David Horowitz, God bless him, takes on the theocrats again. His core point is an obvious but important one: most of the religious right simply see no distinction between religion and politics. Or rather, they see politics primarily as means to promote their religious beliefs. Nothing could be less amenable to the moderation and skepticism at the core of political conservatism. David is particularly powerful when addressing the specious rhetoric of those who argue that homosexuality is a “choice”:
In my view, Knight’s statement is a prejudice dressed up as a moral position. It presumes that homosexuality is a choice, while all evidence points to the contrary. The conversion movements have been miserable failures. They have recruited a highly motivated and extreme minority among homosexuals – people so unhappy with their condition that they are desperate to change it – and the results are pathetic. Only a tiny minority of what is itself a tiny minority of people willing to go through the conversion process achieve a well-adjusted heterosexual result. That is my personal view, but it is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Even if Knight were correct in thinking that homosexuality is a moral choice, and that Christians and Jews have a moral obligation to oppose it, this would not alter the fact that it is inappropriate and self-defeating for philosophical conservatives to make this their political agenda. A mission to rescue homosexuals is a religious mission; it is not an appropriate political cause.
But the reason the far right has had to go back to the notion of homosexuality as a choice is because their arguments – indeed the vast majority of the arguments – against gay civil rights collapse if homosexuality is not, in any meaningful sense, a choice. Once you concede the eternal existence of homosexuals, a political solution would require bringing conservative principles to bear on certain obvious questions: How do we integrate gays better into society? How do we help nurture their relationships? How do we reach out to those gays who agree with conservative principles? These are the questions the far right wants undiscussed. They’re failing to end this discussion or change the subject. And they deserve to fail.
MY PET PEEVE: In a phrase: “carry-on luggage.” My flights to and from Chicago were full. Almost everyone brought on some immense piece of hand-luggage, the kind of hand-luggage that needs wheels to get it onto an airplane. All these people spent an enormous amount of time and effort huffing and puffing to drag these bulky dead-weights into the overhead compartments. During the flight, I observed maybe two people actually open the bins and get something from their bags. The rest just brought them with them – even though they’d already checked bigger luggage. What’s up with this? Maybe people simply don’t trust the airlines with their checked luggage and so pack an entire week’s worth of emergency clothing, laptops, etc just in case. But I think most of it is simply insecurity. People feel naked traveling without some kind of luggage dragging around their feet. They need to get over it. Travel would be so much more pleasant, so much quicker, so less goddamn irritating, and, yes, safer if your average plane traveler checked their real bags and took on only those things they might actually need in flight. But I guess I might as well expect affordable space travel in the next few years. Okay, just venting. Feel better now.
WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA? An interesting exchange on Howie Kurtz’s “Reliable Sources” this past weekend. The discussion was about the liberal-left leanings of most political drama on television. Why isn’t there a conservative version of, say, the “West Wing?” Over to Howie:
KURTZ: One thing these programs have in common, conservatives are practically invisible. President Bartlett in The West Wing is a Democrat. Martin Sheen, in fact, made anti-war ads before the invasion of Iraq. “Mr. Sterling” is a California liberal based loosely on Jerry Brown. Why aren’t there any Republicans?
O’DONNELL: You will never get that TV show. You’ll never, ever get the Republican TV show. the Writers Guild of America, my union, is at a minimum, 99 percent leftist liberal and, like me, socialist. And we don’t know how to write it. We don’t.
Was there some irony there? Sure. But truth as well.
The Dish 