Oxymoronic

Star Parker's latest article argues that you cannot be Gay and Conservative.

The only dividing line I saw was between right and wrong, good and evil.

The idea of “gay conservative” is an oxymoron.

“Gay” is everything that “conservative” is not.

The foundation of the world view that so-called “gay conservatives” embrace has far more in common with liberalism than with conservatism.

This in reaction to the Conservative Poltical Action Conference, which just wrapped up. Apparently they invited a Gay Conservative Group and so Star Parker refused to participate. So there you have it - no such thing as a Gay Conservative. At least according to Star Parker.

Townhall Commentators run the gamut; from libertarians who are upset at Parker for kicking at Gays to more moderates saying that this shouldn't be an issue in the face of Obama. And of course there are some other views.

The word "faggot" is censored on TownHall. The "PC" liberals rule even this forum.

They should start a new party called the gayanddruggie party. People might actually think it is a party.

We don't want your fu_cking tolerance.

Tolerance is back of the bus; tolerance is being excluded. Tolerance is second citizen position.

The word is equality. It means just as good as you. We will accept that, even though we know we are better than you, socially, morally and intellectually.

Touching. The defense of intolerance is always interesting because it makes so little sense. The basic problem seems to be that while they don't need to be tolerent of gays, gays are hypocrites because they are intolerent of their intolerence. It's almost like "Look I hate them, but they hate me for hating them, so they are worse." Huh?

It's Not Me, It's You

According to Star Parker's latest article, the people building the Ground Zero Mosque believe that by doing so they can reach out to Americans and create more harmony between Islam and America. No need, apparently.

Critical to grasp here is the suggestion of the need for dialogue. That the existence of Islamic terrorism is the result of problems with us Americans as well as problems that may exist in Islam. And it all would be fixed if we understood each other better.

This is simply false.

Americans don’t need any lessons about freedom and tolerance.

. . . Feisel Abdul Rauf should spend his $100 million, wherever he is getting it from, to advance the cause of freedom in Islamic countries. That is where the problem is. It’s certainly not here.

So that's comforting. We Americans have never done anything for the Islamic World to be upset at, and there is certainly no need for us to understand Islam.

Personally I think this debate over the Ground Zero Mosque proves the opposite. The essential problem is that one group of American Citizens wants to build a religious center on lands they own. And as American Citizens they should have the right to do so. Unless, somehow, you don't think Muslims deserve the same rights as the rest of us.

A Few Pastors

Star Parker's latest article is calling us to repentance in this holiday season, referring back to 9/11.

After the horrendous attacks on September 11, 2001, a few Christian pastors stepped up to say that the unprecedented violation of America's homeland was a sign of weakness within our nation.

They weren't talking about how we gather intelligence or how we check travelers at the airport.

. . . The weakness which led to our vulnerability on that infamous September day, said those pastors, was moral, not technical. For this, they were widely denounced.

Presumably she's talking about Jerry Falwell's statement shortly after the bombing.

The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'

So, this is the sort of thinking that Star Parker wants to celebrate. Of course she doesn't cite this quote or even reference the individuals involved (Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, on whose show Falwell made these quotes and who agreed with him (later claiming he hadn't actually heard what Falwell said)). I suppose because the ugliness of the remarks would turn off some people, and the people who wouldn't be turned off by the quotes already know them.

Answering a Question

Reading Star Parker's latest article about the "Beer Summit." Fortunately she doesn't excuse the behavior of the police officer involved, nor does she pander to her audience's racial hangups. Rather she asks a rather pointed question.

So why do blacks, who have more personal experience than any other group in this nation with abuses of such power, consistently support expanding it?

Why is Professor Gates freaked out by the policeman standing on his porch but not by the intrusive expansion of government into his life and the lives of every other American, white or black?

Well I think it probably has to do with the difference between local and federal power. Local power has tended to be much less fair towards African Americans and other "minorities." If it were not for Federal power there would have been no Civil Rights acts, and segregation and even slavery would have taken a lot longer to go away. I know southerners are fond of pretending otherwise; but the evidence is that they were willing to fight like hell to preserve both segregation and slavery. And who was standing up for the rights of black people (whatever other motivations it might have had)? Well in large part it was the Federal government.

Knives Out / New Opportunities / Redefinition

Yeah I had a hard time coming up with a name for this post; it's about Huckabee.

Specifically it's about Star Parker writing about Huckabee and what her party and the conservative movement is doing to him.

But from a gamut of well-known conservative and Republican personalities, no one is being excoriated like Huckabee.

There may be dissatisfaction with the other candidates, but Huckabee is the only one publicly being charged with John Edwards-like populism, anti-capitalism, of not being a conservative and, from some, being outright called a liberal.

