Dangers of the ‘big tent’

Now that quite a few ex-GOP voters, or at least disaffected conservatives, have finally seen the hopelessness of supporting the GOPe, it seems the folly of trying to win over liberal voters, may overtake the disgruntled ex-Republicans, as in the GOPe.

For years the GOPe has been chasing the elusive Hispanic vote, which, every election cycle, is said to be on the verge of shifting to the GOP. Somehow it remains elusive. And the Republicans continue chasing the Hispanic vote in vain. Now it will be gays.

Welcome aboard…regardless of your politics, this is about American Nationalism, whether we have a nation at all. Anyone who wants to demonstrate some sanity by voting for Trump is welcome.

So says one of the ‘conservatives’ at Free Republic, responding to an anonymous piece written by an alleged gay who has seen the light, thanks to last night’s gay bar massacre, and now is committed to voting for Trump.

Years back, I used to try to dissuade the GOP party faithful types against trying to court the various ‘minority’ voters. Yet these votes seemed to be more coveted and more sought-after than those of the paleocons or old right types, who by then were being shunned as ‘John Birchers’ and ‘rednecks.’ Is the gay vote the next frontier for the right?

The Free Republic comments mostly express eagerness to welcome disaffected homosexuals who are now willing to vote for Trump. First of all, even if the anonymous article was in fact written by an actual homosexual who has been converted, what would make anyone think that he is in any way typical, or that he portends a trend away from the Democrats on the part of homosexuals? Would one event cause any committed Democrat to change over to the Evil Party? Are gay voters any less fanatical in their devotion to the left than their straight counterparts?

And suppose the right does discover a windfall of new converts among gays. What then? Will they coexist peacefully with the Christian right, many of whom still oppose homosexuality and special rights for homosexuals?

All that I can envision happening, realistically, is that the ‘right’ will gradually or suddenly become more accommodating to ‘gay rights’, seeing homosexuals in a new light as an essential constituency. Voila. The announced intention of gay activists, some years ago, was to mainstream their agenda, diminish opposition to their ‘lifestyle’ and to destroy any organized resistance on the right, as social conservatives would be marginalized as ‘extremists’ and bigots. They expressed an intent to infiltrate both parties; why not ensure they have supporters on both sides?

Do we really need more Lindsey Grahams on the right? Lindsey was nicknamed ‘Grahamnesty’ for a reason.

All that happens when the Big Tent is made more inclusive is that each minority group stakes out its territory and becomes a special constituency which must be accommodated and appeased and bought off, in exchange for their continued support.

The right, and this includes the alt-right, with the Milo phenomenon, should be wary of embracing the gay agenda in the name of being ‘inclusive’ or of ‘showing the Left’ (“they can’t attack Milo, he’s gay!” — echoes of ”they can’t attack Clarence Thomas — he’s black!” Famous last words.)

Welcoming various kinds of ‘diversity’ in the name of using them to run interference for us, or for the sake of more ‘warm bodies’ to fill our big tent, or just to make ourselves feel good about our lack of bigotry — in the long run or even the short term it may backfire on us.

8 thoughts on “Dangers of the ‘big tent’

  1. Why not call them homosexuals, since that is what they are; I, for one, refuse to use the word ‘gay’ to refer to them; also, there is no ‘gay community’. Good work, as always.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Thanks for the kind words.
    It seems I end up using the word ‘gay’ at times though I agree with you about the labels. Earlier generations of Christians (and all straight people) tended to use blunter terms than ‘homosexual.’ I’m not referring necessarily to the vulgar slang words but just the common words of the past before we all got politically corrected, or PC-whipped.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I think you are right. Homosexual was PC, in our lifetime, for sodomite. The law codes used the word sodomy and made it a crime, all within our lifetimes. Sodomites were not even named on TV or school, but were considered too terrible for that.

      Liked by 1 person

      • OA – I think they also used other vaguer terms like ‘deviates’ or ‘deviants’ which is just a plain description and in the Anglosphere countries of course there was the term ‘buggery’ which was a legal term, used in courts. It was not so long ago even in places like Canada I think though Canada is so PC now that they have probably removed and banned that term lest somebody get his feelings hurt or get ‘triggered’.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. I stumbled across this video with Gavin Mciness, a popular Youtube “Conservative”, who has often had some interesting things to say…until he and Milo did this. It made me think of the “big tent”.

    Why was this necessary? Lets all really think about that.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s