punitive ones, relating to getting pregnant on/near deployment (save for cases of rape)? There are upsides and downsides to this.

Nice Marmot,

I have zero idea about your views on economic policy, etc. But I think one thing is worth keeping in mind - quite a number of businesses have been complicit with the LGBT organizations. Sometimes for ideological reasons (see what Google is doing on this front), but other times for business reasons. When you're in business, gays are not just some particular group out there - they are a demographic who can be targeted for sales. And 'targeting' necessarily means putting out the image of approving of their choices - whatever those choices happen to be.

So, I personally weigh far more in the direction of capitalism than socialism. But I also think the social (not socialist - social) duties required of businesses needs to be address more, and almost seems completely absent from conservative and even Christian thought.

I wrote a post on women and the draft, Crude. You can look it up. It's on here. Congress shd. pass a law exempting women from combat, taking tha tout of the hands of the DoD, so that the legal precedents continue to support exempting women from the draft. It's all quite simple. The present use of women in the military, even, is unwise. Expanding it is insane. I'm a traditionalist, and maybe you aren't, so whatever. I mean, honestly, I'm not all that interested in comparing our opinions point-by-point

As to your other question, I already said what I thought, but I can state my carefully qualified opinions over and over again, and you keep wanting me to type them over again. My fingers are going to fall off if I consider myself responsible to continue responding to you. I said that I won't say there are _no_ circumstances in which a person should "come out," as opposed to talking only to counselors or to a close friend who is helping him, but I think they are quite rare. Naturally, this opinion is going to have an effect on the extent to which Christian groups deliberately set out to find "out" homosexuals as a policy matter--to give different "voices" or to be role models or whatever.

And in any event, I don't believe people with homosexual inclinations should be applying to be Boy Scout leaders, and if it the person interviewing for the position finds out that those are their inclinations, he should refuse that person for the position. So encouraging them to lie? No. Just don't apply. But there you and I will apparently differ. As for someone's trying to set you up for a date, just find a way to say you're not interested in being set up for a date. Some people don't like being "match-maked" anyway. If you're a Christian, you can quite honestly say that you're convinced God has called you to be single! There are all sorts of ways of working around that, or, if the person trying to set the homosexually inclined person up is a very close friend, the "root cause" could be shared with that person in confidence. That's hardly the same thing as public self-identification.

But again, I don't really care about what you think about what I think. I know you and I differ a _lot_, and since I have a life, I have no interest in continuing to do some sort of compare and contrast exercise between our many opinions.

I know what you mean, Crude. I work for a Fortune 500 company that has a very strong 'gay-friendly' reputation.

Economically, I'm a traditional conservative of the Kirk/Weaver sort, with agrarian/distributist sympathies. While not a Catholic, I have a lot of agreement with Catholic social teaching.

I would actually have to describe myself as somewhat of an agrarian, and I definitely can see the problems you have both described. I am definitely in the Traditionalist camp.

Lydia,

As to your other question, I already said what I thought, but I can state my carefully qualified opinions over and over again, and you keep wanting me to type them over again.

No, I don't ask that. I point out the impression I got from you previously, compare it to what you just said, and offer my understanding. If you feel the need to restate your opinions over and over again, it may well be because they weren't as carefully qualified as you say they were.

And in any event, I don't believe people with homosexual inclinations should be applying to be Boy Scout leaders, and if it the person interviewing for the position finds out that those are their inclinations, he should refuse that person for the position. So encouraging them to lie? No. Just don't apply. But there you and I will apparently differ.

First off, the context was someone ELSE recommending that person to be a Boy Scout leader. I think it would be easier for everyone if the gay person said, look, I'm inappropriate for this, here's why. Second, I do not think people with SSA, certainly not 'out and proud' people with SSA, should be Boy Scout leaders. I want the Boy Scouts to stand firm with the position they hold right now.

So yes, we do disagree. More than that, I think that - certainly in the near term - going for a 'do not be frank about your sexual preferences' standard is not only unworkable, but can only lead to harm on other issues where we actually can gain traction and see results.

I wrote a post on women and the draft, Crude. You can look it up. It's on here. Congress shd. pass a law exempting women from combat, taking tha tout of the hands of the DoD, so that the legal precedents continue to support exempting women from the draft. It's all quite simple. The present use of women in the military, even, is unwise. Expanding it is insane. I'm a traditionalist, and maybe you aren't, so whatever. I mean, honestly, I'm not all that interested in comparing our opinions point-by-point

You don't have to. I keep saying, do as you will - you keep responding.

See, I'm a traditionalist too. I don't want women in the military at all. I am asking how we go about reversing this now that they're 'in'. The reason I asked about the draft question was owing to making it unpalateable by being 'fair'. That may not be a good idea, but I decided to ask since you were bringing up the draft, and I honestly didn't know where you were going with that. Well, now I know.

But again, I don't really care about what you think about what I think. I know you and I differ a _lot_, and since I have a life, I have no interest in continuing to do some sort of compare and contrast exercise between our many opinions.

Wonderful. You made it clear how hostile you are to me back with the last "go to hell" - and that's fine. See, I'm not trying to be your friend. I care vastly more about success in the culture war and on its political fronts than getting your personal stamp of approval - so when you (or anyone else) take positions I think will harm social conservatives (or which are just plain wrong), I will criticize them, point out where I think the flaws are, and point out where I think improvements can be made. You or others will point out flaws in my criticisms or suggestions, and we'll go on from there. With luck, good ideas will result from the exchanges, and maybe someone in a position to use those ideas will do so, and we'll have more success.

At which point, we may actually start having some success after a long string of failures. If that success has to come over the angry and passionate objections of Lydia McGrew, well, I think that's a price people will be willing to pay.

Mermot,

I am hesitant to lay the blame for these things on 'capitalism'. I don't completely rule it out, but I think the problems you speak of ultimately are cultural and social problems. The nice thing about capitalism is that, in principle, it allows someone to run their business as they see fit. That means they can choose on their own to do anything from limit how much profit they personally take to choosing which markets they move into, etc. This gets tricky once competition comes into play. (Say, your company either stands or falls based on whether you're willing to target and exploit members of a rotten subculture.)

I think one mistake social conservatives tend to make is a lack of expectation of duty and service from businesses. We can expect fellow Christians to do X, Y and Z, but I get the impression that 'business' tends to get mentally sealed off in its own little space for many. I've suggested to some fellow Christians that it may be a good idea for there to be social pressure on some businesses (Google, etc) to donate more of their profits to charity, etc. Not legislation or anything like that, but mere social expectation. That didn't go over too well. Then again, maybe they were outliers.

Jeffrey said his favorite blogger was Steve Sailer, a blogger who often belabors racial differences in intelligence. I suppose being slightly noxious would be quite beneficial and make one appear intrepid and bold, since someone like Sailer often disregard taboos.

Crude, you are likely to find many conservatives who would say something along the lines of "corporate responsibility is a fiction, unless we're talking about responsibility to the shareholders," or some such rot. That view is problematic in that it separates money-making from morality, and furthermore it's ridiculous if followed out logically.

Marmot,

Crude, you are likely to find many conservatives who would say something along the lines of "corporate responsibility is a fiction, unless we're talking about responsibility to the shareholders," or some such rot. That view is problematic in that it separates money-making from morality, and furthermore it's ridiculous if followed out logically.

I don't know about 'corporate responsibility'. I'm more concerned about individual responsibility. That talk of 'responsibility to the shareholders' is a very real thing, however - and if said responsibility is considered wholly in terms of profits (legally acquired) and so on, then it's going to inevitably involve butting heads with a proper Christian morality.

