Last week Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision setting aside Prop 8 in California unleashed plenty of grumbling from rightbloggers. As it involves gay people, this was to be expected.
There was also rightblogger outrage, also expected, that Michelle Obama and her daughters had a swell, privately-funded vacation in Spain, instead of maybe just going down to Wildwood, New Jersey or something else better befitting their station.
And of course rightbloggers were not-unexpectedly enraged that Muslims were planning a mosque in a spot in downtown Manhattan where you could almost see Ground Zero.
All this raises a question: Is conservatism in America today basically a white people’s movement?
(We realize a lot of gay people are white, but we assume that a self-consciously white movement would not identify strongly with such people — at least not for long.)
Rightbloggers didn’t like Judge Walker’s ruling at all, and some of the small fry, who had no credibility to protect, went straight to the blood-and-thunder route (“With the stroke of his pen, ‘gay’ Judge Walker overruled the votes, and moral consciences of 7 million Californians… To further the ‘gay’ illusion, the supposedly evolved males dress like females,” aargh blaargh etc).
But even when they pretended that the gay part wasn’t really what bothered them — and assured us it was more about fairness, and activist judges, and the precious ownership of the word “marriage” — their gay panic became, to coin a phrase, flaming.
“An activist judge in California overturned Prop. 8 (banning gay marriage) yesterday to no one’s surprise,” groused Kathleen McKinley at Right Wing News. Nonetheless, she portrayed the victorious pink team as the ones who were getting their knickers in a twist.
“No conservative I know of gives one whit whether two men or two women pick out plate patterns at Macys,” she claimed. “They not only don’t care, but are for the right of anyone to choose who gets their benefits…”
As the word “marriage” clearly cannot be shared with homosexuals, McKinley proposed a compromise: “Simply call gay marriage a civil union,” she reasoned. “Those that see marriage as sacred would feel better, and gays who simply want the same rights as married heterosexuals, would have them.” (No they wouldn’t.)
But “sadly,” wrote McKinley, pro-gay “activists… just refuse to let” this no-gay-marriage solution to gay marriage happen. “The fight goes on,” she sighed. “And no one wins.” (Meaning, she didn’t.)
You have to love these guys — they’ve just suffered a major setback, yet they’re still setting terms. It’s sort of like Monty Python’s limbless Black Knight offering to call it a draw.
Others complained of their own, largely psychological oppression by gay people who were punishing them for their anti-marriage stand with dirty looks and such like.
“…you just can’t get through to some people,” mourned Sister Toldjah, “especially those (mainly on the rad-left) who believe you are ‘bigoted’ and ‘homophobic’ for not supporting [gay marriage]. Been there, done that, got the battle scars.” Sadly Sister Toldjah didn’t provide pictures of these “battle scars,” nor even cartoons of the sort psychologists get their patients to draw to express their inner turmoil.
Something similar was expressed by Road Sassy, who complained that he had been “attacked” by a “twitter conservative” as an “intolerant fundie because I hold a certain opinion of homosexuality.” That certain opinion, we find further down, is that “homosexual marriage is favored by the Left because of this nihilistic instinct, because of its potential to dismantle a natural-law-based, Judeo-Christian Civilization. Monogamous, heterosexual, child-centered marriage is the building block of the Left-detested real world it is bent on annihilating.” Why can’t those gay bigots accept such reasoned arguments in good faith?
Patterico’s Pontifications took the oh-yeah-well-Obama-is-against-gay-marriage-you-stupid-liberals position. But he must have noticed that this wasn’t slowing the party down any, because he also tried suggesting that Walker, who is gay, flouted the law for his own benefit (“Judge Vaughn Walker now has the right to marry another man, if he wishes”). When Patterico’s gay neighbors still wouldn’t turn the music down, he did the one about the decision being “crammed down [the people’s] throats” — a popular favorite among conservatives for obvious reasons. (5,440 results on Google! That’s shows either strong message discipline, or a pretty reflexive association of judicial activism with cocksucking.)
