The Silence of the Lambs
comment, reader Eric J. spells out several important further implications of the admission of homosexuals into the military and of conservatives’ shocking failure to oppose it. In their mindless decision to “triage” liberal threats to America, treating some threats as worth opposing, and others as not (a theme I have been hearing from many conservatives lately, including readers of this site), the conservatives have opened the door to fearsome advances on the part of the leftist agenda, even as they congratulate themselves on the triumph of conservatism.
Eric J. writes:
You wrote: “I have had a growing sense, without knowing it for a fact, that there had been very little conservative response, let alone opposition, to the revolutionary law repealing the prohibition of homosexuality in the military.”
- end of initial entry -
The implication is that conservatism can be defined as an economic movement, not a moral one.
There are further implications:
1. That economics and morality can be split apart within a society or community.
2. That between economics and morality, the prime subject for political discourse is economics.
3. That morality does not inform economics.
4. That economics, if properly managed, can engender an environment for any kind of individual morality.
5. That individuals and groups of different moral viewpoints can participate in a political and economic structure without conflict.
6. That governmental institutions (e.g. the military) are not informed by personal moral viewpoints.
In effect, conservative through their silence on this issue (but not their silence on economic matters), assert the primacy of economics over morality and define themselves primarily in the government arena as MATERIALISTS. Quite an irony. So how can they debate against Darwinian and Marxian materialists?
If there is no moral argument against homosexuals explicitly and vocally participating in the military, why not the priesthood? Or as scoutmasters in the Boy Scouts? What conservatives don’t realize is that all organizations are up for grabs now, and explicit or vocal homosexuality cannot be regulated. Conservatives have bought into the premise that social structures and organizations can in fact be “containers” of differing moralities. If that is the case, there is no defense against explicit and vocal expressions of homosexuality in ANY organization. As you mentioned previously, the weight now lies upon the shoulders of those disapproving of homosexuality to restrain their expressions of disapproval.
In a Darwinian, materialistic universe, what difference is there between one molecule and another, morally speaking? If one narrows down the social and political discourse to economic (political) matters, then what difference is there between one economic unit (molecule) and another? In such an environment there is NO difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals. By their silence, conservatives have given away the ball game by default, by leaving the playing field.
Spencer Warren writes:
Your commentary on the implications of the homosexualization of the military and the silence of the “conservatives,” especially Eric J.’s commentary, is VFR’s Finest Hour. It means nothing less, ultimately, than destruction of the Western tradition by radical egalitarianism, or, your term, non-discrimination. It may also be called Cultural Bolshevism.
Here we also see the catastrophe brought on by Buckley’s moral surrender to cultural liberalism (especially on immigration) in his later years, and his ruination of National Review by turning it over to the exceedingly callow, gutless Lowry, Goldberg, Ponnuru & Co. (A Google search found only several articles in NR in the past two years critical of homosexualization of the military, and they were by by non-staff members Oliver North and Elaine Donnelly. They criticized the policy mainly on utilitarian grounds, making no comprehensive moral critique.)
Only the religious right remains to defend Western civilization. Only their grounding in our Judeo-Christian religious convictions (which the Goldbergs and the Powerlines obviously lack) gives them the guts not to join the rest in cowardly fear of being branded “racist” by the liberals. I suspect this fear motivates the silence of the “conservatives.”
John McNeil writes:
I must respectfully disagree with Spencer Warren’s assertion that the “religious right remains to defend Western civilization.” While it’s true that those whom constitute the “Religious Right” are right on certain social issues like abortion and homosexuality in the military, the “Religious Right” is woefully silent or even complacent in the demographic destruction of the West. Many evangelicals are sympathetic to Third World immigration and transracial adaptions, and promote the idea that anyone can be any identity, and only Christianity matters. A debate I witnessed between Nick Griffin and the chairman of the Christian Party illustrated to me the dangers of political Christian conservatism that isn’t attached to any sort of nationalism, but rather embraces an internationalism that seeks to break down national barriers, and with a Christian flavor.
I’m Christian, but I understand that the West is more than just Christianity. Christianity is a universal religion, Jew and Gentile alike, and we of the West need something to make us distinct from the rest of the world, else we are not a civilization.
I agree with Mr. McNeil. I also agreed with Mr. Warren’s comment about how only right-wing Christians are holding the line, but that was in the context of the homosexual issue.
Mercedes D. writes:
I don’t even call myself a conservative anymore, as the word has lost its traditional meaning. I now think of myself as simply a Christian.
I’m sorry to say that I have become extremely cynical about the fate of our country and Western civilization in general. Spencer Warren is correct in saying that only the religious right remains to defend Western civilization now, although I’m not sure that the word ‘right’ retains much meaning either.
I have not given in to despair, as that would be a sin and we are commanded to remain joyful even in affliction. But I am preparing myself for the end of all things, as it seems more and more inevitable. It is comforting to know that the end of this world will be the end of all these present sorrows, and that the next world will be one of eternal joy in the presence of our Creator.
Mercedes’s comment has trigggered me to write down some thoughts I’ve been having over the last couple of days.
- end of initial entry -
B. Smith writes:
I tend to agree with Mercedes D.’s assessment that only the “religious right” gives a darn about our cultural civilization. The Tea Party movement is great, and if it actually results in decreased government then all the better. But, there is no cultural angle to the Tea Party. It is primarily a fiscal movement.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 31, 2010 10:47 AM | Send
I support that. That is needed. However, the social war is lacking, because it is so difficult to fight now. Hollywood and television have been the greatest enemies of moral culture, but their filth only succeeds because we participate. I am only in my early thirties, but I am amazed at the transformation over the past few decades. The self-destruction and complete antipathy towards our historical traditions is nothing short of disgusting and amazing. How did this happen?
How did we completely turn on ourselves, our foundations, our history? I’m not sure how to fight back. Perhaps I come across as rude (I tried not to be), but I refuse to shake the hand of a homosexual. I do not watch TV shows or movies that feature homosexual characters. But, these are meaningless gestures.
I am a Christian. I try to do right, but I do not want to be a hateful person that disregards and condemns those people I find disagreeable. I try to be nice to everyone I meet, but is being nice a weakness?
How do the meek change society? The only way I can rationalize this situation is to be nice to people, but vote for issues and individuals that will uphold my beliefs. It just seems that is a losing strategy.