Of course, the shareholders have a responsibility too. So do the consumers. So does everyone, myself included.

I don't know about 'corporate responsibility'. I'm more concerned about individual responsibility.

Most corporate immorality and irresponsibility ultimately comes back to individual immorality and irresponsibility. There is a certain banal evil that in the aggregate allows for a far more systematic and aggressive evil (ex. all of the little functionaries whose individual jobs made the Holocaust, Gulag, etc. possible). However, in the case of corporations, usually it is the result of leadership unwilling to do what is right for someone in their position. Holding them personally accountable in such cases would bring the organization around quickly. For example, I think the oil industry would have a revival tent-level euphoria for worker safety and not cutting corners if Barack Obama had left BP alone financially and instead insisted that felony murder charges be brought against every executive whose negligence lead to Deepwater Horizon's failure (remember, 11 oil men died because of this).

I've suggested to some fellow Christians that it may be a good idea for there to be social pressure on some businesses (Google, etc) to donate more of their profits to charity, etc.

I'm a bit more sympathetic to Nice Marmot than most here, but one thing I find amusing about his tirades against Apple, Google, etc. is how there is an angle to their charity which is quite compatible with Distributism, not Capitalism. Namely their strong support for building up open source software which puts the tools of the trade more readily into the hands of the worker instead of the employer. The importance of this to the common man who would do this line of work cannot be understated.

I know that doesn't jive well with the typical view that charity means just the usual works of mercy (which are very important), but I think what they actually contribute to charity needs to be appreciated.

Nice says:

"Crude, you are likely to find many conservatives who would say something along the lines of "corporate responsibility is a fiction, unless we're talking about responsibility to the shareholders," or some such rot."

Sign me up -- first in line to talk "the rot".

Crude (and Mike T) are much closer to the mark: "I don't know about 'corporate responsibility'. I'm more concerned about individual responsibility."

Exactly.

Of course, for all the wonders of the market, no one would ever confuse me with a raving libertarian -- I want to protect our borders (and restrict the market for labor), I reject the idea that people should be free to buy and sell everything unmoored from moral constraints, etc., etc. I just reject the idea that the current mix of taxation/regulations on business (via the feds and the states) is ideal or needs to be somehow increased. Perhaps some of our laws could be wiser (see Paul Cella on our financial sector) -- but for the most part I look around and see a overbearing state smothering all sorts of business growth and opportunity -- for example in the energy sector right now.

Jeffrey S.,

Of course, for all the wonders of the market, no one would ever confuse me with a raving libertarian -- I want to protect our borders (and restrict the market for labor), I reject the idea that people should be free to buy and sell everything unmoored from moral constraints, etc., etc. I just reject the idea that the current mix of taxation/regulations on business (via the feds and the states) is ideal or needs to be somehow increased. Perhaps some of our laws could be wiser (see Paul Cella on our financial sector) -- but for the most part I look around and see a overbearing state smothering all sorts of business growth and opportunity -- for example in the energy sector right now.

Agreed. Certainly on the borders, I'm not averse to some amount of limited protectionism. But taxes and regulations are excessive. Of course, I'm not a fan of bailouts either.

Mike T,

I'm a bit more sympathetic to Nice Marmot than most here, but one thing I find amusing about his tirades against Apple, Google, etc. is how there is an angle to their charity which is quite compatible with Distributism, not Capitalism. Namely their strong support for building up open source software which puts the tools of the trade more readily into the hands of the worker instead of the employer. The importance of this to the common man who would do this line of work cannot be understated.

I'm a growing fan of distributivism as well, and the open source software movement... I'm not sure I know enough about distributivism to connect it to such, but it certainly helps. Technology and business (as opposed to 'science') has done an awful lot to help people out on the small scale end.

But I think a complete return to the closet is less than ideal. For one thing, the end result is that you put gays in a position where they feel as if they have to lie. Trying to set them up on a date with someone of the opposite sex? Well, now they need to come up with excuses, or worse, go out on the date and fake it. Think they'd be a good idea for a boy scout troop leader? Time to come up with another excuse. Etc, etc. The examples could go on. I think it's better if they are able to be open about their sexuality and are held to proper standards not only of sexual conduct, but a proper attitude about their own sexuality and how to view it, how (and when) to discuss it in public, etc.

"have to lie" to "come up with excuses"? No, they don't. Let me say that differently: NO, they DON'T! The soul of being truthful is simply saying what is true. The soul of discretion is simply not saying things that don't NEED to be said. Someone tries to set you up on a date? Say, "I don't wish to, and I would rather you didn't presume to guess at my date preferences. I will take care of that myself, thanks anyway." Someone asks you to be a boy scout troop leader? Say "I think my talents and calling lie in other directions, so no thanks." So what if an intelligent person guesses that maybe you are homosexual in orientation? If you never do things that active gays do, they can never confirm it and all they can do is guess.

Crude, the problem with a homosexual being "out" in public is that it unavoidably informs children of things that they should not have to be aware of. This is, of itself, a failure to treat children the way they have a right to be treated. In a well-ordered society, no 8 year old should be subjected to being informed that "Uncle Bob is a homosexual" because he shouldn't be subjected to having to understand what homosexuality is.

Now, if you have some way for gays to be "out" about their homosexuality in venues in which it is necessary and beneficial for them to do so, while at the very same time they leave that completely dark in all venues in which children's minds and understanding are present, I would be glad to hear it. I don't see how that would work. For myself, I work in a large office where I suspect that there are 2 homosexuals, but I have never heard them confirm it and I have never heard anyone else provide specific confirmation of it either. And I have never come across a situation where ANYONE at the office needed to actually know one way or the other. I fail to see a way in which coming "out" would be needed. If they wanted to bring a so-called date to a party, that would make it clear, but that presumes not only homosexual orientation but gay actions, and we don't think that should be condoned anyway.

Tony,

Someone tries to set you up on a date? Say, "I don't wish to, and I would rather you didn't presume to guess at my date preferences. I will take care of that myself, thanks anyway." Someone asks you to be a boy scout troop leader? Say "I think my talents and calling lie in other directions, so no thanks." So what if an intelligent person guesses that maybe you are homosexual in orientation? If you never do things that active gays do, they can never confirm it and all they can do is guess.

Look, I understand that you can find ways to forever not make a direct lie about your orientation. I think it's practically unworkable, and puts undue stress on these people. Can you imagine asking the same of an alcoholic? You know, just, 'never mention you have a problem with alcohol that you strive to abstain from' as opposed to 'look, I can't drink, here's why'? At the very least, I do not see your response here as the obvious path.

Crude, the problem with a homosexual being "out" in public is that it unavoidably informs children of things that they should not have to be aware of. This is, of itself, a failure to treat children the way they have a right to be treated. In a well-ordered society, no 8 year old should be subjected to being informed that "Uncle Bob is a homosexual" because he shouldn't be subjected to having to understand what homosexuality is.

Woah, hold on. Unavoidably? I think it's 'unavoidable' in the same way that lying is 'unavoidable' in my example. Why is a guy stating his sexuality at work 'unavoidably' going to lead to someone's 8 year old kid becoming aware of this? I'm not saying they should be out in freaking parades with a bullhorn. I'm talking about normal, mature, adult contexts. And I don't think you can have it both ways, where it's regarded as supremely easy for homosexuals to just perpetually closet themselves even around adults because, God forbid, this may filter back to a child eventually - but it's impossible for anyone to be 'out' and for children to be shielded from this knowledge.