I even heard one talk show journalist say the other day that there are Republicans that have their "knives" out for Huckabee.

Parker asks, quite reasonably, why so much hatred for a Republican. Well part of it is that his campaign seems to have picked a fight with Rush Limbaugh, and if there's one thing Limbaugh believes in, it's Limbaugh. So that didn't help.

But the other half of the equation is that there are two sides to the Republican Party - there's the side that's business led, provides the finances and most of the conservative spokespeople. And then there's the side that's more religious, more into preserving an American culture. While these two sides agree on a lot, they also disagree, particularly when it comes to the weight you give each particular issue.

What is more important, keeping taxes low or securing our borders? Protecting marriage or ending regulation of businesses? Well the business side might have one answer, the religious side another.

For a long time the dominant strain of American Republicanism has been the business side, with the religious conservatives as secondary players. Huckabee could change that; the party has made it clear that they don't like him. The conservative leaders have made it clear that they don't like him. If the religious right elects Huckabee over their protests (not an easy task I admit) than it could lead to a realignment in the party.

Star Parker makes it plain that she thinks her party should recognize this and get out in front of it.

Inside-the-beltway Republicans have also lost touch with the increasing seriousness with which grass roots conservatives relate to the traditional values agenda. More and more folks are feeling personally assaulted by the meaninglessness that is gripping our culture and do not see our moral health as separate and apart from our economic health.

Rather than attacking Huckabee, folks would be better served to take a more careful and less dismissive look at why he's garnering such broad support.

She might be right; this might be looked at as a mistake down the road. Or it could be a glitch that is papered over if Huckabee gets the nomination. What seems clear is that if Huckabee does get the nomination over Limbaugh and other's criticisms, the party is going to have to change.

It goes without saying that Star Parker, as an early adopter, will be well set to take advantage of this shift.

Iowa

Star Parker has some interesting commentary on the two front runners in Iowa. She notes that neither one is the party favorite (although the Democratic party elite are pretty ok with Obama, in fact). Then she notes that Obama would destroy society.

Obama not only obliterates the lines on race, but he also obliterates the lines on everything else. The end of the racial line is a great achievement. But the other points of demarcation we do need.

I am talking about the lines that define right and wrong in the sense of our religious traditions. The lines that define family and establish the standard by which we measure its health and breakdown. The lines that we have used in the past to instruct our children about how to manage and direct their sexual impulses.

Obama is apparently more powerful than I thought he was. He can obliterate the difference between right and wrong? That's pretty damn powerful.

Parker is pro-Huckabee - she didn't get the memo apparently. But she seems to be of the opinion that since he is a strong Christian he will, apparently, preserve the line between right and wrong.

Retreat from Liberalism

Star Parker's latest article seems to be lamenting the fact that Democrats are still liberal (how liberal they are given the capitulation over the weekend might be open to debate, but that's the subject of another post). She notes that back in the 90s when the DLC was still somewhat respectable and Clinton was running against liberalism as much as he was Republicans.

Being labeled a liberal fifteen years ago was the kiss of political death. Today's Democratic presidential candidates seem to wear it like a badge of honor.

It's interesting where excessive partisanship has gotten us. Clinton was a middle of the road Democrat; it's not a stretch to suggest that both him and his wife were and are willing to jettison liberal principles at the drop of a hat. In some cases (such as on Free Trade or the value of Capitalism) they clearly believed in the moderate position, while on other issues (Healthcare) they seem to have just given up. But the truth is, neither of them was all that liberal.

That said, Republicans and Conservatives have spent some 15 years now describing them as liberal devils incarnate. I'm not sure what that accomplished. If Hillary Clinton is the epitome of liberalism, I'm a gecko. In fact I'm the Geico gekko.

Parker is lamenting that Clinton style politics, where you run against your own base, doesn't seem to be working. She is also frustrated that many of the Democrats seem to be advocating liberal programs, particularly when it comes to Healthcare Reform.

She reiterates her believe that history has proven that Liberalism doesn't work and that values voters (i.e. the Religious Right) needs to remember that "big government" is bad. It's even worse than, say, starting wars under false pretenses.

I'm reminded of a line from the West Wing, in which Toby is writing the state of the Union, and he's required to use the phrase "The Era of Big Government is Over." He goes in front of the President and makes this speech.

"I want to change the sentiment. We're running away from ourselves. And I know we can score points that way. I was a principle architect of that campaign strategy right along with you Josh. But we're here now. Tomorrow night we do an immense thing. We have to say what we feel, that government no matter what it's failures in the past and in times to come for that matter, government can be a place where people come together and where no one gets left behind. No one gets left behind. An instrument of good. I have no trouble understanding why the line tested well, Josh, but I don't think that means we should say it. I think that means we should change it."

