The “gay agenda” today is fundamentally conservative

[Kulindahr]

Well, um, no. There is no connection (or very, very little) between the gay agenda and any particular economic policy. I think I said that somewhere or other. Since that is the case, gay economic conservatives should consider where they are most likely to effect change. There is already a significant constituency for blue dog Democrats and not so much for pro-gay Republicans. I think one might have a better chance of moving the Democrats toward embracing more conservative economic positions than of moving the Republicans toward embracing more libertarian social positions.

Is being economically conservative a broad feature of basically the entire gay community?

 

[Stardreamer]

Well, um, no. There is no connection (or very, very little) between the gay agenda and any particular economic policy. I think I said that somewhere or other. Since that is the case, gay economic conservatives should consider where they are most likely to effect change. There is already a significant constituency for blue dog Democrats and not so much for pro-gay Republicans. I think one might have a better chance of moving the Democrats toward embracing more conservative economic positions than of moving the Republicans toward embracing more libertarian social positions.

Why not work toward moving both?

 

[T-Rexx]

No, it isn't capitalist. It's working on getting there, but mostly it's still feudal plutocrat in nature.

Plutocracy is still capitalism. It is inefficient capitalism, but it is still capitalism. The reason the world wallowed so long in the Middle Ages with so little cultural and technical progress was the fact that feudal/plutocratic capitalism was so inefficient at providing the economic conditions important to the progress of civilization. When economic conditions in Italy resulted in the development of a large middle class there, we got the Renaissance.

The USA has enjoyed an American renaissance since its creation because it has managed somehow always to maintain a large middle class. That is why the USA's movement toward plutocracy over the past 30 years is worrisome. Making the rich richer does not work.

 

[Kulindahr]

Plutocracy is still capitalism. It is inefficient capitalism, but it is still capitalism. The reason the world wallowed so long in the Middle Ages with so little cultural and technical progress was the fact that feudal/plutocratic capitalism was so inefficient at providing the economic conditions important to the progress of civilization. When economic conditions in Italy resulted in the development of a large middle class there, we got the Renaissance.

Looked at that way, almost anything is capitalism.

The USA has enjoyed an American renaissance since its creation because it has managed somehow always to maintain a large middle class. That is why the USA's movement toward plutocracy over the past 30 years is worrisome. Making the rich richer does not work.

Depends what you're working for....

It's not good for either liberty or prosperity.

 

[construct]

Is being economically conservative a broad feature of basically the entire gay community?

No. Many of the early gay organizations were grounded in leftist philosophy and economic theory. That influence has not entirely dissipated. Many gay people today are economic liberals. However, this thread is specifically about gay conservatives, and the burden of my contributions have been to distinguish the gay agenda which is basically liberal in its philosophical underpinnings and the conservative economic agenda. Then I'm suggesting what I think is the more reasonable strategy for gay conservatives to advance both agendas.

 

[Kulindahr]

No. Many of the early gay organizations were grounded in leftist philosophy and economic theory. That influence has not entirely dissipated. Many gay people today are economic liberals. However, this thread is specifically about gay conservatives, and the burden of my contributions have been to distinguish the gay agenda which is basically liberal in its philosophical underpinnings and the conservative economic agenda. Then I'm suggesting what I think is the more reasonable strategy for gay conservatives to advance both agendas.

This thread is specifically NOT "about gay conservatives" -- that's why I asked the question. The thread is about the entire gay movement/community. Nor is it about political factions -- it's about the aspirations and desires of the entire community, that they show a conservative outlook.

It would only be about gay conservatives if gay liberals have given up on altering the status quo and aren't trying to acheive anything any longer.

 

[construct]

This thread is specifically NOT "about gay conservatives" -- that's why I asked the question. The thread is about the entire gay movement/community. Nor is it about political factions -- it's about the aspirations and desires of the entire community, that they show a conservative outlook.

It would only be about gay conservatives if gay liberals have given up on altering the status quo and aren't trying to acheive anything any longer.

In light of our little chat, I see that my personal reaction to the original thesis (that the gay agenda has taken a conservative turn) was cloudy. I had originally thought that it had become more conservative because of the addition of the "couples" issue, and perhaps it has because of a change in the relative emphasis accorded to it by activists. However, most of the planks of the gay agenda are still there; they haven't been accomplished, and their underpinnings in liberal aspirations are fundamentally unchanged as far as I can see.

So, while the agenda has become more conservative, the change has been quantitatively rather small.

That leaves us with the issue of whether gay conservatives have to moderate, modulate, or compromise their economic conservatism (and economic conservatism is what creates the most impressive and disagreeable disagreement) in order to work effectively toward achieving the goals of the gay agenda. My answer to that question need not be affected by the clarification of my prior response. I answer, "No. They need not moderate, modulate, or compromise their conservatism in order to work effectively toward achieving the goals of the gay agenda." Then I went on to explain why. The answer is that there is a significant constituency for their particular combination of views. I even pointed out where it lay, i.e. mostly among blue dog Democrats.