Maybe the problem here is that you and I have different ideas of what it means to be 'out'. I can tell you right now, I don't approve of pride parades and nonstop not-shutting-up about it when it's inappropriate to go on and on. At the same time, I think total closeting is an unrealistic burden and a mistake besides. There are degrees between 'utter secrecy' and 'Wow will you shut up already', after all.

Not to mention, you realize that results in a one-sided disarming, right? It guarantees that the only homosexuals who are public are the very ones whose voices we do not need, and the people with SSA who are celibate, understand and can articulate why their sexual preferences should not be acted upon, etc, keep their mouths shut. I think that's an error on multiple levels. Right now the perception of a gay man is dictated entirely by LGBT groups. That is *bad*, it should go without saying.

Let me point at, again, the march in France. Gay groups were present. Out of the closet gays spoke there, prominently, in favor of the ban on gay marriage. You tell me: was that march a tremendous mistake? Or wasn't it? I assume you read the stats Jane helpfully provided in its wake.

Y'know, I have to wonder if we'd be hearing all of this "it's inevitable and important that ________ inform people of their orientation" if we were talking about pedophilia. Someone might recommend that you be a Scout leader. Someone might set you up for a date. And on and on. Wouldn't it just be simpler to start telling people at large that you are a pedophile? What if pedophiles started marching in parades supporting things we support? Would we then start giving people a hard time for wincing a little bit at having them there? Would we tell people how they should take all the help they can get?

Someone might recommend that you be a Scout leader. Someone might set you up for a date. And on and on. Wouldn't it just be simpler to start telling people at large that you are a pedophile?

I'd consider it irresponsible if you didn't. That's important information, I want to make sure I don't have my children anywhere near you. There's a whole new level of complexity here because children can't consent, and adults are directly responsible FOR them. There's a world of difference in children being exposed to homosexuality and children being exposed to pedophiles.

Unless I'm misunderstanding somehow?

Not publicly, though. And not generally. Not as an announcement on the Internet. Not to people who don't need to know.

My point is that we need to get a sense of propriety. Basically, homosexuality has become so open that nobody has a sense of propriety anymore. Yeah, honestly, I'd kind of prefer _not_ having a bunch of people advertising their sexual perversions and marching in my parade, even if it's a parade for a good cause. It's...unpleasant. And let's face it: The French homosexuals _are_ out and proud. It just so happens that they also (oddly, to American ears) think children need a mother and father. But come on: Homosexual desires are perverse. Don't put them in people's faces even if you're going, "Hey, I'm a sexual pervert and I think kids should have a mother father!" I mean, y'know, the second part of that is nice and all, but did we really need to hear the first part?

By bringing up the pedophilia example I'm trying to reinstate the idea of, "Please, don't be telling me stuff. I don't want to know about your bizarre and unpleasant sexual inclinations. Keep it off the airwaves of life. Keep it out of the atmosphere."

And the same way with "coming out" to your church. What I gather (fortunately,I don't go to a church where this happens) is that sometimes people tell the church body at large or the youth group or whatever, "I'm homosexual" so that everyone can hug them and "love on them" (odious phrase) and show how accepting they are. Would we do that with pedophilia? I certainly hope not. Of course, sometimes these attempted reductios backfire...

Lydia,

Y'know, I have to wonder if we'd be hearing all of this "it's inevitable and important that ________ inform people of their orientation" if we were talking about pedophilia.

Bad example, since I'm pretty sure you would really, really like to know where the pedophiles in your neighborhood are. If you don't, well, then your desire for discretion is off the 'reasonable' charts.

If anyone thinks I endorse pride parades, 'coming out' in some bigass ridiculous fashion, then clearly some miscommunication has been had. Nor do I think the reaction to this should be 'Oh, you poor thing! Group hug!' I think it should be similar to admitting one is an alcoholic: people go 'oh' and maybe act accordingly. Don't serve this guy drinks, don't try to set that guy up with your sister-in-law. No, I do not support pride parades, or obnoxious 'coming out' to everyone who will listen, moving into a neighborhood and going to each house saying 'Hi there! I'm your new neighbor. I work at Manning's Savings and Finance and I'm a big fan of Glee, poetry and [homosexual sex]!' I believe it should come up when appropriate. Yes, even organizations like 'Courage' should have a public presence to a degree.

But come on: Homosexual desires are perverse. Don't put them in people's faces even if you're going, "Hey, I'm a sexual pervert and I think kids should have a mother father!" I mean, y'know, the second part of that is nice and all, but did we really need to hear the first part?

First off: Yes. Yes we did. Because it was an acknowledgement - a very public acknowledgement - that just because a person has SSA does not mean that they should have their relationships treated as the equivalent of traditional married couples, *as acknowledge by many gays themselves.* When we're a decade or longer into whipping up the public into having over the top sympathy for extremely-visible gays (remember, people think 25% of the country is gay by one poll, because gays are THAT visible already), having the sympathetic group's members stand up and say 'You know what, what you're trying to offer us here is not helping us or making things better. In fact, you're unwittingly doing quite a lot of harm. Please don't do that, thank you.' matters a lot, I'm willing to bet.

Second: homosexual desires may be perverse. But perverse desires are not at all exclusive to homosexuals, sexual or otherwise. I think regarding someone who has an immoral desire as 'a pervert' straightaway - even if they don't act on that desire, even if they strive not to act on ANY sexual desire - is not only wrong, it's obnoxious. And that attitude of 'Oh, you have X sexual desire? Well, even if you never act on it and admit it's wrong, just having it makes you a pervert. Shame on you! To outer darkness with you, foul creature!' is not just a practical disaster, but it's wrong besides. Criticize the people acting on their desires, criticize the people who don't bother attempting self-control.

If you're at a point where you simply cannot stand to be near someone who you know has a disordered desire, even if they're resisting the desire and know it's wrong and conduct themselves reasonably, the most relevant problem may be more on your end than theirs.

Pedophilia is definitely a more apt comparison than alcoholism. Sexual perversion is a particularly private kind of thing, a kind of thing that not so long ago was considered inappropriate to discuss in polite company. Confessing that you have a drinking problem just is not the same way. Sorry.

Elephant,

Pedophilia is definitely a more apt comparison than alcoholism. Sexual perversion is a particularly private kind of thing, a kind of thing that not so long ago was considered inappropriate to discuss in polite company. Confessing that you have a drinking problem just is not the same way. Sorry.

Sure it's not the same way. And yes, it was considered inappropriate - as were a whole lot of things. It's also wildly inappropriate to discuss *now*, believe it or not. I don't mean merely among traditionalists and moral conservatives. I've brought multiple conversations to a close with very pro-gay-marriage, pro-LGBT people by insisting on describing exactly what I'm objecting to. You'd be surprised at how many very liberal people are stopped cold once that happens. Plenty want to defend 'a man and another man expressing their love for each other intimately'. Not so many want to defend what that actually cashes out to.

Which is part of the problem. For one thing, that unwillingness to be explicit has boxed a lot of conservatives into the corner, leaving us objecting to vague abstractions and liberals defending ridiculous abstractions. For another, it's caused problems for some people trying to cope with desires that they may well like to resist, but the only people who will ever talk to them are people who will encourage those desires. In the right areas at the right time, I see no problem speaking frankly about such things. In fact, I think it's valuable to do so.

That's a good point, ME.

There's another problem with the child molestation comparison.

If the move here is 'people shouldn't talk about such things - children may hear, and that would be terrible', then what about groups talking about child molestation? Should Sandusky's victims have kept quiet or handled everything behind closed doors? Should PSU not have had people publicly talking about their handling of such things? Jimmy Savile? How about rape cases, or sexual assault generally?

