9/11 Victims for Osama

Nary a cycle goes by on a Pentium processor that someone, somewhere on the blogosphere isn't invoking the vile and bereft-of-creativity "Jews for Hitler" meme against gay Republicans.

I'm not in favor of facile comparisons that are intended to arouse such an emotional response about one's political opponents as to render their actual merit a faint afterthought.  But as long as they insist on dragging this dead filly for another lap around the racetrack, let's try a simile on for size that, in my view, has more currency and applicability:

Gay Democrats are just like "9/11 Victims for Osama."

Why is such a comparison more appropriate, you ask?

First of all, because the "Jews for Hitler" calumny is more ridiculous on its face.  That comparison has to reach back more than six decades to find any relevance.  Let's face it, there are precious few Nazis left today and even fewer of them are in the extermination racket.

And despite liberals' wildest fantasies, whatever "collaboration" they imagine between gays and Republicans isn't remotely comparable with genocide.  Not only is it not in the same ballpark, it's a different league altogether.

Yet the most feverish of the fabulists persevere: "I can imagine far right extremist groups, emboldened by a bigoted and outspoken Republican party, perpetrating acts of terrorism against large gay communities in places like New York, San Francisco, Atlanta and South Beach."

Of course you can "imagine" that.  Because one's imagination is the only place where such claptrap is remotely plausible.

No responsible Republican would ever countenance violence against gays, and he could expect swift excoriation if he did.  Similarly, reasonable Democrats distance themselves when the most radical within their party make the most unhinged of statements.

Except that the irrational fringe has indeed held thrall over the Democrats in the past couple of years, making the comparison between gay Democrats and "9/11 Victims for Osama" more relevant than ever before.

Gay Democrats who are in such a hurry to throw their GOP brethren under the bus had better take a hard look at the party with which they have themselves made league:

Theirs is a party that has little trouble finding the "softer side" of Osama but is utterly confused as to the difference between Americans and Nazis or terrorists and "freedom fighters."  (Hint: Only one of the two shoots at U.S. soldiers.)

It is a party that regularly advocates for unilateral surrender in the War on Terror, that has collectively turned a blind eye to radical Islamic fundamentalism, and that opposes even the most reasonable efforts to keep the bad guys from coming across our borders.

Gay Democrats continue to stuff hay into a strawman called "domestic theocracy" while showing little desire to confront genuine and deadly fundamentalist threats worldwide – the very same forces that, if given the chance, would show their gratitude in the form of a bullet through the head.

They have allied themselves with a party that claims to love people but less charitable toward life, retaining as its most salient litmus test the support of abortion on demand.  How many fewer gay Democrats (and Republicans) do you suppose there will be if one combines that political position with the future discovery of a "gay gene"?

I concede that this is a provocative and simplistic comparison.  But its equivalent – "Jews for Hitler" – is what passes for legitimate political debate among gay Democrats these days.  There can be little reasonable discourse when we are constantly putting our opponents in bed with the most barbarous murderers in history.

Comments

[James]

? If you "concede that this is a provocative and simplistic comparison" then why do it? Because gay Democrats do? Didnt we just celebrate MLK Day, to honor a man who reminded us that it takes courage and conviction not to use tatics that are best questionable? Of course it is silly when the "Jews for Hitler" flag is used, but you fight that not by using similiar rhetoric. But by sticking to why your point of view is better (and this is coming from a raving liberal...smile).

peace

[Queer Conservative]

Excellent post Mal. And James, he was being facetious to make a point. Read the last sentence of the post again: "There can be little reasonable discourse when we are constantly putting our opponents in bed with the most barbarous murderers in history."

[Jack Malebranche]

I concede that this is a provocative and simplistic comparison.

That it is.

I think the reason this comparison is so popular is that every Tom, Dick and Harry knows who Adolf Hitler is, and his name has become cultural shorthand for extreme discrimination against minorities fueled by irrational hatred. A more perfect comparison would probably be more obscure, and therefore less 'effective' in pushing people's buttons.

