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.

And the next step, after openly homosexual soldiers, is “transgendered” soldiers.

- end of initial entry -

Timothy A. writes:

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.)

In 2020 we will probably have an openly homosexual soldier speaking at the Republican convention to rapturous applause.

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.

Whereas if Republicans/conservatives did NOT follow the usual conservative pattern of opposing some liberal innovation, then supporting it once it has won, but continued opposing it AFTER it had won (which is what VFR stands for—see my Traditionalist’s Credo), then the liberals would be forced to recognize that there are serious human beings who have principled opposition to the liberal program and who will never accept it. This would bring the liberals up short. Some of them might even start listening to the conservative arguments. But so long as conservatism consists of nothing but “kvetch and retreat” (Rabbi Mayer Schiller’s phrase), liberals have no reason to take conservatism seriously.

To repeat: by embracing liberal measures and beliefs after they have won politically and socially, conservatives are showing themselves to be, not just opponents of liberalism who have been defeated, but indispensable allies of liberalism—allies sending the message that opposition to liberalism has no valid or rational basis, and therefore that liberals are right to despise conservatives. Such conservatives put the seal on the rightness of liberalism and the wrongness of conservatism.

October 4

Hannon writes:

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.”

How’s that for a definition of conservatism?

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.

In a liberal society, conservatives are perforce liberals.

Or, as Mencius put it four years ago:

… conservatism is a losing cause. In fact, I think it plays more or less the same role that the Generals did for the Globetrotters. The name of the game is American public opinion, and American public opinion on any issue you can name in 2007 is far—really, really far—to the left of where it was in 1957.

To progressives, of course, this is no more than progress. In fact it’s scandalous that change has been so slow and halting. This is due to the cowardice of the corrupt corporate media, not to mention those shills at PBS.

To conservatives—I’m really not sure how conservatives conceptualize this fact. If I was, I might be a conservative.

And this is why the conservatives are like the Generals. They never seem to notice that they’re always losing. No one seems to find this odd at all. I have never heard any conservative suggest that the American political system is fundamentally and incurably anticonservative. Presumably, considering the trend of the last 50 years—heck, the last 200 years—you’d think this thesis might occur to someone. But no. Of course, conservatives believe in America, so why would it?

Be careful what you believe in, for that you will conserve.

LA replies:

You wrote: “You are starting to articulate the fundamental lameness of conservatism in modern America.”

I’ve been saying almost as long as I’ve been writing on politics that there is no real conservatism, that conservatism consists of continual surrenders to liberalism; that existing forms of conservatism tend to be conservative on just one set of issues and liberal on all others; and that if there is to be real conservatism, it has to be created.

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