I think someone would be hard pressed to argue everyone should have just kept quiet and not made a public scene about those and other things, at least at times. But if that's permitted - putting out talk about rape or molestation is acceptable - then I fail to see how there can be a ban on people, in reasonable situations, frankly talking about sex.

I think regarding someone who has an immoral desire as 'a pervert' straightaway - even if they don't act on that desire, even if they strive not to act on ANY sexual desire - is not only wrong, it's obnoxious.

You do it again a couple sentences later: If you're at a point where you simply cannot stand to be near someone who you know has a disordered desire, even if they're resisting the desire and know it's wrong and conduct themselves reasonably...

You keep putting lipstick on the pig. In case you hadn't noticed, in the real world those who have a "disordered desire," try to resist it and "know it's wrong" are not the ones any decent Christian would cast into the "outer darkness." They're the ones who are very discreet about whom they share their difficulty with. They're not the ones driving the homosexual agenda; homosexuals with moral scruples are paid no attention by the media; they don't even exist. The ones who propel the agenda are those who shamelessly flaunt their perversity and demand - via legislatures, courts and the public education system - that you share in the shamelessness. I think recent history has pretty well proved the fact that once it is respectable to open the closet door even a crack, those inside will no sooner have said 'thank you' than they insist on taking over the bedroom.

Oh, brother. When we've gotten to the point that making a comparison for the sake of arguing for propriety is taken to imply that the victims of a crime shouldn't speak up, we're getting desperate. Hey, Crude, did you know that there actually _is_ a movement for "bringing pedophiles out of the shadows" and making them feel that their desires are not a taboo subject, getting them to talk about it to the public at large? (No, I don't mean just to counselors.) I don't have the links, but I was reading the stories within the last six months. And, no, this isn't (or allegedly isn't) from people who say the desires should be acted on. This is from people who say that "bringing them out of the shadows" is a way to _help_ them not act on their desires. Somehow. And, y'know, I don't think that if we resist that suggestion we're telling Sandusky's victims not to come forward. Somehow.

Woah, hold on. Unavoidably? I think it's 'unavoidable' in the same way that lying is 'unavoidable' in my example. Why is a guy stating his sexuality at work 'unavoidably' going to lead to someone's 8 year old kid becoming aware of this? I'm not saying they should be out in freaking parades with a bullhorn. I'm talking about normal, mature, adult contexts. And I don't think you can have it both ways, where it's regarded as supremely easy for homosexuals to just perpetually closet themselves even around adults because, God forbid, this may filter back to a child eventually - but it's impossible for anyone to be 'out' and for children to be shielded from this knowledge.

Maybe the problem here is that you and I have different ideas of what it means to be 'out'. I can tell you right now, I don't approve of pride parades and nonstop not-shutting-up about it when it's inappropriate to go on and on. At the same time, I think total closeting is an unrealistic burden and a mistake besides. There are degrees between 'utter secrecy' and 'Wow will you shut up already', after all.

I have said all along that it is fine for a person with homosexual orientation to state it in certain discreet situations where he has an actual need to have some adults know - his pastor, his doctors, his roommate in college, and close friends for example. THAT's not what "coming out" is taken to meaning these days. Have you never sat in a public place with a complete stranger, talking about this and that and find the conversation being dragged kicking and screaming around to "oh, and by the way, I'm gay, too", while the teller waits expectantly for you to either express horror (so he can chalk up yet another homophobe) or to express acceptance: he is shoving it in people's faces so that they are socially being forced to say that homosexuality is nothing of concern.

When a man thinks I need to know explicitly about his sexuality when he is homosexual where in the same context a heterosexual wouldn't think I need to know about his sexual orientation, there is something off. I am not talking about total closeting as absolute secrecy, I am talking about proper decency and discretion. The requirement to be discreet about sex is laid on all adults, not just homosexuals. One of the ways in which our society is fouled up is that heterosexuals also feel no dismay at talking about peripheral sexual matters that should be left unsaid, and so there is no sense of proper limits. But that which is perverse should have an additional caution over and above that which is merely private. The saints advise not even speaking of perverse sins except at need. See St. Paul on the subject.

"for the most part I look around and see a overbearing state smothering all sorts of business growth and opportunity"

From one side this is true, and I agree with it. From the other side, however, the power of large corporations is increasing alongside that of the state and in in tandem with it, creating what Phillip Blond calls the "market state," a state in which the interests of big business and big goverment both feed and feed off each other. In this system traditional morality becomes a non-issue, a hindrance, in fact, to the increase of both corporate wealth and state power.

I would highly recommend a read of both The Servile State and Blond's Red Tory. Blond's book deals mostly with the situation in England, but the observations apply equally to the U.S. And you wouldn't go amiss perusing some Christopher Lasch as well.

Break out of the neo-con/libertarian echo chamber. Ultimately, it's a mausoleum.

"one thing I find amusing about his tirades against Apple, Google, etc. is how there is an angle to their charity which is quite compatible with Distributism, not Capitalism. Namely their strong support for building up open source software which puts the tools of the trade more readily into the hands of the worker instead of the employer."

The freedom here is a trade-off, I'd say. You may have more freedom to do your work, but you're more dependent on the "grid" for the means whereby you do it. This is similar to the dilemma that small farmers faced in the 20s and 30s. Technology enabled them to be more productive, but it also made them dependent on the (non-local) petroleum and chemical companies.

By the way, for those who complain that distributist types do a lot of criticism but don't offer much by way of alternatives, Blond's book is a good place to look. While dealing primarily with UK issues, he offers a somewhat Laschian criticism of both Left and Right, and then proceeds to stake out what a government might look like that is based on traditional Anglican and Catholic social thought, while taking modern elements (global markets, communication technology, etc.) into consideration. He's in no sense a mere throwback.

William Luse,

You keep putting lipstick on the pig. In case you hadn't noticed, in the real world those who have a "disordered desire," try to resist it and "know it's wrong" are not the ones any decent Christian would cast into the "outer darkness."

Is the real world this site? Because in the previous thread, we had posters who were up in arms at the very idea that gay Christians who condemn same-sex sexual desire and who endorse chastity would be public with their sexuality. In this thread, when there's a huge march that has gays showing up opposing gay marriage and explicitly endorsing the idea of marriage being between a mother and a father for the purposes of having children, people complain about their presence and think they shouldn't have shown up.

They're not the ones driving the homosexual agenda; homosexuals with moral scruples are paid no attention by the media; they don't even exist.

Wait. Are you saying that celibate gays don't exist, period? That can't be it. I admit, they're probably a minority within a minority, literally. But they do exist. So no, 'homosexuals with moral scruples' do exist.

Now, they're not very visible. Part of the reason they're not visible may be that many of the very people who should be defending them freak out and think it's a step in the wrong direction for them to have much of a public face.

Also, while there's absolutely a huge homosexual angle to it, the 'homosexual agenda' goes well beyond homosexuality.

The ones who propel the agenda are those who shamelessly flaunt their perversity and demand - via legislatures, courts and the public education system - that you share in the shamelessness. I think recent history has pretty well proved the fact that once it is respectable to open the closet door even a crack, those inside will no sooner have said 'thank you' than they insist on taking over the bedroom.

It's not just the closet door opening 'even a crack' that does it, but a variety of other situations. It's not just wrong to say that 'homosexuals with moral scruples don't exist', it's pragmatically unwise.

Lydia,

Oh, brother. When we've gotten to the point that making a comparison for the sake of arguing for propriety is taken to imply that the victims of a crime shouldn't speak up, we're getting desperate.