I do see a pretty good argument for making that comparison between homos and Christians. The Christian Bible isn't exactly Mein Kampf, but both make some sort of ideological argument against a group of people. (I know Christians will argue this based on translation, etc.--so save it. At the very least, the Bible is anti non-reproductive sexuality, and homos definitely fall under that umbrella.) From this ideological foundation, Christians have a very comparable track record to the Nazis. Burn people in an oven, or burn them at the stake. Same concept. Use them as scapegoats for everything wrong with contemporary civilization? Again, check. (That's a current one, which you know if you've visited a 'conservative' web site lately.) I am not implying that all Christians would like to erase homos off the face of the planet. It's obvious that many would, even if they use sweeter language. I actually watched the film "Conspiracy" last night, and was reminded that the Nazis referred to the 'evacuation' of the Jews in euphemisms. People don't always say exactly what they mean.

It's not like it doesn't make any sense. There are pretty obvious similarities.

Denying that that very same anti-homosexual element in Christianity has a powerful influence on the current Republican party and administration is just ignoring the obvious. It's not an hysterical claim of the radical left, it's quite overt and openly acknowledged.

You know I'm happy to condemn Islam, and I'll happily admit it's a greater threat to homos at this point in time. I'd be happy to see the government wipe out the men, women and children of any arab village that is predominantly terrorist. I say that based on the understanding that terrorists and Islamo-fascists are a threat to our way of life, and we really do need their oil. What Would Caesar Do?

I don't think anyone who dispassionately looks at history, and specifically the history of propaganda and crowd manipulation, could overlook some of the overtones of the current administration. When I see all of this emphasis on patriotism and obedience from the right, it's hard not to see the writing on the wall. The insistence on declaring the other side 'evil' is always the first step down that road, and Bush made it a long time ago, and his supporters bang that drum for him constantly. Bush isn't Hitler, but he is playing with some troublesome cards from the same deck.

Are homosexual Republicans like Jews voting for Nazis? Not quite. Are homosexual Democrats voting for people working on their behalf? Not exactly. Are groups that pull a lot more strings in the current Republican party ideologically opposed to homosexuals in the same way that Nazis were opposed to Jews (and homos for that matter)? Absolutely. It's not like the Nazis started out executing Jews. They tried to encourage them to leave through racial laws, they pushed them into ghettos, they just wanted them out of Germany, out of their territory. Kind of like the State of Virginia...

It's a ham-handed comparison. It's a little hysterical. But it's not completely nonsensical. Hitler didn't become one of history's great mass murderers overnight. These things progress slowly, and if you ignore the signals, well, there's that saying about being doomed to repeat history.

I have to say that, in the last election, I voted Democrat. I'm a libertarian for small government, not an entitlement loving socialist. Voting Republican did, however, seem like asking to be discriminated against. Virulently anti-homo church groups weren't bussing people to vote Democrat. That's hard (and stupid) to ignore as a meaningful factor. That sort of effort rarely goes unrewarded.

But its equivalent – "Jews for Hitler" – is what passes for legitimate political debate among gay Democrats these days. There can be little reasonable discourse when we are constantly putting our opponents in bed with the most barbarous murderers in history.

By and large, I really haven't seen that much difference in the quality of debate between the two sides.

Conservatives seem to value allegiance above weighing any pros and cons on a given issue, which is dangerous, and seem to spend their time demonizing a small minority of socialist minded Democrats now known as 'liberals.' See Ann Coulter, who would be bringing her husband his pipe and his slippers right now if it weren't for the sort of people she regularly condemns. Many Democrats seem snotty and elitist, because many do have enough of a sense of history to see, and be taken aback by, as I am, the saavy use of blatant propaganda in our own time. A lot of them are also completely delusional and programmed by liberal propaganda. The thing about liberal propaganda that makes it less troublesome, in my mind, is that it certain influences agencies within the state, but it's not coming directly from the state. And say what you want about liberals, but some of the ideas they are committed to are propaganda checks.

