Krauthammer and Kristol were “unreservedly positive” about homosexualization of the military; and, how conservatives validate and empower liberalism
Last January 10, Paul Gottfried wrote at The American Conservative:
A journalist [sic], Lawrence Auster, has noted that movement conservatives have been conspicuously silent on having openly gay soldiers serve in the military or else, like FOX commentators, have been ardently behind the change. Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol were so unreservedly positive on FOX that their fellow-news commentator Juan Williams, a black Democrat, stared at them in disbelief. Williams asked them whether the change they wanted could be carried out as easily as they suggested.See my articles on the conservative surrender to and support for the homosexualization of the military.
The attitude of conservatives towards allowing homosexual military members seems to be following the same trajectory as their attitude towards allowing women to serve in combat—opposition followed by acquiescence followed by celebration. For a recent example of the celebration of women in combat see Michael Potemra, and most of the commenters on his post, at NRO.)LA replies:
Which among other things convinces liberals that they, the liberals, are right on all these issues and that conservative opposition amounts to nothing but prejudice, anger, discomfort with what is new, and footdragging, all of which will eventually be overcome.October 4
Thank you so much for your revelations in this entry. You made it crystal clear how mainstream conservatives are an essential component of liberalism because they distinguish their positions from liberalism only by a time delay offset. For me it is one of the most significant insights you have presented in the last year or two.Karl D. writes:
I agree with Hannon and think this point should be injected into the ether wherever and whenever possible. I never thought too much about of the conservative validation of liberalism until you boiled it down. I would guess that a lot of other people have not given it much thought either, as they are too caught up with the outrage of the day. As you said before, how can conservatism be taken seriously if what was a hard position ten years ago is now thrown off. Something that happens over and over and over again. We begin to look like children and the liberals as the wise, patient and corrective parents. How is that for a repugnant thought?LA replies:
” … too caught up with the outrage of the day.”Leonard D. writes:
You are starting to articulate the fundamental lameness of conservatism in modern America. A certain lameness is inherent in the very label. If we take it at face value, then a “conservative” should seek to conserve what is—whatever is. So the conservative takes on the character of the recent past. If the things he seeks to conserve is “progress,” he is a leftist in effect, although delayed. If those things were made by reactionaries, he is a rightist. But when are changes in America ever rightist? Never, at least to the first approximation. So the American conservative has his role in the drama: as the last man on a bandwagon.LA replies:
You wrote: “You are starting to articulate the fundamental lameness of conservatism in modern America.”Leonard replies:
Well, I guess this is a definitional quibble, since we are saying the same thing. But I would say that modern American conservatism is “real conservatism.” It is real because it really does conserve—it does resist “progress.” What it does not do is react; after it is beaten (I would not usually say “surrenders,” but again, a quibble), it complains, then over time embraces and conserves.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 03, 2011 09:54 AM | Send