The example I was given was 'You can't have gays publicly identifying their sexuality! Think of the children! The children will hear about these horrible, sick things inevitably if they are allowed to speak out, and that justifies our demand for silence!' So I pointed out a necessary ramification of that: then groups complaining about everything from rape to molestation to female genital mutilation to more had best shut up, because that will get back to the children too. It was a bad example to respond to me with.

And, y'know, I don't think that if we resist that suggestion we're telling Sandusky's victims not to come forward. Somehow.

Then don't give me a 'they can't talk about this in public, because of the children!' line, because it does not work.

As for pedophiles 'coming out of the shadows', they should at least feel comfortable getting psychological and spiritual help somewhere. If they start marching in the streets demanding that people with their condition should be allowed to be grade school gym teachers because otherwise it's discrimination, the first march should be responded to with fire hoses and batons. I don't particularly care if those are wielded by police and firemen either.

I want to note here that Crude is literally trying to heap shame upon me for using the word "pervert." That used to be considered an accurate and descriptive term, though one might very well have pity for the person with perverse desires. Now, we have literally switched the embarrassment metric so that a person isn't supposed to feel sufficiently embarrassed that he tries to avoid telling others about his perverse desires, but those who use a politically incorrect term such as "pervert" and who suggest that *we don't want to know* are to be criticized and told that "the problem is yours" for using such a word and uttering such a sentiment.

Tony,

I have said all along that it is fine for a person with homosexual orientation to state it in certain discreet situations where he has an actual need to have some adults know - his pastor, his doctors, his roommate in college, and close friends for example. THAT's not what "coming out" is taken to meaning these days.

I have been arguing that sometimes those discreet situations extend to a person's place of work, and that a public presence for some, in the right situations, also makes sense. Lydia, meanwhile, thinks that gays marching against gay marriage is a travesty and this shouldn't have take place. Maybe they should have excluded them from that march in France, eh?

No, I don't think having celibate gays admitting to their SSA and railing against LGBT groups, etc, are some terrible idea.

Have you never sat in a public place with a complete stranger, talking about this and that and find the conversation being dragged kicking and screaming around to "oh, and by the way, I'm gay, too", while the teller waits expectantly for you to either express horror (so he can chalk up yet another homophobe) or to express acceptance: he is shoving it in people's faces so that they are socially being forced to say that homosexuality is nothing of concern.

Absolutely this happens, far and away usually with the very motivation you're describing. Do you think I'm endorsing spinelessness? You should frankly say, "Well, then I hope you're celibate." and recommend Courage International to them. Certainly you shouldn't be punished for responding in such a way, or even thought less of by anyone. My own response would be that a person being attracted to the same sex isn't a problem, anymore than various other desires are - it's the actions taken and justified which are the problem. However, some people seem to think that the person's SSA *is* precisely the problem. I think that's a a huge mistake.

One of the ways in which our society is fouled up is that heterosexuals also feel no dismay at talking about peripheral sexual matters that should be left unsaid, and so there is no sense of proper limits.

Which just goes to show how this is no longer a 'homosexual agenda' problem. It goes far beyond the 'homosexual' boundaries.

Tony, clear something up for me. 'Gays against gay marriage' - would you discourage a group like this showing up at an anti-gay-marriage march? Do you think a columnist who identifies as gay, but who rails against LGBT groups and who argues that sodomy (same-sex and hetero) is immoral, should be fired as a columnist because we shouldn't encourage people to publicly identify as gay?

In theory, if one were to exist... do you think a group of gays who were demanding funding for a 'cure' for homosexuality should not exist, because it involves gays identifying as having SSA in the course of explaining why they want a cure, and that's intolerable?

Lydia,

I want to note here that Crude is literally trying to heap shame upon me for using the word "pervert." That used to be considered an accurate and descriptive term, though one might very well have pity for the person with perverse desires. Now, we have literally switched the embarrassment metric so that a person isn't supposed to feel sufficiently embarrassed that he tries to avoid telling others about his perverse desires, but those who use a politically incorrect term such as "pervert" and who suggest that *we don't want to know* are to be criticized and told that "the problem is yours" for using such a word and uttering such a sentiment.

I don't really care if your use of the term conforms to some strict dictionary definition, and chances are you don't either. You were defending a use of the term 'pervert' such that a person, just by virtue of having some desires, even if they do not act on them, even if they control themselves, even if they regard those actions as wrong, is a pervert. That's ridiculous.

Second, yes - we literally have switched the embarrassment metric. Political correctness, I do not care about. I care about being able to actually reach people with arguments and rhetoric, so if a given word does more harm than good there, I will oppose it. I have little desire to engage in the schoolyard game of defending the use of the term 'faggot' because 'It just means a bundle of sticks!' or other such. The social and political landscape has changed. If you would like to change it back, then be sure to operate in a way that will actually let you gain progress there. My interest is in turning back support for gay marriage, getting more support for traditional and moral marriage, sexual attitudes and more. 'The right of Lydia McGrew to call people perverts when she wants without backlash' is way, way down on the list, hovering somewhere around 'making it legal to sell Buckyballs again' in terms of importance.

Third, if you really want to play dictionary battle with me, I'll note that 'pervert' is defined as "A person whose sexual behavior is regarded as abnormal and unacceptable." in the first 'define' result on google. Which would mean that someone who does not act on their sexual desires is not a pervert, and thus you were wrong again. On the flipside, if even holding an immoral desire can suffice to make someone a perverted, then statistically I'm going to have to guess that I encounter perverts most of my day, including in this thread.

Not all immoral desires are perverse or "intrinsically disordered," Crude, so please stop wasting my time with whatever talk-talk sentences happen to occur to you (such as your last). And, yeah, I also don't want to know about some perverse desire that some heterosexual associate happens to have, either. Please, people, keep it to yourselves and your confessor or intimate friends who really need to know.

Firing someone is different from not hiring someone. If I were running, say, a Christian newspaper or other organization, and if I were hiring, and if someone were being interviewed for a writing position and made the comment that he "is" homosexual, I would tell him that he's welcome (in the appropriate venues, such as editorials) to "rail against" the homosexual agenda, but that I would not want him publicly self-identifying that way, to the extent that it was possible not to. If some other person wantonly "outs" him, that's obviously not his fault. I would also have a _lot_ of other questions for him about his views and behavior and the role that this self-identification plays in his life. Of course, it puts the newspaper in a more delicate position if someone "outs" one of your reporters after you've already hired him. And still a third situation is where the reporter suddenly "outs" himself for no apparent reason in a column. Of course, if I were in such a position that I had the authority to preview the column before it went to press, I would tell him to cut that section. I would also regard it as a strike against the person's discretion and considerateness that he had this sudden urge to do this. I would consider it inconsiderate of the employers and of the readership.

I don't know if you care about the rhetorical inconsistency, but you keep booping back and forth between this best-case scenario of a person who is totally chaste and regards his homosexual desires as disordered, on the one hand, and the open homosexuals in France, on the other hand, who pretty obviously aren't in that category. I've already said a good deal about the possible pitfalls of open homosexual employees, representatives, and speakers even who fall into the former category, and I believe that my concerns there are borne out by observations. Plus, I don't think it's best for all involved for us to be encouraging that sort of self-identification unnecessarily for that person himself. Individual cases will require individual treatment. But why continually pretend that that's all you're talking about anyway, when you constantly switch over to taunting us if we don't cheerfully welcome the support of obviously *active* and *unabashed* groups of homosexuals for some cause?

Lydia,

Not all immoral desires are perverse or "intrinsically disordered," Crude, so please stop wasting my time with whatever talk-talk sentences happen to occur to you (such as your last).

I have completely ignored your suggestions about what I write about and address since you've started offering up such advice. I'll continue on that path, thank you.

