Investor’s Business Daily on homosexuals in the military

This information is so stunning I am posting it in “The greatest conservative betrayal” as well as here, in its own entry:

D. from Seattle writes:

Let me start by wishing you a Happy New Year.

Prompted by your observation, that almost no major conservative institution or writer has voiced their opposition to the mis-named “DADT repeal”, I searched the Investor’s Business Daily site; they are far from perfect but are generally more conservative than most.

What I found was not a complete silence but some rather weak opposition. There were four mentions of “DADT” in 2010 (not counting the comments section). An editorial from Dec 17, 2010 bashed Harry Reid, complaining that “repeal(ing) “don’t ask, don’t tell” … would alter the very nature of our military”. That’s about as strong as it gets—no explanation of how it would alter the nature of the military or why it is bad for society at large.

Another editorial on Dec 3, 2010 complained about repealing DADT in wartime, because it decreases military readiness and combat effectiveness. But the editorial states explicitly “Let us start with the premise that gay men have served and are serving honorably in the armed forces. With the increasing presence of women in the military, even in quasi-combat roles, that applies to lesbians as well.” The editor doesn’t really have a problem with repealing DADT in general, just not at this time.

So it all boils down to military readiness, which is a fine goal, but not sufficient. The editors of IBD do not seem to be concerned with morality, only with utility.

In the Dec 31, 2010 issue there was a big editorial article on the wish list of legislative priorities for the new Congress. Here is the list: ObamaCare, spending, stimulus and taxes, entitlement reform, Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, free speech, TSA reform, Net neutrality, Afghanistan, missile defense, Iran, new START, immigration, free trade, and regulatory reform. Obviously no sign of thinking that homosexuals in the military are an issue.

Regarding the larger issue of the lack of conservative spine to do anything meaningful to restore the society, I am somewhere between Buck O. and Roland D., i.e. thinking, on one hand, that only a major cataclysm will maybe wake up the masses, and on the other hand, that I’d rather have my family someplace saner and safer when that happens.

LA replies:

That’s just devastating, as IBD has had a notably hardline conservative profile in recent years. This really makes the case for what we’ve been talking about the last few days: a virtually total conservative collapse on this issue; and it’s been virtually unnoticed, except at VFR.

Also, my memory is that IBD has been strong on social issues, not just size of government and Islam. I will do a search of VFR later and try to get an overview of their editorials that I’ve posted in the past.

- end of initial entry -

Ray G. in Dearbornistan writes:

I’ve been reading IBD’s editorials for a few years now and I consistently find them to have one of the best editorial pages around. They are quite firm in their views on such topics as Islam, fighting world government, socialism, illegal immigration, even reducing legal immigration. They’re quite good.

LA replies:

They said in December 2010 that they had no problem with homosexualization of the military. Since then, though I still read their editorials occasionally, I’ve had no trust in their apparent cultural conservatism. That’s why this article is especially surprising, coming from them.

Ray replies:

Oops, I must’ve missed that one. I do have a problem with open homosexuals in the armed forces. I’ll watch them with a suspicious eye from now on!

LA replies:

Here is VFR entry on IBD’s virtual total surrender (with the slightest, most meaningless qualifications) to homosexuals in military.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 01, 2011 08:23 PM | Send