As I've said before...I think this whole gay liberal vs. gay conservatives battle is very "squares vs. the drapes." Only, the squares are the new drapes. The old drapes just haven't figured out that they are squares yet.

Personally, Robbie, from what I've seen, I think you're smarter than that. This whole super liberal vs. super conservative polarization is for the lowest common denominator. Both sides will always have their heads up their asses. They're just cheering for teams. Teams that, quite frankly, are not necessarily 'playing for the fans,' no matter what they say in press conferences.

[Jack Malebranche]

Mybad, Malcontent - that totally sounded like a Robbie post to me.

[Craig Ranapia]

Jack:

With all due disrespect, I think I've just read a lengthy essay in political battered spouse syndrome mixed with good old fashioned "but Mummy, they did it first" childish hypocrisy. And it stinks.

[Jamie]

Controversial post, Mal. I don't know how to take it.

This statement is just not true: No responsible Republican would ever countenance violence against gays, and he could expect swift excoriation if he did.

Never? There are all degrees of ignorance, Mal, and as you pointed out they belong to both parties. It's not merely the attitude of those in your party that counts. It's what banner you fly overhead. While the dem platform may not enumarate equality, the rep platform specifically points to negating gay marriage, which, to me, is a deal-breaker. I'd rather try to teach fiscal responsibility to fellow democrats than morality to fellow republicans.

[Jamie]

But I still love ya. :)

[Jack Malebranche]

Did you really read it, Craig? My 'they' is both sides, so your comment, with all due disrespect, seems like little more than unwarranted bitchiness.

Just for you, I'll offer what I imagine the correct observation must be:

"Gee whiz, the left sure is crazy and childish, and the right sure is sensible and mature! Great job!"

[Robbie]

Mal's a trouble maker.

[Jack Malebranche]

Actually, Robbie, something about it totally reminded me of your "liberals are like teenagers" thread from long ago, which is why I automatically thought it was you.

[Queer Conservative]

James...I think the key words were "No responsible" Republican. The Democrats have Cynthia McKinney and the Republicans have Rick Santorum/Bob Dornan. There's enough nutjobs on both sides.(Note: it took two loopy Republicans to equal Cynthia McKinney. Cynthia, however, is a special case. Please do not take it as bias toward one side or the other.)

[Queer Conservative]

I thought the "liberals are like teenagers" analogy was pretty apt.

[Jamie]

QC, no one equals good ol' Barefoot&Jobless Santorum.

[Queer Conservative]

Google Cynthia McKinney, I beg you, you'll respect Rick once you've read everything.

[Josh]

Mal, I think you're right on, except for this: " the very same forces that, if given the chance, would show their gratitude in the form of a bullet through the head."

Everyone knows that's not true—they behead or hang us instead of wasting a bullet. I think Jeff from Beauitful Atrocities put it best: "Under Shariah, you'll really be giving head, & not in a good way."

[Craig Ranapia]

Jack:

No. I don't think there's anything "bitchy" about rigourous application of Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies - unless you can point me to the statute where the Virgina State Legislature cut-and-pasted the Nuremberg Laws, with a quick find-and-replacement of Jew with homosexual. Because, IMO, anyone who thinks the other N-word slam-dunks any argument - or is going to try and put a positive spin on such sloppy and dishonest rhetoric - just can't be taken seriously fron this corner. (Though to be fair, I really wish some on the right would be a lot more scrupulous when they're throwing around the other C-word - Communist.)

And, sorry if the truth hurts, Jack but a cynical foreigner might be forgiven for asking if gay Democrats aren't just as busy "asking" to be discriminated against. DOMA ring any bells? "Don't ask, don't tell"? Kerry getting just as squirmy as Bush when asked tough questions about the civil rights of gay and lesbian citizens? Gore expressing his personal support for the sodomy law in his own state? Oh, but I forget - when Republicans make homophobic comments, fag-bait their opponents or support anti-gay legislation, they do it because they're bigots and they get called on it by all the usual suspects. When Democrats pull the same shit, it's the nasty right-wingers who made them do it therefore they're not really responsible for any damn thing they do.