You were the one who wanted to play Dueling Dictionaries over the word 'pervert', and the result is that evidence weighs against you on it. Add that to the 'common sense' pile that had also weighed against you. What I said stands: if you're going to count 'desire' of such things as making a person a pervert, then perverts abound.

if someone were being interviewed for a writing position and made the comment that he "is" homosexual, I would tell him that he's welcome (in the appropriate venues, such as editorials) to "rail against" the homosexual agenda, but that I would not want him publicly self-identifying that way, to the extent that it was possible not to.

Your advice is terrible, and advice like this helps ensure the 'homosexual agenda', such as it is, continues to advance. It may not always be appropriate to have someone bring up their sexuality, but to the extent you wish to utterly disarm traditionalists and conservatives in this area, you are making a grand mistake. I don't say this hoping to convince you - but I will continue to argue and explain exactly why yours is a terrible mistake. Maybe others will start to understand exactly what sort of thought has been throwing a lead weight around the necks of social conservatives on these issues, and why.

I would also have a _lot_ of other questions for him about his views and behavior and the role that this self-identification plays in his life.

Totally reasonable to ask.

I don't know if you care about the rhetorical inconsistency, but you keep booping back and forth between this best-case scenario of a person who is totally chaste and regards his homosexual desires as disordered, on the one hand, and the open homosexuals in France, on the other hand, who pretty obviously aren't in that category.

I don't keep "booping" back and forth. I'm dealing with multiple cases at multiple levels - the conversation has ranged from talking about Gonnerman at First Things to the France march to purely hypothetical scenarios.

I think it is a mistake to not explicitly make a space for chaste people with SSA who recognize that same-sex sexual behavior is wrong, who oppose gay marriage, etc. The desire to keep these people utterly shadowed is a mistake on multiple levels, both moral and practical. I do not care if the mere knowledge that such and such person has some or even exclusive same-sex desires makes some social conservatives feel awkward. This doesn't mean they should never shut up about their sexuality - but you clearly occupy a position where you would prefer just about everyone who is gay or has SSA keep utterly quiet about their own sexuality rather than serve as an example, or someone who has personal experience with what they're criticizing. I think it's a mistake, and an obvious mistake.

When it comes to open and unapologetic homosexuals, yes - I will find common cause with them if they oppose gay marriage, and continue to disagree with them on other issues. If you pulled the lever for Mitt Romney last year, then you know a thing or two about supporting someone who is, shall we say, less than ideal when it comes to being in agreement with you on social issues. If we could replicate a march like that here, the conditions of the gay marriage debate would stand a great chance of changing overnight. We will not replicate a march like that here, or anything comparable, so long as people continue to fail to get their priorities in order.

But why continually pretend that that's all you're talking about anyway, when you constantly switch over to taunting us if we don't cheerfully welcome the support of obviously *active* and *unabashed* groups of homosexuals for some cause?

I'm not 'taunting' anyone. I've disagreed strongly, I've argued my case, and I've pointed out what I think are flaws in other people's arguments and views. You, meanwhile, have been waxing dramatic towards me, going from telling me to 'go to hell' to seemingly intentionally mangling what I've been saying ('Crude thinks the NRA gained 200k members because they criticized Splatterhouse! It's not that he was arguing that their move changed the terms of a flashpoint debate, and that they had been cultivating a better image about gun rights for more than a decade or anything!') to otherwise. I'm not even telling you to stop doing this - at this point, I don't care. I'll just respond, point out the flaws I see, concede the points made against me when I think one has been, and move on.

Nor have I said we should 'cheerfully welcome' out-and-proud gay groups just because they happen to be anti-gay-marriage, as if I think we should be endorsing homosexual sexual behavior as good and great so long as they stand with us on an issue like that. I think, in a pragmatic sense, we should view their hypothetical willingness to throw their support behind such an image a great thing for us because of the effect it may well have on the debate. We should continue to disagree with them on other issues, and to be public about that disagreement - when appropriate. And 'when appropriate' may mean 'other than at that particular venue'.

Which just goes to show how this is no longer a 'homosexual agenda' problem. It goes far beyond the 'homosexual' boundaries.

No, you're making a logical mistake. The fact that there is a vast heterosexual problem doesn't mean there isn't in addition a completely distinct homosexual problem. Talking about heterosexual matters with indiscretion is a _different_ problem from talking about homosexual matters with indiscretion - the latter involves an additional disturbance to the public weal.

Tony, clear something up for me. 'Gays against gay marriage' - would you discourage a group like this showing up at an anti-gay-marriage march? Do you think a columnist who identifies as gay, but who rails against LGBT groups and who argues that sodomy (same-sex and hetero) is immoral, should be fired as a columnist because we shouldn't encourage people to publicly identify as gay?

How shall I put this? I'll try: in the ideal world, gays won't get a license for a public "gay pride" march, so moral homosexuals won't have a public problem to rail against. The gays won't get that license because a well-ordered public authority has every right to say "you can talk about these things in private, but you cannot put them out in public like that where little kids can see it - even if your theory of "being gay" is a version of normal were right, it wouldn't be right to shout this theory in front of kids, and you can't get around decency and obscenity laws by claiming 'free speech' ". In the ideal world, if a gay pride organizer tries to get a march licensed, the moral homosexual goes privately to the authorities and works with them privately for reasons to deny the license.

In our current world, I can see an upright homosexual trying a public approach toward decrying the "gay pride" march, if he does so in venues that are limited to adults - a board of supervisors meeting, for example - not the side of a bus. As far as showing up as a counter-protest at the gay pride event, I would say that it is probably useless anyway, but if they can do it in such a way that the only people who are noticing them are the people who are already bashed in by the pride march itself, I suppose it isn't going to do any harm of its own. But even there I would be wary of falling into the trap of conceding the other side's unstated premises - like the false premise that announcing a stance about the normalcy of hetero vs homosexual orientation is morally identical to implicitly operating on the unstated assumption that heterosexual orientation is normal.

Pervert

Crude, for some reason you want to constrain Lydia and M.E. and myself into using the currently most common connotations of words only, and to consider older connotations no longer _available_. But that's as if to say that the language re-invents itself every 10 or 20 years - a version of Newspeak. I at least reject that view. The 3000 years of literature, and the 400 years history of modern English literature, is an important legacy, needed counter-weight to being foolishly caught in the blindnesses of our own limited culture. To be unable to think and speak in the language of yesteryear is to be cut off from the wisdom of ages, from other perspectives that open out to us a grander view of the whole of human knowledge.

You also seem to think that we are using here in this blog the very same language and arguments we would use with our next door neighbors or at a city hall meeting. No reason to assume that at all. This is not the same thing as a standard public setting. I at least am a lot more frank here than out in public.

Tony,

No, you're making a logical mistake. The fact that there is a vast heterosexual problem doesn't mean there isn't in addition a completely distinct homosexual problem. Talking about heterosexual matters with indiscretion is a _different_ problem from talking about homosexual matters with indiscretion - the latter involves an additional disturbance to the public weal.

They are not completely distinct - they are intertwined. They may have some very distinct aspects to them, but the overlap is there. There are also some advantages to accepting and talking about that overlap, though also disadvantages.

Most of the arguments deployed in defense of same sex marriage or same sex sexual behavior can be immediately deployed in defense of all kinds of heterosexual behavior. Remember Bill Clinton? How many of the arguments used to justify his behavior with Lewinsky are repeated for same-sex actions?

In our current world, I can see an upright homosexual trying a public approach toward decrying the "gay pride" march, if he does so in venues that are limited to adults - a board of supervisors meeting, for example - not the side of a bus.