So you see, I have indeed responded to the original thesis. I even went beyond that to answer a few questions that I believed would immediately arise once I articulated my response (however cloudy the expression of that response). I think I was right about the worry-point. Rather quickly the thread took off into an extended discussion of economic policies, whether those policies where liberal or conservative, which presidents more effectively addressed economic problems, and which party advocated the most "conservative" economic policies. Presumably these issues have some connection to which party gay conservatives do or should gravitate toward.

I am not ignoring the importance of economic policy. In fact, my emphasis on the importance of the blue dogs relates directly to the problem gay conservatives face--the feeling of being marginalized by both the gay community and the Republican Party. However, my response is also aimed at bridging the rift which is apparent between gay conservatives and their more liberal peers who would often like to shut them up or banish them to re-education camps. I think that would in fact benefit us all--the whole gay community--not just one faction.

 

[Kulindahr]

In light of our little chat, I see that my personal reaction to the original thesis (that the gay agenda has taken a conservative turn) was cloudy. I had originally thought that it had become more conservative because of the addition of the "couples" issue, and perhaps it has because of a change in the relative emphasis accorded to it by activists. However, most of the planks of the gay agenda are still there; they haven't been accomplished, and their underpinnings in liberal aspirations are fundamentally unchanged as far as I can see.

Perhaps -- except the change has been from "We're here, we're queer!", in-your-face, we're not like you and get used to it, to wanting to just settle into society pretty much like anyone else. That's a serious change, if not in aspirations then in attitude.

So, while the agenda has become more conservative, the change has been quantitatively rather small.

I'm not sure about "quantitative", but the qualitative change verges on the astounding. In both, though, it occur to me, after skimming back over the thread, that something's going on other than the entire gay population becoming somehow more conservative: thirty or forty years ago, demographically it was a different sector of the gay population that was visible -- and they were radical. Along the way, more and more gays have come out, not punching people in the face (so to speak) or kicking in doors, but quietly making themselves visible as very ordinary, regular people, not some strange subculture with its wild 'agenda', but Americans like everyone else -- and with aspirations like everyone else. That makes the shift toward a more conservative flavor to the gay community not one of ideological or philosophical change, but a demographic one, with more gays visible who aren't radical, but just want to be accepted as part of the whole American population -- which is inherently conservative.

That leaves us with the issue of whether gay conservatives have to moderate, modulate, or compromise their economic conservatism (and economic conservatism is what creates the most impressive and disagreeable disagreement) in order to work effectively toward achieving the goals of the gay agenda. My answer to that question need not be affected by the clarification of my prior response. I answer, "No. They need not moderate, modulate, or compromise their conservatism in order to work effectively toward achieving the goals of the gay agenda." Then I went on to explain why. The answer is that there is a significant constituency for their particular combination of views. I even pointed out where it lay, i.e. mostly among blue dog Democrats.

Again, that's not the topic. The topic is the WHOLE gay community being more conservative. If you want to look at pieces of the community, it's more relevant to ask how the old-guard radicals are going to fit in now that the whole visible community is far more conservative -- or, rather, now that the whole "gay agenda" is more conservative.

So you see, I have indeed responded to the original thesis. I even went beyond that to answer a few questions that I believed would immediately arise once I articulated my response (however cloudy the expression of that response). I think I was right about the worry-point. Rather quickly the thread took off into an extended discussion of economic policies, whether those policies where liberal or conservative, which presidents more effectively addressed economic problems, and which party advocated the most "conservative" economic policies. Presumably these issues have some connection to which party gay conservatives do or should gravitate toward.

Yeah, and through all that I kept pointing out that it had nothing to do with the original topic, which was about the entire gay community, not pieces of it. As far as economics go, the entire community would be considered more conservative if personal/household rates of savings had increased and use of credit decreased, evidencing more careful spending and budgeting. Interesting though that might be, and probably relevant, I don't have any idea where to look for such information.

I suppose politics is marginally relevant, though I'm no longer convinced that the basic conservative virtues have much correlation with political party these days -- the shenanigans in which the Republicans indulge lately aren't conservative in any meaningful sense of the word; fascist, though far off, is closer to being accurate; reactionary is definitely the case.
In fact, given that the gay community has become more conservative, it can be used as a measure of how conservative a party is: with gays embracing the basic conservative virtues of marriage, family, service to country, etc., a truly conservative party would welcome them.