Still the music played. Eventually Patterico suggested that Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger purposefully lost the case via “sabotage by sloppy or disinterested litigation,” then said that courts were not the place to “resolve contentious issues in the culture wars” — that is, not the place to rule on issues of Constitutional rights. Why, we’re still suffering the aftermath of Brown vs. Board of Education and other such examples of judicial overreach.
This judicial-overreach angle was popular with rightbloggers. It sounds lots more respectable than the traditional buttsecks-ick argument — though with some improvisation it can be just as entertaining. “I, for one, am thankful that our Progressive Overlords, for example, Judge Walker, and Judge Bolton know what’s best for us,” railed Robert Stacy McCain. “If only their wisdom had prevailed in 1776. We could have kept the pound, the King, and now be enjoying rugby and cricket.” Wait — they had gay marriage in pre-Revolutionary America? Why didn’t Walker mention this in his decision?
Inevitably some gay conservatives were rounded up to say they didn’t want no marriage equality nohow. Gay Patriot B. Daniel Blatt was incensed that the judge compared the ban on gay marriage to anti-miscegnation laws. The latter, said Blatt, were a mere “statutory invention” — mixed-race marriages had existed previously, after all, whereas same sex marriages never had. Well, he had to admit, that wasn’t quite right, but when two guys shacked up in olden tymes, “they either called them something other than marriage,” he wrote, “or required that one spouse live in the guise of the opposite sex.” Surely you can spot the butch partner in The Killing of Sister George, and the femme in Staircase? Gay Patriot rests his case!
Founding Bloggers discovered, with evident delight, two gay Tea Party members who were also against gay marriage — which, like the similarly rare discovery of black Tea Partiers, was a great get for the TP PR unit. These fellows claimed abuse at the hands of their non-conservative gay brethren: “I’m had people not talk to me,” one of them said, and “purposely bump into me.” (Like Sister Toldjah, he did not show visual evidence.) “We were getting yelled at,” said the other. “…you go to a gay bar, you get kicked out almost.” “Not quite kicked out,” admitted the other one. “Socially ostracized.” Maybe they and Sister Toldjah should form a support group!
Well, at least most of them weren’t screaming “faggot.” They also mostly eschewed overt racial slurs when they rose in outrage at Michelle Obama’s Spanish vacation. And why shouldn’t they? With a black woman on the Throne of Nancy, you don’t have to spell it out too much for the cognoscenti.
The First African-American First Lady has been a particular favorite of rightbloggers since before she moved to the White House. You may recall that in 2008 they gave great credence to a ludicrous story that Mrs. Obama had been discovered screaming about “Whitey” on a tape that was never produced.
Since then the brethren have often spiced up their usual denunciations of the President with other outrageous and easily-disproven stories about the Missus: That she fell asleep during Ted Kennedy’s funeral, that she gorged on lobster and caviar at the Waldorf, that she snubbed South Carolina, that she made Barry buy her an ugly $30,000 ring, etc. Oh, and some cowboys also like to show Mrs. Obama as a monkey.
But rightbloggers have an especially soft spot for the notion that Mrs. Obama is a crazy spendthrift, wasting America’s money on lavish accoutrements and frippery for herself — as in that email your aged white relatives have probably sent you about the 26 “attendants” she requires. (See Snopes on this one.)
So when Mrs. Obama took her daughters to a Spanish resort for some R&R (mostly paid for by the Obamas, not the taxpayers), you can imagine the baleful cries heard from the blogospheric starboard.
“Marie Antoinette?” asked Don Surber. “Let them eat arugula.” “Michelle Obama’s Marie Antoinette-like extravagant vacation,” humphed theblogprof. “However, there is nothing obscure about the current comparison between First Lady Michelle ‘Let ’em eat arugulla’ Obama and France’s 18th Century Queen, Marie ‘Let ’em eat cake’ Antoinette,” managed Munz’s Place, etc.
“Qu’ils mangent de la brioche, interpreted in French to say: ‘if the peasants have no bread then let them eat Brioche or ‘cake’ is what many people have said to compare Michelle Obama’s trip to the infamous quote by the Queen of France Marie Antoinette,” said The Liples Report, showing off his command of French, if not English.
“You can see King, (or is that Queen – some legs, Barry) – Barack here,” free-associated Dan Riehl. “Marie, I mean, Michelle, is here. Q: Does this dress make me look fat? A: Which one doesn’t, honey!” All class, that Riehl. But he has a serious point: this is “liberal administration acting like an aristocracy.”
Perhaps for the benefit of his many marginally-literate viewers, Instapundit’s Glenn Harlan Reynolds reproduced a Photoshop of Mrs. Obama as Marie Antoinette (pictured below). Well, at least he didn’t go with the monkey.
“Several weeks ago I wrote I thought Barack Obama didn’t really want to be president,” said Roger L. Simon. “Michelle’s $375,000 Spanish vacation — with the Daily Mail dubbing her a ‘modern-day Marie Antoinette’ — is further proof of my thesis.” We’re not sure how letting his wife take a vacation proves Obama’s lack of desire to be President; maybe we should consult the President’s many, self-appointed rightblogger distance therapists… Oh wait, we see Simon had a shrink of his own, whom he quoted on narcissism. “To what extent,” riddled him this, “does this explain this increasingly disconnected behavior of Michelle and Barack Obama?” It would be a fun experiment to grab any couple of paragraphs from any random web page and substitute it for the shrink’s, and see if it makes any less sense.
The complaints weren’t limited to conservative outlets. At the libertarian magazine Reason, Nick Gillespie said, “Between trips like this and the recent Chelsea Clinton nuptials (costing a reported $2 million smackers), we’ve entered a late-ancien regime era of rancid excess by the ruling class.” Ah, there’s that ruling class again — and still exclusively Democratic, too. With any luck America will bring back the Republicans, who will attend Congress in overalls and have their daughters’ weddings at City Hall. (You can also read Gillespie’s article at the libertarian site Lucianne.com.)
First Ladies have entertained and vacationed in style since the days of Dolly Madison at least. One thinks of the famously lavish events overseen by Jackie Kennedy and Nancy Reagan. We don’t recall so much negative attention devoted to a First Lady’s spending — real or imagined — before January 20, 2009.
You don’t suppose it has anything to do with race, do you? Of course, some people who haven’t been stifled by political correctness know how to answer that. “Jackie Kennedy?” said a commenter at Fuck France. “This ape woman?? Pluzzzesse.”
To wrap up, we’ve also got that downtown Manhattan mosque, which has been very well-covered right here at Runnin’ Scared. Rightbloggers, like most Republican politicians — except New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who’s been read out of the party for his eloquent support of the project (“As for those teary-eyed, bleeding-heart liberals such as New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, snarl rant rave,” said Impeach Obama Today) — are stoking the outrage 24-7, in search of greater honky support.
Fairly typical is National Review‘s Andy McCarthy, who says the mosque shows that the “progressive ruling class” of the United States “are gradually surrendering” to Muslim jihad. McCarthy also complains that “we” — meaning, presumably, the non-Muslim people of the United States — “abide countless places for Muslims to gather and worship even though we know a very high percentage of the Islamic centers and mosques are heavily influenced by Islamists.” He makes it sound as if the rights of Muslim-Americans are conditional, to be “abided” by the Christians until such time as they tire of observing the Constitutional niceties, and start raiding and shutting down.
Add to this the recent rightblogger wrath at our Mexican guests (“Obama Gives Part of Arizona to Mexicans”), and you have to ask: Is it the conscious agenda of these guys to declare their opposition to everyone in America who isn’t white, straight, and Christian? It makes sense: The Republican Party, which has been their traditional carrier, has very little black, Hispanic or gay support, and its best chance for electoral success is to hyper-stimulate the honky vote.
We tend to be unsentimental about all that “diversity” talk common in Democratic circles. But still, we envision a Palin inaugural in 2012, and all the pink faces (and perhaps Confederate flags) we may expect in the audience, and think: Day-um.