Got this quote from Brent Bozell's Media Research Center, incidentally. One of ten examples of how the West Wing was liberally biased. Hold the presses.

Anyway I think we will see this article off and on pretty regularly for the next few years. Republicans and Conservatives thought they had pretty well settled this issue, and are going to be upset to find that Liberalism isn't going anywhere. That said, it is once again frusterating to note that the key "liberal" figures we will be defending for the next few years include Hillary Clinton, who's far more centrist than liberal.

Looking for a Reagan

Star Parker's latest article is an ode to Reagan and a wish that one of the current crop of candidates would be like him. She supposes that the solution to the current Republican Funk would be for the Republicans to put up someone like Reagan.

What happened to the Reagan message that too much government is our problem, restoring ownership and choice, and applying this truth to the entitlement monster and public education as we did when we reformed welfare?

Americans can walk and chew gum. We can talk about things beyond the war. But to do so requires that our politicians display the same courage at home that we're asking our young men and women to put on the line overseas.

The social engineering experiments that our country took on in the last century are failed and busted.

I'm not sure what Parker means by walk and chew gum. The American people have an opinion on the Republican way of fighting the War on Terror. They aren't keen on it. And I'm not sure suggesting that your Presidential candidate will show the same sort of wisdom and forsight as President Bush showed in Iraq in fixing the problems of America is a good pitch.

But I suppose we'll find out.

Racism

Star Parker takes on racism in her latest article. Apparently over racism is boring to her.

Somehow, I couldn't keep from looking at my watch and thinking about my laundry, despite the revelation of such bombshells as: there are still white-supremacist Ku Klux Klanners in America; there's a little town in Texas with a racist past where those feelings may still be harbored; in association tests, psychologists show that people tend to be more positively disposed toward white faces than black faces; real estate agents can sometimes tell a black voice on the phone and decline to show a property.

I should note at this point that Parker is black, lest you get the wrong idea.

So if whites screwing blacks over is boring, what kind of racism does Parker find interesting and troubling? Whites trying to help blacks.

. . . there is indeed racism under the surface in our country today that we're neither really aware of nor willing to admit.

It's a racism of diminished expectations. A racism that says blacks still need special treatment in education and job placement, that we can't give black parents freedom to choose where to send their kids to school, that we can't let low-income black workers build wealth through a personal retirement account, instead of paying Social Security taxes, because they won't know what to do.

This is the racism that will keep this community disproportionately in trouble.

These are three different issues; affirmative action, school vouchers, and Social Security "reform." The first one is directly related to race, the later two do not. It's nice to note that Ms. Parkers position on affirmative action is more or less the same as those Ku Klux Klanners, albeit for different reasons.

Star Parker may be sincere on how school vouchers will help Black Americans - but on Social Security she is being a bit disingenuous. She's on record as being opposed to social security entirely - so this talk about personal retirement accounts is, at best, Parker settling for half a loaf.

Must Things Get Worse before they Get Better?

I hate this question, when asked in a political sense. Because in many if not most cases, the person asking it isn't asking must things get worse for me? Rather the question is, if working class America or middle class America gets screwed some more, will they come to their senses and throw the bums out or have a revolution.

It's usually used rhetorically however, as in Star Parker's latest article. She concludes that the Republican Party being knocked out of power would probably be good for Conservatives; but that the price might be too steep. She's right in the first part and wrong in the second - Democrats are far better than Republicans.

But she's right that a power out of power generally has to tighten up a bit, and often times feels the need to do so. And the Republicans might well do that if knocked out of power. This is making a virtue of failure, but if that's all that's left, well, better that than nothing.

Republicans view of Democrats

Here it is, in one sentence from Star Parker's latest article. In referring to the Foley scandal, she says, "Democratic outrage about the Foley affair is a simple stage show to provoke voters."

That's a lie. That's the very definition of bullshit. And one would guess that Star Parker knows it. But she has to change the subject from a Republican pedophile and a Republican House Leadership who looked the other way.

But Star Parker gives voice, like Ann Coulter, and Cal Thomas and Rush Limbaugh and others, to the idea that Democrats are just evil people. At a certain point that idea, if believed in strongly enough by our conservative friends, is going to have consequences.

Fight the Real Enemy

Star Parker's latest article is about Mel Gibson's recent outburst which she ties back to Trent Lott's unfortunate comments. She sums up her reaction in her final paragraph.

Whether it's Mel Gibson or Trent Lott, let's not allow one individual's shortcomings and personal problems to divert our attention from where the real villains and problems of our society, and in the world, reside.

I think I might be able to make that more explicit.