I am not ignoring the importance of economic policy. In fact, my emphasis on the importance of the blue dogs relates directly to the problem gay conservatives face--the feeling of being marginalized by both the gay community and the Republican Party. However, my response is also aimed at bridging the rift which is apparent between gay conservatives and their more liberal peers who would often like to shut them up or banish them to re-education camps. I think that would in fact benefit us all--the whole gay community--not just one faction.

I don't see that economic policy is relevant except as above.

Interestingly, that reaction from those liberal peers makes them immensely like the Republicans, majoring precisely in those things which are not at all conservative, but reactionary (and fascist).

 

[asianstudlover]

You would say that.


As for the op, bullshit. Correlation does not imply causation.
Conservatisim desires to take us back to a simpler time, where
Whites and other "races" (especially African Americans) were treated liked laundry, poor people remained surfs to the land, and fags simply didn't exsist outside of France.

The world suffers through various forms of conservatism for over 1,000 years (dark ages, fascisim, nationalism, etc) and now people want to go back to the root of that "thinking"? Count me out, this gay, like the majority of others, is a proud lefty.

Even though gay is not the only thing that defines many of us, At the very MOMENT, all gays really should be voting DEM, even if we are multi-issue voters.

But, In a few years.......

If the republican party remade itself by abandoning the religious right, took a very slight pro-choice position (say 1st trimester only with notification, its still bad, but legal)

Gay rights are settled for equality, once settled will not be a lighting rod and politically useful issue,

Other then that, the republican message might not be bad.

 

[asianstudlover]

There are as many gay people on the right as on the left, I imagine.
Most of my gay friends are conservative (European syle).

Good point. Mine too.
Im a liberal. But conservatism in the world is not necessarily bad.
Though America is a bit more conservative then Europe lets Compare whats happening now( in spite of the midterms ) to UK. Labor=democrats Tories=Republicans

In Britain the Labor party was in power for 15 years. They fought for and passed sweeping civil partnership legislation, gays serve openly in the Military for 10 years counting, and very descent hate crimes protections. Because of Parliamentary expense scandal or just party fatigue they lost the last election to the conservative Tories....

After being out of power for years, the Tories who are now the chief coalition partner of the government, are still the main conservative voice in the UK. But that voice changed its tune over the years since the Margaret Thatcher-Ronald Reagan days.
The front bench of their party (their leadership, incl. PM David Cameron) now agree with all of the LGBT initiatives and rights that they previously fought against. Check out David Camerons "IT gets Better" Video clip.
Sure the Tories still are against gay 'marriage' proper, and they might have a few old-as hell back benchers who might grumble gay slurs or whatever, but that will always exist.

IN other words, because of the success of Labor's work, Conservatism in the UK was forced to a more moderate place. People didnt just wake up as more conservative, the party came to them.

 

[EastMed]

Capitalism is class warfare. That's the whole point of capitalism.

Oy vey. Go live in a country where people really are suppressed their entire lives, where they're little more than slaves, then reconsider that statement.

Economic slavery is alive and well under Capitalism. Consider the working poor who survive from week to week on minimum wages.
And this demographic sector is growing rapidly.

 

[Kulindahr]

Economic slavery is alive and well under Capitalism. Consider the working poor who survive from week to week on minimum wages.
And this demographic sector is growing rapidly.

Don't forget the fact that laws are written to benefit the rich and punish people for being poor... by making sure they stay that way.

It used to be that poor people could own a camping trailer, and if a friend was in trouble, let him stay in the trailer. First staying in the trailer got banned, now the city council just make it illegal to own a trailer unless you have it in an attractive storage building. The same law hit boats -- no trailers, no boats, and in fact not even a vehicle you're working to repair are legal to have on your property.

The implied rule is very simple: only if you manage to become wealthy are you permitted to enjoy life. You're here mainly for the satisfaction of the rich, who are the ones to make the decisions about how your property is used -- not you.

 

[Supersix]

Economic slavery is alive and well under Capitalism. Consider the working poor who survive from week to week on minimum wages.
And this demographic sector is growing rapidly.

Just because someone is making little money, doesn't mean their pay stays that way for the rest of their lives. I used to work for minimum wage, now I earn a lot more, as my skills, knowlege, and experience grew. No one is "forced" to stay there by laws. So there is no slavery, unless you volunteer for it.

 

[Stardreamer]

Perhaps -- except the change has been from "We're here, we're queer!", in-your-face, we're not like you and get used to it, to wanting to just settle into society pretty much like anyone else. That's a serious change, if not in aspirations then in attitude.



I'm not sure about "quantitative", but the qualitative change verges on the astounding. In both, though, it occur to me, after skimming back over the thread, that something's going on other than the entire gay population becoming somehow more conservative: thirty or forty years ago, demographically it was a different sector of the gay population that was visible -- and they were radical. Along the way, more and more gays have come out, not punching people in the face (so to speak) or kicking in doors, but quietly making themselves visible as very ordinary, regular people, not some strange subculture with its wild 'agenda', but Americans like everyone else -- and with aspirations like everyone else. That makes the shift toward a more conservative flavor to the gay community not one of ideological or philosophical change, but a demographic one, with more gays visible who aren't radical, but just want to be accepted as part of the whole American population -- which is inherently conservative.



