Thursday, November 8, 2012

Should Conservatives Give Liberals 'Gay Marriage'?

I think the idea of 'gay marriage' is sick, demented, and ridiculous. On principle, I would oppose it forever. But tactically, it may be a plus for conservatives if liberals got their wish with the 'same-sex marriage' business. Though the sheer intensity of this issue given the impression of liberalism powerfully on the march, it may well be that the 'gay marriage' issue is really a sign of liberal political desperation and ideological exhaustion.

One main difference between conservatism and liberalism is the former has meaning even if it sits still whereas the latter has meaning only in restless movement. A conservative is like someone who stays put on his land and takes care of the garden. He doesn't have to venture to new territories to find meaning. He can find meaning by tending his own garden.
In contrast, liberalism is premised on the notion of change and adventurousness. It has to search for new things, new meanings, new values, and etc. An artistic traditionalist or conservative can find meaning and beauty in classical art and older forms of representational art. An artistic liberal or experimentalist favors something like modernism and post-modernism. He or she needs new expressions.

There is an advantage to the liberal spirit as long as there are meaningfully new things to find and do. But once liberals run out of new adventures and new crusades, it sort of becomes useless. Look at the state of modernism and post-modernism in art today. It is at an utter deadend. Modernism, as a rebellion against traditionalism, had great meaning and potential in the late 19th and the first half of the 20th century. But in painting, sculpture, and music, modernism and then post-modernism pretty much burned themselves out. And modernism in cinema lasted to up about the early 1970s.  Nowadays, 'radicalism' in art is something of a joke. No one really cares, and the art world is essentially a zone of insider trading among rich collectors who have nothing better to do with their money and cynical 'artists' who try to be the new Warhol in making pseudo-art or anti-art for big bucks and fabricated 'notoriety', which too has become something of a brand. (Indeed, Ai Wei Wei is blessed because he has to deal with censorship. It gives him the cachet of being a true dissenter. Western artists aren't so lucky.) In other words, too much of a good thing has led to its own demise. It's like yeast eventually kills itself in the wine. They feast on the grapes but the alcohol produced by the fermentation kills the yeast. Similarly, the indulgence of modernism and post-modernism killed those movements. What had once been 'different', 'subversive', 'radical', and 'revolutionary' became dime-a-dozen mannerisms in every art school. When even teenagers at community colleges make 'surreal' collages with various junk, who cares anymore? Similarly, sex and violence in films have lost their edge and meaning. Whatever controversy and meaningful discussion were stirred up by films like STRAW DOGS, DIRTY HARRY, and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, no one is shocked by violence and sex in movies anymore. What had once been a great cultural crusade came to a deadend.

Now, let's consider politics and culture. There was the golden age of liberalism that took off with the rise of FDR. Like him or not, he connected with many Americans and laid the foundations of the modern America we are living in today. As America was becoming bigger, more complex, and more industrialized--and as most Americans could no longer live self-sufficiently off the land as in the past--, a whole new bureaucracy was created to manage and oversee the new order. And in time, Republicans came to adopt this model too. Though conservative purists like Buckley in the 50s opposed even the government role in building highways, more pragmatic conservatives like Eisenhower understood the new reality. Having fought in the biggest war in world history, Eisenhower appreciated the advantages of modern management and organization. And in a way, he understood American progress as a kind of peaceful constructive war. Thus, army engineers built dams and bridges. For a vast new America to be built, private enterprise couldn't do it alone. Governments had to play a bigger role in educating children, in building infrastructure, and etc.

This was a boom time for the American working classes, and the great majority of Americans embraced FDR's vision of new America, and despite all the conservative gripes, they too accepted the new system. Eisenhower built the great highways. Kennedy would start a program to send men to the moon. Public universities were expanded so that many more eager young men could attend college. These were great times, and liberalism had a muscular role to play in the creation of the new order.
And then, there was the Civil Rights Movement. Today, we know that the black problem is much more serious since so much of it is rooted in biology than in history or social reality. But many people didn't know this in the 1950s, and liberalism stepped into to bring legal justice to blacks. If the US Constitution calls for equality for all men regardless of race, creed, or color, then it wasn't right for blacks to be discriminated because of the 'color of their skin'. Many whites were naive back then--as they still are today due to politically correct education--, but they sincerely believed that the racial problem could be solved by offering equality and a helping hand to blacks. In RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING, even Pat Buchanan says that as a young man, he was deeply impressed by MLK's speech in the Mall in the early 60s; he called it the golden age of liberalism. That was great boon for liberalism, and Johnson was re-elected in 1964 in a sweeping landslide.

But then, things began to go wrong due to the Vietnam War, the true nature of blacks, and youthful hedonism. Vietnam War pitted patriotic anti-communist liberals against radicals, progressives, and peace liberals. The true nature of blacks showed them to be aggressive, wild, and dangerous. Crime begin to skyrocket once blacks(who turned out be physically tougher and more aggressive) got freedom and equality. Even white liberals began to run from integrating neighborhoods; Howard Stern says even his ultra-liberal Jewish mother soon wanted OUT of the blackening neighborhood.
As for youthful hedonism, it turned to drugs and excess.

