HOBGOBLINS AND CONSISTENCY

The Bennett-defending crowd at National Review have finally decided that the best defense of Bill Bennett is a defense of inconsistency. Well, it’s an argument, I suppose. But to be clear: I’m not sure Bennett is being inconsistent. I just want him to provide a good argument for why he isn’t. Is that too much to ask? And there’s one inconsistency that strikes me as worrisome: when consistent rules apply to everyone else but you. Here’s one other inconsistency I’d like Stanley Kurtz to address: why is it okay to allow sodomy for straight people but not for gays? Or why are hate crime laws okay for every group except gays – the current Republican position. Or why do pro-marriage types largely ignore legislative attempts to tighten heterosexual divorce laws but want a federal constitutional amendment to bar gays from marriage? Some inconsistencies aren’t really inconsistencies. They’re masks for prejudice and ignorance and selfishness. (On the bright side, John Derbyshire says he’s to the left of Rick Santorum and doesn’t want to lock up homosexuals. But he’s quite happy to let some rural types jail a few if it’s good for the culture as a whole. Hey, those homos can always leave for Manhattan, can’t they?)