Well, sorry, but being the battered brides of any party just doesn't cut it with me. And at least gay Republicans are starting to take out the the homophobic trash in their own house. Can gay Democrats say the same?

[Queer Conservative]

Thank you, Craig.

[Jeff]

Dear Peeps

I'm a Singaporean who loves to read blogs on gay life and issues. Having read a few stories on both national American media and local blogs, i have a perspective that I would like to share. I am doing this so I can be corrected in my views if necessary, because I often see criticism from the writers in this blog on comments made by "liberal" democrats. I do find this puzzling given the information at hand for myself, and I hope that I can see the perspective of those who are Reupblicans here.

I take it from the above post that The Malcontent suppports the War on Terror as conducted by the Bush administration. As I understand it, in the conduct on the War of Terrorism, the Bush administration has falsified information on WMDs in order to convince Congress to proceed with the war, and has also violated Federal laws in wiretapping American communications without a warrant issued by a Judge.

It seems to me that even if it is sensible to take steps in domestic security to prevent terrorist attacks, it is overstepping Consitutional safeguards for the Presidency to act that way. I recently read that US Air Forces violated Pakestani air space to bomb a village suspected of harbouring an Al Qaeda terrorist. I believe the proof of this allegation is being investigated by the UN. While the proof may very well be good, in the back of my mind is my fear that the USA is acting on very little and/or unsubstantiated evidence, as in the case of the WMDs.

It also appears to me that the War has also taken away spending from domestic needs. The media around the world has portrayed the damage from Hurrican Katrina as manageable with appropriate spending. A friend who has moved to Singapore recently has informed me that many parts of America appear to be in disrepair and the mood depressive at times. From just this perspective it appears as if the Bush Administration is not acting financially "responsible".

Maybe my perspective on the War is skewed, and I would appreciate the feedback from those on this site.

Even if the above is true, and I stand to be corrected, I would agree that not all Republicans are the same. However, it is something that given the above issues, Bush has not been impeached or called to task by the Senate / Congress yet. It does make an outsider wonder if the Republican dominated government is towing the party line rather than acting as responsible individuals.

Again, it may be the way media portrays the issues, but you hear lots of Republicans opposing same sex marriage and anti-discrimination laws. Whilst they are not as organised and activist as Focus on the Family and other similar groups, it seems that you hear more Republicans opposing forward movement in equality for gays than you hear supporting equality.

I would appreciate a response to this post, so I can better understand why The Malcontent takes the view it does. I enjoy reading this blog on so many other occasions that the occasional post like the above surprises me.

Jeff

[Dan]

I have never seen such a ham-fisted, grotesque, hare-brained attempt at provocation for the sake of provocation. And that's just mal's lame-ass photoshop experiment. Haven't read the damn article yet.

Seriously bud. If this is the best you can do, leave the liberal baiting to Robbie. He seems to have a better handle on it.

[Downtown Lad]

Yes Mal - but the official position of the President of the United States is that he wants gay people to be imprisoned when they have sex.

He endorsed the sodomy laws of Texas in 1994, laws which only applied to gay people by the way. He has yet to reverse his position.

While gays can certainly be Republicans (I'm one), I find it strange that they wholeheartedly support a President who thinks gays are second-class citizens who should be thrown in jail.

[Jack Malebranche]

You're right, Craig, your first post wasn't nearly as bitchy and uncalled for as your second one. It seems a little bit like you're arguing with someone else...maybe your idealized perfect 'liberal' enemy? Is this boilerplate?