Whether it's Mel Gibson or Trent Lott, let's not allow a fellow conservative's shortcomings and personal problems to divert our attention from where the real villains and problems of our society, and in the world, reside, namely liberalism, secularism, and Islamo-fascism.

Of course I could be wrong. But given that she moves from Gibson to the real anti-Semites (Europeans and Hollywood), I feel pretty comfortable in my assessment.

The Story Writes Itself

As you know William Jefferson was removed from his position of power by his own party. The Congressional Black Caucus has protested that this move was unwarrented. And several prominent Republicans, such as Rush Limbaugh, are standing with them, saying that this reflects the racism of the Democrats, that they are always willing to toss off a Black Democrat.

Of course had the Democratic party stood with Mr. Jefferson, presumably Rush would be talking about what hypocrites we are for harping on the culture of corruption.

At any rate Star Parker, another Republican who is also a Black woman, disagrees with Rush in this matter.

The way in which Jefferson has handled himself during this episode, and the support he has gotten from a number of his Black Caucus colleagues, is an embarrassment and demonstrates, once again, the sore need for a new kind of black leadership in Washington.

Jefferson should have taken the high road and voluntarily relinquished his committee seat. The fact that he didn't, the fact that the Congressional Black Caucus leadership supported his decision to resist Nancy Pelosi's request that he step aside, and the fact that the caucus chose to insert a racial dimension to these events, seriously undermines the credibility of black leadership.

Of course the kind of Black leadership Ms. Parker yearns for is the kind that is conservative. Not sure how well that is going to go for her.

If Gay People Really Wanted Freedom they Would Be Conservative!

Or at least that is the argument Star Parker puts forth in her latest article.

If gay activists really wanted freedom, as opposed to advancing a particular political agenda, they would be hard at work moving government control out of areas of our society that limit their as well as everyone else's freedom.

They should be fighting for nationwide school choice, so they can send their children to schools that teach what they want. They should be fighting for private social security accounts and so they could stop complaining about discrimination in survivor benefits. They should fight for private health care accounts and getting corporations out of the benefits providing business and so they could stop complaining about discrimination in benefits toward gay couples.

This almost reads like a parody to me. I mean I understand that Ms. Parker believes that the answer to all of America's problems is more conservatism. But does she really find it reasonable to expect Gays, if they really wanted freedom, to fight, not for legalizing Gay marriage, but for private social security accounts?

Opening the Flood Gates

Mary Cheney, who is related to someone notable, has written a book. Being a lesbian, her book doesn't exactly toe the party line on Gay Marriage. On the other hand, given her famous relative, there has to be some consternation at the idea of going after her.

But Star Parker is willing to take her and her arguments in favor of Gay Marriage on. One passage I found particularly striking.

Now it is absolutely clear that legalization of gay marriage opens the door to every imaginable possibility. Once the authority for defining marriage moves from biblical tradition to politics, marriage will be defined by whatever might be deemed so by a court or that can be passed into law.

Or, to put it another way, we need government to define marriage, because otherwise government will have the power to define marriage.

Are You Being Served?

Star Parker's latest article is about how the Black Conservative Evangelical community isn't being served by this White House. You see they wanted one thing - no more talk of Gay Marriage. And they haven't gotten their way. There hasn't been a constitutional amendment declaring Marriage between a Man and a Woman. President Bush hasn't issued an executive order to that effect either. So Black Conservative Evangelicals have lost faith in President Bush.

The marriage agenda has been a focal point for mobilizing this community over recent years. It certainly influenced the black vote in the 2004 elections.

The percentage of blacks voting for George Bush almost doubled to 13 percent. In the swing state of Ohio, where a marriage initiative was on the state ballot, the black vote for Bush doubled from 8 percent to 16 percent.

Yet after the elections a kind of amnesia seemed to sweep across Washington, with our elected officials having complete memory lapses regarding what motivated many who cast votes for them.

I think Ms. Parker and the Black Conservative Evangelical community may be missing two key points (assuming Ms. Parkers analysis is complete and accurate).

1. This is a difficult proposal to pass and can't be cone in an instant.

2. They may prefer to have the issue to rally the base. This is after all the issue that got Blacks to vote for President Bush - they solve this problem, how are the going to accomplish that feat again.

I will say this points to an over arching problem the Republicans are going to face. They've had the presidency for 5 years, they've had the house since the 2002 elections. Why haven't they accomplished more? And it's not just the religious conservatives who are going to ask this question. Other types will ask why we haven't phased out the income tax system or gotten rid of Social Security (by "saving it").

All of which is good for Democrats. If the Republican Base is depressed, they won't fight so hard, won't donate so much and so on and so forth. I don't know if we will pick up many hard-core Republican votes (actually I do know. We won't), but it will make them a little weaker.