Ever since the Republican election victories in November when people who ran as fiscal conservatives burning to save the American economy turned out to be social conservatives whose real top priority has to do with burning all right, but actually is that gay people should all die in a fire, I have been perplexed about how to keep the humorous and loving tone that I strive to make the hallmarks of this blog while addressing the issues involved in this colossal bait-and-switch.
Today I saw the light: I figured out how to be specific. I was thinking about how dear Shakey Pete and I disagree about the equality of gays — my equality — but I admire his life as a Viet Nam war veteran and sheriff’s deputy (now retired). It occurred to me that if I am going to talk about flavors of fiscal conservatism, such as Randian conservatism, after Ayn Rand, then I can be more clear about what there is to praise or criticize about social conservatism by adding the names of specific people or groups as adjectives, for example, Shakey Pete social conservatism: good; Newt Gingrich social conservatism: bad. (Alternate name: whited sepulchre social conservatism.)
I didn’t have a handle on the epic sociopathy and narcissism that is Newt Gingrich until dear Kathy Shaidle linked a profile of him recently. I find it bizarre that a man who has been so destructive to marriage in his own life was included at CPAC and lionized, while the efforts of gays to create families were denounced from CPAC’s main stage by Ann Coulter as part of the fell designs of the Left to destroy the family.