Commentary writer declares homosexualization of the military to be “irrelevant”
If the neoconservatives were ever quasi-social conservatives, they are now, and have been for some time, all-out social liberals.
In 1993, neoconservative godfather Irving Kristol declared himself to be engaged in a culture war that would continue for generations. He didn’t mean it (see this and this). And none of his fellow neocons believed it either. In the subsequent years, various prominent neocons eagerly enlisted in the leftist cultural revolution. In 1996, Norman Podhoretz approved of homosexual marriage, absurdly describing it as a victory for conservatism, because homosexuals weren’t being “disruptive” by rioting in the streets as the Sixties radicals had done. (But when, ten years later, the same “conservative” and “non-disruptive” homosexuals praised by Podhoretz began publishing the names of and personally threatening people who had supported a pro-traditional marriage referendum in California, Podhoretz was silent about that.) In the oughts, David Frum in his book The Seventies signed on to the sexual revolution and treated the appalling degradation of today’s British culture and morés as an amusing and enjoyable spectacle. Meanwhile, Dinesh D’Souza expressed his solidarity with young people wearing metal studs in their faces (and Thomas Sowell supported D’Souza). In 2001 John Podhoretz greeted the September 11th attack with the grossly celebratory remark that it had had made the culture war “unnecessary,” thus freeing him to spend his time writing about his real cultural interest, tv shows. In 2006, John Podhoretz and Jonah Goldberg, writing at National Review, approved of Mary Cheney’s test tube conception of a baby that she would raise with her lesbian partner.
And in 2003, Irving Kristol himself described neoconservatism as a movement to spread democracy abroad and to “modernize” conservatism, by which he meant to turn conservatives into liberals. He didn’t say anything about fighting a culture war against the left. That had long since been forgotten.
That’s the background you need to understand the ubiqitous Commentary writer Jennifer Rubin’s dismissive remark about the homosexualization of the military (universally known as “the repeal of DADT”), appearing in today’s Washington Post:
I’m getting whiplash trying to follow the Democrats’ talking points. First, it was a disaster when Obama agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts. Obama was a wimp. Then it was a horrid error to allow the omnibus spending bill to die (and with it all that funding for ObamaCare). The White House, liberals complained, also blew it on the DREAM act. And now, presto: Obama has mounted a phenomenal comeback!When a Commentary contributor says that the “vast majority of Americans” consider something to be irrelevant, that means that Commentary regards it as irrelevant. At least since the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, Commentary has treated the popularly expressed (or mysteriously divined) opinion of the American majority to be identical with truth.
Also note: I didn’t mention Charles Krauthammer in the above catalogue, since he never even pretended to be a social conservative and has consistently supported every aspect of the sexual and homosexual revolution. Krauthammer, universally seen as the top conservative commentator on television, has of course warmly endorsed the homosexualization of the military which was passed last week by the Democrats and eight Republicans.
Clark Coleman writes:
Great entry summarizing the neocon cultural treason over the years. I have bookmarked it.LA replies:
Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 24, 2010 10:50 AM | Send