Good - you recognize the difference between the ideal world and the current world. How about a regular column in an adult periodical? How about in more mature media in general? How about at a pro-traditional-marriage march or an anti-gay-marriage march? I mean, the 'gay' subject is already quite on display there.

If you think they have some places there, great - you and I? We're largely on the same page. Lydia just said that she would disapprove of a gay man revealing his sexuality even if he writes about gay marriage and other topics, period. I think that's a mistake. You agree?

Crude, for some reason you want to constrain Lydia and M.E. and myself into using the currently most common connotations of words only, and to consider older connotations no longer _available_. But that's as if to say that the language re-invents itself every 10 or 20 years - a version of Newspeak. I at least reject that view.

Use whatever language you want - I really don't care, so long as you're making a conscious effort to be as effective as possible at persuading people, when appropriate. I waded in here at first with a criticism of people defending 'discrimination' and such openly, or being 'anti-gay-rights', which frankly seems like a variety of succumbing to Newspeak itself. Likewise, I'll bet you that those 3000 year old definitions you speak of also do so with regards to action and behavior, not desire. In which case, I just scored one in favor of the legacy you're fighting for. Minor stuff, that, but there you have it.

You also seem to think that we are using here in this blog the very same language and arguments we would use with our next door neighbors or at a city hall meeting. No reason to assume that at all. This is not the same thing as a standard public setting. I at least am a lot more frank here than out in public.

Not really. See my response to someone else earlier when I pointed out we're having a discussion on a low-traffic blog with me writing under a pseudonym. Low stakes here. But most of what we're talking about is how to handle things when we're talking with our neighbors, or at a city hall meeting, etc. And again, the 'perverts' thing was of questionable accuracy even in this context.

So let me get this straight: A person with pedophiliac inclinations has a positive *duty* to pretty much inform everyone he runs into who has children and might ever consider inviting him over to their house for dinner (which would put him "somewhere near" their children), so that they can decide whether or not to do this. Which comes close to a requirement that he wear a sign in everyone's face: "Hi, I'm Bob. I have a problem in that I like little boys." However, despite these rather, shall we say, strong requirements of self-identification followed by shunning, we should never refer to Bob as a "pervert," even in a small-group setting, nor think of him by that term, if he's never actually molested a little boy, or if it isn't currently part of his "behavior," because that is somehow a technically incorrect use of the term. Rrright. Or is it just those whose desires are now more widely culturally accepted to whom we must never apply that term if they aren't presently acting on those desires?

Wait. Are you saying that celibate gays don't exist, period?

Okay, I won't waste any more time with someone who can't read.

In a well-ordered society, no 8 year old should be subjected to being informed that "Uncle Bob is a homosexual" because he shouldn't be subjected to having to understand what homosexuality is.

It is okay to read about it in the Bible, but kids aren't supposed to understand it. Brilliant.

So let me get this straight:

When you make puns you should emphasize it with a (!). They are are a crude(!) but effective form of humor.

William Luse,

Okay, I won't waste any more time with someone who can't read.

You said "They're not the ones driving the homosexual agenda; homosexuals with moral scruples are paid no attention by the media; they don't even exist." If you meant that they do exist, well, write more clearly.

Lydia,

So let me get this straight: A person with pedophiliac inclinations has a positive *duty* to pretty much inform everyone he runs into who has children and might ever consider inviting him over to their house for dinner (which would put him "somewhere near" their children), so that they can decide whether or not to do this.

By all means, feel free to walk through how you came upon this interpretation of my words. It should be a pretty insightful project, considering I expressly said that there are plenty of times where it's inappropriate to relate details about one's sexuality.

Borrowing a page from Michael Behe, I'm starting to feel like Dilbert whenever I respond to you, Lydia: http://tinyurl.com/6y6upgc

Whatever the case, this thread looks like it's close to exhausted. What I said at the start stands: we are losing, badly, on this particular front in the culture war. It's not just because the media is against us - the media is against gun owners and pro-lifers too, and they've actually either held their ground or had some considerable successes over the same stretch of time. I say, we've made some mistakes - there are some things we can be doing better. It's probably not that we haven't been as bold in our declaration that gays are all perverts by Lydia McGrew's personal definition. While the prospect of having to regard an actual, living, breathing homosexual as an ally, even a qualified ally, may make some people's hearts go all aflutter, I think the issue is important enough to try and get past that, or to regard that reaction as a liability more than anything else.

We're going to see in the coming years more evidence of which approaches work and gain ground, and which do not. If it turns out that what I'm suggesting gets tried and has some success - indications are it's already had some in France - take note and learn from it, at least if you care to actually win this culture war.

I'll pause my comments on this blog for now, so those of you who feel honor-bound to run defense for Lydia can relax. Anyone who wants to discuss this further can feel free to drop a comment on my pathetic excuse for a blog. Thank you all to those who responded - I actually think this has been productive, even if admitting as much in the open may not be in the cards right now for some.

I'll pause my comments on this blog for now, so those of you who feel honor-bound to run defense for Lydia can relax.

Well, I admire anyone who can throw down the gauntlet and then hold your ground against Lydia. Even to the point of getting a little confession about what may have transpired with a previous co-blogger's lack of discretion and considerateness. So you have my full blessing (worth exactly nothing) to return.

"I'll pause my comments on this blog for now..."

Well, thank GOD for small blessings. Cue cheering crowd sound effect.

Well, after the cheering crowd quiets down...ahem....OK...thank you, thank you...if we can get back on track here...Can we get a word in here?...Ah, finally:

We have been losing badly on the gay war front, but there is every possibility that no matter what tactics we use in that specific front it won't turn the tide. Partly because the war is bigger than the front on gay issues, and gay "marriage" is only one small strategem being used by the real enemy - the principalities and powers arrayed against us. There is, again, every possibility that the ONLY successful strategy involves a lot more prayer and fasting than it involves talking or marching. And when it does involve talking, that it involves talking mostly about God and what true love really is, rather than talking about gays. If our enemies want to talk about gay "marriage," it is possible that this battle is a diversion from the real struggle, and we should give it less consideration than other things like chastity and the battle over pornography, which affects far more men than homosexuality does.

The homosexual agenda and the pornographic agenda, indeed, the larger agenda of saturating the country with sexuality both imaginable and unimaginable, come together in Planned Parenthood. When people talk about defunding their abortion machine, I think it's important for us to know and to point out that their so-called "educational" activities are among the most vile things they do. The titles alone of their videos and pamphlets are so disgusting as not to be fit for polite company. In PP we have aggressive pan-sexualism of a kind that beggars description, targeted quite deliberately at minors.

Also, anti-pornography efforts are terribly hindered by extremely strong, and bad, SCOTUS rulings. (I'm ashamed to say that I don't know the title of the one or two worst and most crucial SCOTUS rulings that gutted nationwide laws against pornography. Probably to conservatives these should be as familiar as Roe v. Wade, and overturning them a priority as it is with Roe.) However, in PP the pornographic push (and also the homosexual agenda) in our culture may be vulnerable in ways that it is not vulnerable to laws aimed more directly at pornography. PP is heavily dependent upon public funding and also depends on school boards to allow it into the schools. We need to push for defunding PP both at the federal and at the state level and also try to find creative ways to get them and programs like theirs out of the public schools.

More generally, on the question of success: Sometimes people fight most bravely when they believe that they will _not_ succeed. The Anglo-Saxon poem "The Battle of Maldon" inspiringly portrays a warrior as saying

Mind must be the firmer,
Heart the more fierce,
Courage the bolder,
As our strength lessens.

In more colloquial terms, Jimmy Stewart reminds us in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington that "lost causes are the only causes worth fighting for."