To be sure, there was silver linings in all three of these problems. Anti-War movement gave birth to a whole new kind of liberal idealism that defined a generation. And black rage and black politics gave meaning to black identity politics. And youthful hedonism produced some great popular music and styles & modes of life that seemed 'groovy' and 'far out' as long as the music, drugs, and youth lasted.
But black rage could only go so far. Eventually, even sympathetic white liberals got annoyed(and scared) with blacks howling all the time. And the anti-war vibes evaporated the minute Nixon got rid of the Draft. And there were soon too many bad trips with excessive music, sex, and drugs among 60s youth. As Peter Fonda said in EASY RIDER, 'we blew it'.

As black rage, youth hedonism, and anti-war rhetoric began to fade, liberalism sought new meaning in feminism and environmentalism. Those causes also had some great themes to them. Though feminism soon became stupid, there was meaning to women wanting equal opportunities. And through feminism, many women began to question and critique what it meant to be a woman in her own right than merely in relation to men. And despite some of its excesses and mania, environmentalism did clean up many rivers and the air. It also had great themes and meaning. But as women gained equality and EPA became national policy, they all began to lose the element of thrill and excitement. In time, even conservatives were for stuff like "women's rights", "cleaner air", and all the other nice-sounding stuff that liberalism put on the table. What had once been urgently new issues became part of the same old same old landscape.
If conservatives had one great issue during this period, it was anti-communism, and Reagan ran with it to victory and triumph.

Anyway, that was then, and this is now. Are there any great liberal themes or causes left? With a black guy as president and president-re-elect, with gays in the military, with open borders and Mexicanization of California, with the permanent demise of the GOP as a national party, and etc, etc. what is left for liberals?

There's 'affirmative action' and 'disparate impact' on the books. Wasp power is gone, and liberal Jews pretty much own the nation along with the gay cabal. Even big tobacco was defeated in the 90s. So, what is there left for liberals?  Liberals, with their slogan 'Forward', need something to look forward to and get excited about. So, what is it? There is 'gay marriage', but suppose 'gay marriage' becomes law of the land in all 50 states. Then what?

Liberals are now scraping the bottom of the barrel. They had their great period, but they got nothing left that is meaningful anymore(though, I suppose there is "let's elect a woman president", "a Hispanic president", "gay president", "lesbian president", "cross-dressing president", "a mental retard"). Unlike conservatives, they lack core values with which they can feel at peace. Liberals always have to find new things to get all worked up about.  With FDR, it was jobs for Americans. With Obama, it's more food stamps. With Eisenhower and Kennedy, it was equality for blacks. Now, it's the silly notion that Obama is 'black gay jesus' who sends thrills up some white news anchor's legs. Media tell us that gays are angels, and Americans now seem to love gays. And Fluke and other silly sluts got their free birth control pills. And feminists are proud to be 'sluts' and shout 'vagina' out in the streets. Golly gee, they finally defeated the evil 'war against women'. They even got socialized healthcare and amnesty with Obama.
I mean it's getting pretty desperate for liberals to find new things to get excited about. Even creatively, liberals are at a deadend in literature, cinema, and music.  The fight for 'gay marriage' is the last big thing they got going for them. So, suppose we let them have it. They'll be celebrating like crazy for one night.. and then realize they got nothing more to fight for. Sure, they cook up more crises, but you can cry wolf only so many times. It's like conservatives got to cry "MUSLIM TERRORISM" after the Cold War, but it soon got stale. Especially with the looming deficits, the whole house of cards may come tumbling down for liberals, and all their silly new conceits may come to naught. And in time, many liberal causes that once sounded meaningful will be exposed as decadent, trivial, and trashy.  Liberalism is the victim of its own success. So was anti-communism. Once conservatives won the Cold War, they were at a loss as to what great crusade to find next. George H. W. Bush thought war with Iraq would get the patriotic juices flowing again, but it wasn't long-lasting. Conservatives had a silver platter handed to them with 9/11, but Bush II botched it real bad.

But liberalism is also at a deadend. I mean a movement is scraping the bottom of the barrel when the great moral crusade it can come up with is 'gay marriage'. It's so silly that like the housing bubble, it's supported not by substance but hype about gays as perfect angels and darlings whose blessing you must earn if you wanna go to Cool Heaven. It's MTV liberalism. But once liberals have it, what is the next big cause? Diversity? But it's here already. The re-election of Obama means the tipping point has been reached, and it's the end of 'evil racist white America'.  Since the evil white GOP has been defeated, what is there to hold the Democrats together? The great war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan held the coalition of Nationalist China, Soviet Union, UK, and US together. With the defeat of the Axis, how could those nations stay in the same camp? Their alliance became the victim of its very success.

Conservatism may have lost, but it still has core meaning for conservatives because conservatives find meaning in their hearts. Liberals have to find meaning in new stuff. It's the difference between a person who's content with clothes in her closet and a woman who has to keep buying new stuff. After all the fashions have been purchased and tried on, what is there for the liberal ideological shopper to buy anymore? Liberalism too is at an end. The real End of History is not some happy final destination. Such is impossible with liberals since they need new kicks and thrills. But when there is nothing new that's meaningful to be found, liberals will settle for trivial issues and causes, and they will lead to decadence and ridiculousness, to self-parody and comedy. The party of FDR now swoons over  Obama as 'gay black jesus' and think 'gay marriage' is the biggest moral issue of the day--and they're blind to how ridiculous they've become. If they get 'gay marriage', they'll have a "what's next?" moment, and the fact is there's nothing more left but gimmicks. Indeed, 'gay marriage' itself is a gimmick.

One thing that should be clear to all conservatives. The alliance with Jews is over. It should have been seen as hopeless from the start.

1 comment: