The H-Bomb.

(I warn you all that this post is both lengthy and serious; despite the generally satirical nature of this blog, one must make an entirely serious point from time to time.)

I picked up my copy of Crunchy Cons from the local library over the weekend, and I find myself reluctant to start reading it. Instead I spent my leisure hours finally reading a book I got last year: Worlds of Star Trek Deep Space Nine, Volume Three. I suppose I found the idea of reading a fictional story about the rapacious Ferengi to be more pleasant than trudging through Rod Dreher's apparent accusations about the greed of mainstream conservatism.

Rod's recent behavior hasn't helped things.

I'm reminded of Jonah Goldberg's criticism of Rod's book and thesis, an NRO article that Rod will apparently, finally address in the paperback edition of his book.

Crunchy conservatism strikes me now--as it did back when I first heard about it--as a journalistic invention, a confabulation fit for some snarking liberal reporter at the Washington Post "Style" section. It plays upon the Left's stereotype of conservatives and adopts it as its own. To Rod's credit, he doesn't claim that "mainstream conservatives" are racists; but he does claim that they are uptight, blue blazered, two-dimensional men motivated by greed. They are Godless materialists, unthinking dupes of Madison Avenue, with no connection to spirituality or religion unless, that is, you think being an idolatrous votary of the free market counts as being religious.

To his credit, Rod still hasn't adopted the Left's nasty habit of playing the race card, but I think he's now guilty of a charge that is equally disgusting.

The rhetorical H-bomb. Homophobia.

In less than a week, Rod has twice asserted a socially conservative position on the issue of redefining legal marriage to include gay couples -- namely, opposition to such a redefinition. He has twice defended himself against the charge of bigotry, and he has, both times, immediately implied that the charge of bigotry is accurate when it comes to the Republican mainstream.

This past Thursday:

As for the Republicans, I support privileging traditional marriage for reasons that have nothing to do with animosity towards gay people, but for philosophical and sociological reasons. I deeply resent the charge from same-sex marriage activists that the only reason one can oppose gay marriage is bigotry. It's a cheap and emotional way of arguing. That said, I think it's a pretty fair accusation that the GOP plays on the fear and loathing of gay people in its campaign-season appeals to voters based on gay marriage. It makes it hard to reward them with my vote. [emphasis mine]

And today:

As I've blogged before, I resent it when gay-marriage proponents (like this windbag) resort to the cheap slur that the only reason anybody objects to gay marriage is "bigotry." This is pathetically weak, because as Maggie Gallagher and others have tirelessly argued, there are solid legal, sociological and philosophical reasons to reject same-sex marriage. These reasons may not be persuasive to many, and possibly even most, people -- but they are reasons, not expressions of blind prejudice. But President Bush and the Republicans cut people like Gallagher off at the knees by the way they treat this issue. If it really is a civilizational issue as the GOP claims (and which I believe), then they wouldn't just trot it out cynically at election time, but would instead fight for it, and articulate a political and moral case for the amendment. It's hard to see how this kind of activism isn't, on the part of the GOP operatives, merely appealing to anti-gay prejudice, stoking an emotional issue transparently for political gain. [emphasis mine]

I have responded to both blog entries (here and here), and I emailed him this morning before the second questionable post was made. Each time, I asked for a clarification: "Are you suggesting that a large number of Republican voters are homophobes?" As of the writing of this blog entry, I have received no reply in public or via email.

Thus, I can only take Rod at his word as it is written. Since he made the same point twice, I believe I can be confident in supposing that he means what he writes.

He opposes redefining marriage for "solid legal, sociological and philosophical reasons." He resents the charge that people can take his position only out of bigotry, and he rejects the charge as a slur, as "a cheap and emotional way of arguing."

And yet, though the GOP is taking the same position Rod is taking, it is "a pretty fair accusation" to say that the party is now appealing to "anti-gay prejudice", to "the fear and loathing of gay people."

One word best describes anti-gay prejudice, and the fear and loathing of gay people. That word is homophobia.

For opposing the redefinition of marriage, Rod believes he is principled. At the same time, Rod apparently believes that we mainstream conservative Republicans are prejudiced for taking the exact same position. We hold the right position for the wrong reason.

I wonder how he knows this. If he doesn't know this as a fact, I wonder how the Christian virtue of charity permits him to assume the worst about us. And I wonder whether I'll even bother reading his book.

Regardless, Rod Dreher should be called out for making such a disgusting accusation -- and for being such a hypocrite as to defend himself against the charge of bigotry while making the same slanderous charge against the rest of us for holding the same position.


Early in his blog at NRO, Rod Dreher had the audacity to imply that he, unlike those in the mainstream of conservatism, numbered among the "honorable conservatives."

That was clearly wishful thinking on his part.