Personally, I think the Democratic Party is broken beyond repair, and I'd like to see it scrapped and remade into something that makes more sense. I'm not exactly what you'd call a party loyalist. If McCain makes it to the next election, I'll vote for him in a heartbeat. He's less cozy with the religious right, and that's what is important for homos in the long term.

Anyway, the Hitler reference is sloppy rhetoric, and it is, as I stated, a little bit hysterical. There are legitimate comparisons to be drawn, and legitimate worries about the Republican party's tendency to value obedience and cheerleading above all things, but most of the people making the Hitler/Bush comparisons are not being sincere or thoughtful--they're just baiting.

My main point, and I'll happily admit my comment was not one of my better posts in terms of clarity, was that if you look at the rhetoric that's coming from the other side...it's no better.

Liberal-bashing is actually a far more popular sport in America than conservative bashing. It certainly gets better ratings. 'Mainstream' conservative pundits in America are more than happy to connect any liberal notion, no matter how far removed, to 9-11 and 'the terrorists.' How is connecting Republicans with Nazis any more gross or absurd than connecting anyone who questions the handling of the war in Iraq with terrorists? Nazis are, as Malcontent pointed out, aged and irrelevant these days. They've beome a general symbol for 'evil.' Connecting regular Americans (not Michael Moore, regular Americans) with terrorists is actually more relevant and, I think, effectively hurtful rhetoric.

Republicans are obviously more influenced by the religious right. The religious right IS a huge part of their base, and it is clear that they DO pander to that base. The Schiavo matter was an example of blatanly obvious pandering to that base, far beyond the realm of common sense or respect for government. That base is virulently anti-homosexual, so when you see people willing to pander to them in such an extreme way, I think people are right to be seriously concerned.

The Democrats want to bring over the 'moderates' in that base, and so they try pander to them, too. They just suck at it. I really don't have a lot of good things to say about Democrats, I just see them as the lesser of two evils, especially when it comes to allowing the religious right to become more entrenched in Washington. In the big picture (not just the short term), the more cozy those in the religious right become in Washington, the more doors that are opened for them, the worse it is for homosexuals. The current administration treats them with privilege, and I don't think Democrats would have given them that much privilege. That's the deal-breaker, really, for me.

I have no illusions that Democratic party is pro-homo. Some people might, and you can argue with them.

Well, sorry, but being the battered brides of any party just doesn't cut it with me.

I'm sorry, were you not defending the Republican Party?

Same syndrome. It's exactly the same "I know you do bad things to me but I love you and will defend you anyway" mentality. The battered wife analogy pretty much works for homos and either party, so it's not particularly effective here.

And at least gay Republicans are starting to take out the the homophobic trash in their own house

Because gay Republicans have so much power and influence over the Republican party...

They have a lot of 'cleaning up' to do.

Can gay Democrats say the same?

Maybe you should ask one.

[Dan]

And this whole tactic of fighting ignorance with more ignorance? "You're a Nazi!" "No, YOU'RE a Nazi!"?

Apparently the boy can leave Washington, but Washington hasn't yet left the boy.

[William]

Whatever helps you sleep well at night, Matt.

[North Dallas Thirty]

While the dem platform may not enumarate equality, the rep platform specifically points to negating gay marriage, which, to me, is a deal-breaker. I'd rather try to teach fiscal responsibility to fellow democrats than morality to fellow republicans.

A deal-breaker, eh? It certainly doesn't seem so.

Democrats have figured out the secret of gay politics, which is roughly the same one as getting laid at a gay bar.....the desperate and downtrodden will believe anything about you, as long as you give them some attention.

One of these days, gays will come to their senses and realize that people who pay lip service to gay equality and practice homophobia are no better than those who don't and practice homophobia. But it won't be any time soon, thanks to the paid Democratic lobbyists who run gay organizations and their shills who run around screaming about "gay internment camps", but give hundreds of thousands of dollars to FMA supporters.

[William]

BTW, it's so nice that you were able to get married. I'm sure it's the Republicans you have to thank for that.