Again, that's not the topic. The topic is the WHOLE gay community being more conservative. If you want to look at pieces of the community, it's more relevant to ask how the old-guard radicals are going to fit in now that the whole visible community is far more conservative -- or, rather, now that the whole "gay agenda" is more conservative.



Yeah, and through all that I kept pointing out that it had nothing to do with the original topic, which was about the entire gay community, not pieces of it. As far as economics go, the entire community would be considered more conservative if personal/household rates of savings had increased and use of credit decreased, evidencing more careful spending and budgeting. Interesting though that might be, and probably relevant, I don't have any idea where to look for such information.

I suppose politics is marginally relevant, though I'm no longer convinced that the basic conservative virtues have much correlation with political party these days -- the shenanigans in which the Republicans indulge lately aren't conservative in any meaningful sense of the word; fascist, though far off, is closer to being accurate; reactionary is definitely the case.
In fact, given that the gay community has become more conservative, it can be used as a measure of how conservative a party is: with gays embracing the basic conservative virtues of marriage, family, service to country, etc., a truly conservative party would welcome them.

I find a lot I agree with in this analysis. I've always had a pet theory that gay movement first found a place of acceptance in the free love movement of the 60s and so embraced that as 'part' of what it was to be gay. That movement did not embrace marriage or even monogamy. More and more as homosexuality has become more understood and acceptable as you point out, more gays have come out that don't embrace those ideals, they want to be part of normal society not rebel against it. That makes them more conservative. And you are definitely right that conservatives should be welcoming gay marriage if the really understood the issue instead of filtering it through a religious prism. The institution is in trouble not because gays want to get married but because society as a whole has lost respect for what the institution means. An influx of people who WANT that sort of commitment and values can only help prop up the institution not destroy it. And encouraging the homosexual community to shake off the last of the failed free love trappings and embrace committed monogamous relationships is a win win for all of society.

 

[Stardreamer]

Don't forget the fact that laws are written to benefit the rich and punish people for being poor... by making sure they stay that way.

It used to be that poor people could own a camping trailer, and if a friend was in trouble, let him stay in the trailer. First staying in the trailer got banned, now the city council just make it illegal to own a trailer unless you have it in an attractive storage building. The same law hit boats -- no trailers, no boats, and in fact not even a vehicle you're working to repair are legal to have on your property.

The implied rule is very simple: only if you manage to become wealthy are you permitted to enjoy life. You're here mainly for the satisfaction of the rich, who are the ones to make the decisions about how your property is used -- not you.

I sort of have a disagreement on this point, the laws you example are not what I could consider 'the Rich' telling others they can't be happy, but more nosy neighbors telling others they have to do things their way. These are zoning laws and neighborhood standards usually passed by local city councils and neighborhood bodies.

 

[Kulindahr]

I sort of have a disagreement on this point, the laws you example are not what I could consider 'the Rich' telling others they can't be happy, but more nosy neighbors telling others they have to do things their way. These are zoning laws and neighborhood standards usually passed by local city councils and neighborhood bodies.

But if you look, the people who are busybodies of this sort are far above the median in their communities.

BTW, zoning has been shown to increase crime. Places which have ditched zoning and gone just with building safety have discovered (what common sense would tell us) that criminals break in a lot less at night when people live near or above their businesses, and a lot less during the day when residences have businesses with customers, right next door.

Turns out that zoning benefits the rich and harms the poor.

 

[Stardreamer]

But if you look, the people who are busybodies of this sort are far above the median in their communities.

BTW, zoning has been shown to increase crime. Places which have ditched zoning and gone just with building safety have discovered (what common sense would tell us) that criminals break in a lot less at night when people live near or above their businesses, and a lot less during the day when residences have businesses with customers, right next door.

Turns out that zoning benefits the rich and harms the poor.

Perhaps and I'm certainly not in a position to argue the value or lack thereof of zoning laws (which from my basically libertarian viewpoint) I'm inclined against anyway. But in most cases these folks aren't rich even if they are the 'above the median' they are middle class snobs usually.

 

[Kulindahr]

Perhaps and I'm certainly not in a position to argue the value or lack thereof of zoning laws (which from my basically libertarian viewpoint) I'm inclined against anyway. But in most cases these folks aren't rich even if they are the 'above the median' they are middle class snobs usually.

I meant median in the community. They may be lower middle, upper middle, or actual upper, but they have the conviction that it's their right to arrange the affairs of "lesser" people.