In a useful series of posts (see here and here, for example), Lawrence Auster has been chronicling the shameful acquiescence of too many conservatives in the advancement of the homosexual agenda in the military.
The recent congressional vote is incorrectly known as "the repeal of DADT," but I will not refer to it that way, as that implies that there was a "DADT law." Bill Clinton defied Congress, which had expressly outlawed homosexual service in the military, and instituted the DADT policy as the liberal policy of its day. Shamefully (more below on this), George W. Bush did not return to following the actual law as written, and hence people came to be under the misimpression that DADT was "the law" and was the "new conservative" policy, the new line to be held and defended. Hence the recent repeal of the ban on homosexuals in the military was referred to incessantly and misleadingly as "the repeal of DADT."
This point is related to what I think was an important reason for the despair and silence of so many conservatives, or "conservatives": Bush's inaction. After Bush came into the White House and did nothing to return us to the pre-Clinton situation, to actually attempting to exclude homosexuals from the military, it became evident that, in all probability, no one was ever going to do this. If conservatives pounded the pavement, knocked themselves out, and elected a Republican President, it wouldn't matter. This was now water under the bridge. And meanwhile we were subjected to the postmodern spectacle of open homosexuals serving in the military and complaining about the fact that they couldn't serve openly in the military. One commentator at VFR claims--and I completely believe this and would have guessed as much--that pro-homosexual brainwashing has already been in place in the military under the rubric of training to avoid "sexual harassment."
This was a status quo that it was difficult to get very excited about defending. And how many people were prepared to say that Bush messed up, that we needed to go back and reinstate the actual Congressional policy? How radical that would be. One would be a voice crying in the wilderness.
Meanwhile, over a period of decades, America got used to the idea that homosexual service in the military was a fait accompli, and Americans were made to feel unendingly sensitive about doing anything that might seem to insult these brave "service people." And the faux "conservatives" like Goldberg et. al. have no interest at all in actually being social conservatives.
The thugs of intolerance are getting all geared up, now, for even more crackdowns on normalcy in the military. According to this report, they liken any desire of straight soldiers not to shower with openly homosexual soldiers to racism, and they have a simple solution to worries that separate facilities will have to be built: The normal people should be forced to get over it.
Now, the elephant in the room here is the simple matter of physical privacy and modesty. Why are males not (yet) made to shower with females in the military? Why maintain any vestiges of separation of the sexes at all? Well (how childish liberals are, that we should even need to spell this out), because it's legitimate for people in the military not to want to be undressing and bunking with people who might be sexually desiring them. The "report" says that this is because of a fear, arising from "stereotypes," of inappropriate behavior. Not necessarily, though of course that is a legitimate concern. But if that were all there were to it, and if simple training and orders could take care of the problem (as they assume it can in the case of homosexuals), we could just force men and women to shower together and strictly charge them all not to engage in inappropriate behavior. (You can stop laughing now.) But the point is simply that people prefer not to give up their physical privacy, day in and day out, with other people who have or may plausibly have sexual feelings for them, regardless of whether anything is said or done to act on those feelings. This is right. This is good. This is a sign of some remaining shreds of normal human feeling in our society where sexual matters are concerned.
The military members understand this and are expressing dismay, but that dismay will be of none account, and the machine of military discipline will grind them to powder if they don't shut up.
I have no great hopes that anything I say here will make any difference, but I do want to speak directly to my fellow conservatives: We should make note here of how the failure of the Bush administration actually to turn back the actions of the previous administration led to despair in the conservative ranks and to a failure to launch strong opposition. I do not claim to know what would have happened in the larger society, but at least the issue would have been kept live. Conservatives, unfortunately, can be as sheep-like as the population generally. They look to their leadership to tell them what issues we are currently fighting over. Within the conservative ranks, Bush's DOD could have told us that the line to be held was not the liberal DADT, invented by Bill Clinton, but was the actual policy on the books: Homosexuals do not have a place in the military, and there are good reasons for this. The arguments would have remained in the air and on the table, and conservatives would have calibrated their interests, arguments, and expectations accordingly. But none of that happened. Clinton's policy was accepted as the new normal, and the issues and reasons that motivated the original law were abandoned.
We have a right to ask for better in our leadership. Now, our so-called "conservative" leadership is rushing headlong in the other direction, rushing to embrace the homosexual agenda and even to try to baptize it as "conservative." What I am preaching here is known as "purism," but here is my warning: Those who have no purist instincts will always lack the resources to hold back the tide of increasing evil and perversion from the left. In the end, there is nothing, however insane, however destructive, that will not be accepted and acceptable to so-called "conservatives" so long as the left can continually distract us by threatening something else and worse. Anyone who thought that Bush's acquiescence in DADT was okay because it was "better than letting homosexuals serve openly in the military" needs to recognize that that very acquiescence was part of what paved the way for the eventual move to the next stage in the homosexual agenda for the military. It always works that way, and we are mere fools and tools if we do not recognize that fact.
HT to Romish Graffiti for the title