There’s a contradiction in Horowitz’s argument.

Premise #1: Certain things should not be the subjects of legislation; even his title says so. Premise #2: Homosexuals don’t have a political agenda, and in fact are split among various parties and political pressure groups. It follows that groups such as the Log Cabin Republicans and their counterparts (if there are any) in the Democratic party shouldn’t exist. Yet Horowitz defends its existence and Racicot’s meeting with it—to confer over its nonexistent agenda.

Politics is about power. Political parties exist to win enough votes to gain power to legislate. Political pressure groups exist to influence legislators and voters so that governmental power is exerted in certain ways. The Log Cabin Republican organization is a political pressure group.

If Horowitz replies that it exists solely to persuade governments to repeal laws that discriminate against homosexuals, and that Republican homosexuals see that issue somewhat differently from Democratic homosexuals, then homosexuals (including Democratic organizations that do the same work among Democrats) do have
political agendas qua homosexuals. He can’t have it both ways.

By the way, I haven’t used the word “gay” in my comment, and here’s my opportunity to explain why I refuse to use it. If you read a work of fiction written before 1960 and see that adjective used in its old way, you get a jolt, and if you’re like me you experience a wave of disappointment and maybe even resentment because we’re no longer allowed to use it that way. Homosexuals have stolen it from the other 97 1/2% of the population, who not only haven’t objected but eagerly collude in this subtraction from their historic vocabulary. For further comments, see Orwell on politics and the English language.

On the misuse of the word “gay,” I feel somewhat chastised by Frieda’s comment. I had avoided the word in its contemporary sense for years, for the same reasons as Frieda; I thought it was an iillegitimate and ridiculous use of the word. But very recently I seem to have given into the current fashion and have started to say “gay” interchangeably with “homosexual.” I will attempt to go back to the former usage, but can’t promise I will succeed.

(Maybe I began saying “gay” for the same reason Sharon began saying “occupation”—a momentary loss of the energy needed to resist a prevailing fashion.)

David Horowitz isn’t a political theorist except in short bursts. He’s a political strategist who wants to put together a coalition that will resist the Left effectively and limit the power and intrusiveness of government. So I wouldn’t look for theoretical coherence in what he says. If an issue gets troublesome he’ll do what he has to do to defuse it as a practical matter. He’ll give both sides something and won’t think it’s a show-stopper if that leaves a lot of loose ends. The loose ends are in fact an advantage, because they confuse an issue he wants confused.

My own view of course is that abolition of the sexual constitution of society is no more negotiable for conservatives than abolition of its material constition (i.e., private property). Sex is too central to human life, so what you end up just isn’t going to work in any tolerable way. The problem is that people are convinced that feminism, sexual liberation and gay rights are the future and represent justice, just as they were once convinced of the same thing with regard to economic collectivism. Since Horowitz intends to be practical he must accept and cooperate with the ways of thinking others accept. So he certainly isn’t going to stand up to those things in principle and will try to marginalize attempts by others to do so.

Incidentally, we’ve talked about “Queering the Schools” before at VFR:

http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/001370.html

Also, on a somewhat minor issue, H’s objections to the expression “homosexual agenda” strike me as misplaced. Identifying oneself as “homosexual” means identifying oneself with a tendency of conduct that has profound moral and social implications. So it suggests much more of a social and therefore political direction than “black,” “Hispanic” or “women” — or even “Christian,” since it is notorious that many of those who identify themselves as Christian have no desire to act as such.

Horowitz, Sullivan and friends are anti-leftists, not conservatives. That becomes noticable when they stop ranting at the left and tell us what they favor. But it isn’t easy to figure out because they seldom bother to advocate any logical platform. When you have anti-communism or anti-abortion or anti- anything as a cause, you will have a pretty motley crew because, after all, you don’t have to be in favor of anything in particular to oppose an obvious evil. We have learned to distinguish conservatives from libertarians, so now let’s establish the anti-leftists as a class, valuable allies against our common enemy but certainly no friends of ours.

Anti-leftism is a useful category, for sure. And it does accurately describe various people thought of as conservatives. Take the neoconservatives in their opposition to Soviet Communism. They were really anti-leftists, not conservatives. As soon as the Soviet empire died, their underlying liberalism began to manifest itself again.

I think Mr. Kalb is correct that Horowitz’s real intent is to maintain a broad coalition against the left, and that he feels opposition to homosexual liberation per se (rather than opposition to just the “extreme” homosexual liberation movement) will alienate middle class Americans who are turned off by anyone who is too judgmental of homosexuality. Therefore we must embrace “moderate” homosexuals, even as we continue to oppose “extreme” homosexuals.

While that may seem to make sense as a political strategy, I still see a deep flaw in it. These evil things are happening in the schools—and Horowitz himself would agree that they’re evil—because the mass of middle class Americans have been persuaded that tolerance and liberation of homosexuality are a good thing. In practice, their acceptance of the moderate homosexuality makes it impossible for them to see the extremism of the extreme homosexuality, and so they turn their schools and their children over to the homosexual extremists.

Thus Horowitz’s coalition is self-defeating. The middle class Americans who believe that opposing homosexuality is intolerant, and whom, says Horowitz, we conservatives must appeal to in order to defeat the homosexual left, are the very same people who are inviting the homosexual left into the schools. Therefore it seems to me that the thing to be opposed is homosexual liberation per se, not just “extreme” homosexual liberation.

Mr. Auster’s last comment is right on target. It implicitly raises an issue that warrants explicit discussion: the distinction between propaganda and politics. (I use “propaganda” in its value-neutral sense.) A movement or publication engages in propaganda in order to influence voters and legislators, whereas a political party and its support agencies aim at getting majorities in legislatures and courts. Since politics in a free country necessarily requires compromise, no philosophical group gets everything it wants. It settles for half a loaf in the hope of getting three-quarters later. It makes sense, therefore, for the propaganda group to press for the whole loaf. Propaganda groups on the other side also press for the whole loaf for themselves.

If we pull our punches so as not to alienate possible voters, we’re forgetting our role in this division of labor. Our role is to publicize and legitimize our positions. The politicians’ role is to benefit from the conversions we make and translate them into votes. Let’s explain our position as clearly and completely as possible, and leave the temporizing up to the politicians who have to count votes. If we confuse those two roles, then the eventual political compromise will be farther to the left than it would be otherwise.

That’s an excellent statement from Frieda, and just the right reply to make to David Horowitz, since it concerns the practicalities of maintaining a political movement, which is what he cares about most. The politicians need the propagandists, and should’t be trying to shut them up.

Lawrence and all,

The discussion of the homosexual agenda has been fantastic, and it has underscored the key point that often gets lost in the shuffle here at VFR: our role as traditional conservatives.

The Movement (meaning the mainstream Republican Party) gets it strength, money, and and backbone from us. Without us, the Republican Party would be in the same sorry shape as the Tory Party across the sea.

However, our fight is different than Mr. Horowitz’s. That doesn’t mean we should let the Republican Party establishment off easy. It does mean that elections still have to be contested and one. And although we may not be happy with the results, they are certainly better than what they would be if we didn’t have allies in the trenches.

Brendan