I believe that conservatives will actually rally to this kind of talk. I believe that they _should_ rally to it and that, if it is unfamiliar to them, we should make it familiar to them. We should teach them that valiant defiance of evil, that gay courage, that enables them to fight on in the face of defeat and consider their efforts well-spent. But to do so, they must be idealists of a kind. They must at a minimum believe that any policy they are fighting for (even if it is an incremental policy such as, say, a 24 hour waiting period or parental consent for abortion) is worthwhile. The policy need not do everything we might want it to do, but it should be something we can get behind without feeling like used car salesmen, something we can positively advocate, without blushing, as being good for the common welfare. And the same for candidates. Conservatives are disheartened and beaten down by constantly being asked to vote only _against_ the other candidate, never _for_ their own. We need to look for candidates, again--not necessarily perfect in every way--but whom we can be proud to fight _for_.

We conservatives will gain and recover our will to fight even for lost causes and never to regret it just exactly to the extent that we find causes worth fighting for, whether lost or won.

I submit that that's what we need to be looking for, and that if we find it, we will rally the base and _maybe_ even win. I also submit that this is our best hope.

It is okay to read about it in the Bible, but kids aren't supposed to understand it. Brilliant.

If you can find anyone suggesting that small children should have everything in the Bible explained to them in detail, I hope he'll concede that you are very clever. My guess is that he won't be found on this blog, though.

Every once in a while -- not often and I wouldn't really want you to do this -- I wish you had "like" buttons for your posts. Lydia at 9:17: YES! In this world, we will usually at least *appear* to be on the losing side, but in this world is not all there is, and righteousness is a cause worth dying for in hopeless battles. And maybe the courage and principled stand of those who lose can be the tiny fire that lights a reformation -- or at least offers hope to the faithful remnant.

Thank you, Beth. The glory of a cause that seems lost in earthly terms is one of the central themes in literature and in Scripture that has influenced and strengthened me the most.

If you can find anyone suggesting that small children should have everything in the Bible explained to them in detail, I hope he'll concede that you are very clever.

He did not say it shouldn't be explained in detail, he said they shouldn't understand it, that kids should be protected from knowing it exists. This sets up conflicting worlds, a Biblical world where homosexuality is real and routinely condemned and this world where everybody pretends it doesn’t exist when kids are around. Tony is the one who has to square his suggestion of extensive denial with the fact that kids are going to read about it in the Bible. The same Bible that describes the first fratricide in the fourth chapter, which isn't beyond a child's understanding.

Step2, the Bible also refers to infant sacrifice. It doesn't follow that it's good for kids to be introduced to Uncle Joe who used to be a Priest of Baal. Nor should they come, by the repeated references to people they know who are Priests of Baal, or used to be Priests of Baal, or experience repeated urges to be Priests of Baal, to think that infant sacrifice is a normal part of their immediate world. There's no reason why various sins mentioned in the Bible cannot a) be left unexplained as vocabulary words and b) be thought of as something alien, abnormal, and uncommon. When a speaker at church, or Uncle Joe, who is a good friend of the family or is presented as an authority figure or an accepted person, is introduced as someone who "is" X (where this is left ambiguous, though all the really charitable people take it and hastily explain that it means that he just _wants_ to do X, though he doesn't do X anymore), that does tend to normalize X. That is a good deal different from reading a reference to X in a list of sins about which the Apostle Paul says that those who do such things have no part in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Speaking for myself, I refer to those as "sins" or "sexual sins" (once a child has some very general notion of what the adjective "sexual" means) and otherwise leave the words unglossed. For a long time. Seems entirely consistent with Tony's recommendations to me. I don't imagine the Apostle Paul intended all the words of his epistles that were read in church to be explained over the dinner table to the nine-year-olds in the congregations at Ephesus and Corinth.

I would imagine they were aware what those words meant. They were also hopefully aware that they were wicked sins. We can debate all day on pedagogy, but we need to be completely clear on the simple facts that these actions are sins.

Does the author of this blog post agree with Steve Sailer about the causes of the racial IQ gap?

In any case, arguing that there are unregulated "abortion mills" won't work against liberals because liberals don't support unregulated medical facilities. That's more of a libertarian thing. Additionally, the pro-life movement is not doing nearly as well as the original post suggests. Although many people identify as "pro-life", more targeted polling reveals that the vast majority of Americans believe that abortion should be available to women in the first and second trimester, as well as in the cases of rape and incest. That being the case, I don't think most pro-life leaders would agree that most of the people who label themselves as pro-life are anything of the sort. It is also worth noting that the electoral victories that the pro-life movement has achieved at the state level have come at a serious price (that is one of the reason GOP consultants want this issue to go away). As an example of this, Bob McDonnell's governorship was nearly sunk by his pro-life legislation, and Republicans in Virginia's legislature are terrified of talking about the issue right right now.

Roto,

Concerning abortion, the first thing I said about the subject was that "we have a long way to go" [meaning the pro-life movement still has a lot of work to do]. However, I disagree with your interpretation of poll data and the political trends at the state level. I would think Republicans in Virginia should be more terrified of talking about tax increases.

Also, I'm not sure why you want to take the post off topic, but we aren't going to go there right now.

I would imagine they were aware what those words meant.

Anymouse, you are probably right that in ancient times, at least for some cultures, many children did in fact know what homosexuality was. The problem, though, is that many of these cultures were in themselves degenerate in this respect: Sodom, for example, or Athens for some periods. In a well ordered culture, or even in a half-way decent culture, that will not be nearly as likely. Even in a partially degenerate society that has not completely robbed children of their right to innocence, ordinary children might grasp that there are people who "like" members of the opposite sex in some strange way, but they will have absolutely no idea what sodomy is or that there even COULD be such a thing as wanting to live with a member of the same sex as if you were married.

Children also shouldn't understand rape, Step2, and they shouldn't understand a lot of things, but this doesn't mean that they shouldn't encounter them through dark and unexplained references in some Biblical passage. Your attempt to create some sort of "gotcha" over such long-standing principles of civilized child-rearing is just strained, unserious, and even silly.

"we don't do enough to aggressively promote our ideas and denounce liberals."

Agreed.

Denounce Liberals (with sound rhetoric) unceasingly. If they complain, give examples of Liberals denouncing Conservatives with their unsound rhetoric.

Speculative: Full-on economic boycott by social conservatives of liberal-promoting corporations. Stop feeding the beast. Nothing gets their attention faster than a rapid drop in funding and revenues. Massive boycott, massive write-in campaign, massive denouncing of social liberal policy. Followed by ignoring calls from cowardly moderates to cease and desist from economic boycotts.

You want to go on offense that really causes decision-makers and talking heads to take notice? Hit 'em in the pocketbook - H.A.R.D.

Every other means gets ignored.

Are there enough who would actually participate in such boycotts to actually make a dent?

Didn't we tell ya? I've been predicting this for years...

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pedophilia-a-sexual-orientation-experts-tell-parliament

Sage,
Phooey. Children should understand rape well enough to know adults should not touch them in certain places unless a parent is present (i.e. a doctor's office).

All I'll say is that bisexual and polyamorous normalization are next

how dare you judge consenting adults? etc., etc.

Imaging is a big part of the problem. Despite the strides of the internet, liberals are still in control of most cultural outlets. Those outlets relentlessly and continuously paint any conservative idea, thought or utterance as foolish, mean-spirited, evil or all the above. Liberals simply declare victory and go home, completely ignoring any substance. The long march through the institutions can only be overcome by a reverse long march through the institutions. Or, alternatively, clean-up after total collapse.