Posts
National Review Lacks Any Shred of Human Feeling
By Jamie Kirchick / October 3, 2007
I always suspected that the folks over at National Review were heartless and lacked a shred of human feeling, and now I have former Bush administration speechwriter Joshua Trevino to confirm it for me. Writing about conservative Republican San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders's tearful announcement of his support for gay marriage last month, Trevino admits, "It was a moving sight for anyone with a heart and a shred of human feeling." The reason for the Mayor's change of heart, according to Trevino, is "his daughter’s homosexuality."
Bemoaning those who have heaped plaudits upon Sanders for his courage, Trevino offers this total non sequitur:
Courage typically signifies the hewing to core principles in the face of adversity, not their abandonment in the face of personal vicissitude. In the 1988 presidential campaign, the second debate between George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis was marked by the infamous query from moderator Bernard Shaw: “Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?” Dukakis sealed his electoral fate by sticking to his guns on the issue, reminding Shaw, “I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life.” One imagines Jerry Sanders in that position, announcing that perhaps, with a family member involved, he is not so opposed to the death penalty after all. The Mayor of San Diego has therefore achieved something truly remarkable, in making us sentimental for the political courage of Michael Dukakis.
Say what you will about Michael Dukakis' debate performance (and I never thought I'd be defending The Duke); it sure took courage for him to stick to his guns and maintain his principled opposition to the death penalty in response to a question so clearly intended to elicit a flip-flop. Of course, there's no way to know if Dukakis would actually maintain his opposition if his wife ever were to be raped and murdered, but that's beside the point. Dukakis didn't give the easy answer the pundits expected him to give. In turn, he came off looking cold and politically stupid, but sometimes there are more important thing in the world than giving focus group answers to focus group questions. What isn't beside the point is Trevino's assertion that Sanders' newfound support for gay marriage rests entirely upon the fact that the Mayor's daughter is gay, that it's all due to the understandable "parental impetus" of "protecting his daughter." I never thought I'd see the day when a true-blue conservative claims that these familial instincts represent a negative force on politics, but then again, gays are being bashed so all bets are off.
The case for gay marriage is, without question, for those of us who are gay or have family members or friends who are gay, personal. But it is no more personal than the cause of black civil rights was to black people (or their friends and relatives) in the 1960's.
It must be a shared principal of any liberal politics that we're all in this together–irrespective of our immutable traits. Trevino's inability to recognize homosexuals as homosexuals--in his ridiculous assertion that "Sanders' lesbian daughter has the same marital rights now as does his other, heterosexual daughter"–indicates that he's incapable of even empathizing with gays, never mind capable of seeing why they're deserving of equal citizenship. Of this assertion, a friend writes: "Fine, but would you want to be married to a lesbian? Another way to put it: Are former Bush speechwriters really that desperate for a date?" Apparently they are.
POST A COMMENT
Pingback: Razor™ Carver Kick Scooter | Buy a Moped
Pingback: Can the destroyit 2604cc shredder shred CDs? | Paper Shredder Crosscut
And to follow your convictions. And to worship with others who agree.
But does that mean these convictions should be the law of the land?
And would you hold to these convictions if you’d been born gay?
What is the core of the type of relationship that pro-SSM people have in mind?
What would be the definitive legal requirements?
Would those requirements be enforced absolutely?
Would some people be ineligible? Why?
Those who advocate SSM as the new “marriage” ought to answer these questions.
It is a given that the core of the type of relationship they have in mind, and the sort of legal relationship they would impose as a substitution for marriage, is not the core of marriage.
The core of marriage is 1) integration of the sexes, 2) contingency for responsible procreation, and 3) these combined as a coherent whole.
SSMers reject that core. So what is the core of the replacement that would apply to all unions of husband and wife?
If you have a shred of human feeling, perhaps you, as an SSMer, would make the honest effort to answer basic questions about your pet project.
Chairm Ohn
The Opine Editorials
If “as anyone who has read The National Review for any length of time know, such remarks are simply par for the course,” perhaps mentioning something other than one article would have helped. And since the assertion here is that it lacks “any shred of human feeling,” the fact that they publish pro-same-sex marriage people like Rick Brookhiser and Andrew Stuttaford should meet your standard (since, I guess, “human feeling” is defined as “support for same-sex marriage”). Perhaps “Joshua Trevino Lacks Any Shred of Human Feeling” would be accurate. But why you gotta go overboard? Anyone in journalism should know better than to attribute the views of a single author to an entire publication.
I’m done. You guys can go back to patting yourselves on the back now.
when it comes to the idea that other people’s rights might on occassion trump his own agenda. His degree of tunnel vision on this issue is impressive and I suspect (after trying for years) unshakable. He’s not in anyway homophobic (and will tell you that himself), except he strongly believes gays and lesbians should know their place and not “selfishly” assert they’re as good as he is. So long as we remain at the back of the bus he’ll condescend to let us be.
But the man-woman criterion of marriage does NOT bar the homosexual man, nor the homosexual woman, from marriage.
The nature of marriage, its core, is 1) integration of the sexes, 2) contingency for responsible procreation, and 3) these combined in a coherent whole (i.e. a social institution with normative principles and practices).
The one-sex-short arrangement is sex-segregative and cannot provide contingency for responsible procreation.
So you start with the false premise that the one-sex-short arrangement is 1) always a homosexual relationship, 2) is the equivalent of sex integration and responsible procreation, and 3) there is a right to have such an arrangement treated as if it was both-sexed.
Trouble is, this also entails treating all unions of husband and wife as if they lacked either husband or wife.
As such the SSM argumentation is a direct attack on the nature of marriage. If you deny the core of marriage, then, what is the core of the type of relationship you have in mind?
– Chairm Ohn
Jerry Sanders isn't the first person to wait until a family member was wronged before taking action. He's in the same camp as Cindy Sheehan and, to some degree, Dick Cheney. As much as I appreciate how these people have reformed their views, they are morally bankrupt.
One cannot allow hurtful policies and actions to pervade society, regardless of whether they affect one's family. By reacting only when one's family has been wronged, one is motivated not out of duty but out of empathy for the family member. Even if empathy qualifies as a moral motivator, one's empathy must extend beyond the immediate family to serve as an effective moral compass.
Though our emotional reach increasingly extends globally, it remains unacceptable to wait until problems "hit home" — by any measure — before caring.
Also, you have to love how he sees having a lesbian daughter as “adversity” and “personal vicissitude”.
Why on earth would you attribute to an entire magazine the views of one author (not an editor or anyone in a leadership position at the publication) who has written seven articles for their online version? I’d say The New Republic lacks reading skills.
Actually, there is a good answer to that question, but if Dukakis knew it he probably realized he would just compound his problem by quoting the founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin. He was asked just that question, how he would react if his daughter (he was a widower) was raped and murdered. He said: “I would be so enraged I would want to see the man torn apart by wild horses. But under the circumstances I would be the last person to consult on wise public policy.”
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!