Skip to comments.Jim Nabors and How Liberalism May Win Its Way to Defeat
Posted on 02/02/2013 5:55:43 AM PST by Kaslin
Is Gomer Pyle one of the Four Horseman of the Liberal Apocalypse?
The superficially surprising thing about last weeks announcement that Jim Nabors had married his boyfriend of four decades was not so much the nuptials themselves I always felt Gomer was just going through the motions with Lou-Ann Poovie. Rather, it was the cultural reaction to the news that a huge star back in his day had decided he would tell even if we didnt ask.
There was no reaction. America, including conservatives regardless of their feelings about gay marriage, collectively shrugged their shoulders and generally wished the elderly singer/comedian well.
Thats it. No outcry. No furor. No TV preachers bemoaning the coming of Sodom II: Red, White and Blue. Nothing.
Lets face facts. In many ways, the liberals cultural narrative has prevailed regarding gays, minorities, and the role of women (including single mothers). Thats not to say that conservatives are somehow anti-minority or anti-women the Democrats have pushed that nonsense even as they eagerly embraced the likes of Exalted Cyclops Robert Byrd and noted feminizer Ted Kennedy. Now, states are allowing gay marriage not just via liberal judges but in the right way through referendum and legislatures. Whether conservatives like it or not, the narrative the liberals have marketed themselves as backing is largely winning. And its potentially a big political problem for liberals down the road.
Back in the Sixties when Gomer Pyle, USMC, was a network smash, liberals werent just busy waving VC flags, dropping acid and mumbling Groovy. They were embarking on an ideological course that would help to hobble them with the electorate for a generation.
As crime exploded and riots wracked the cities, the liberal mandarins decided that the causes of crime and riots couldnt possibly be anything as mundane as criminals and rioters. No, the problem was society, by which liberals meant everyone who wasnt a criminal, a rioter or a liberal.
They meant us.
The American people were somewhat taken aback. In fact, this Silent Majority was loud and clear about what they thought of this and other manifestations of the liberal social suicide pact when took the White House aback as well, electing Richard Nixon twice.
It may be hard to believe for people who didnt grow up before Nirvana and flannel shirts were things, but once upon a time Republicans could reliably beat Democrats about the head and shoulders with a club labeled soft on crime. Moreover, pompous liberal doofuses like Michael Dukakis would walk right into the trap, for example, arguing that complaints about programs that furloughed convicted rapists to rampage again could only possibly stem from racism. Dukakis, the poster boy for the robber slobbering, was notoriously unable to even summon up even faux anger at a hypothetical criminal hypothetically attacking his wife. No wonder he lost.
It was Bill Clinton, that wily Arkansas politician, who figured out what was remarkably clear to everyone else except his fellow liberals that criminals were scumbags and the political price of excusing their depredations was not even remotely worth paying.
So, Governor Bill Clinton allowed his state to execute a lowlife cop killer despite the usual chorus of whining from the left. And when he became president, instead of treating policemen like goose-stepping fascists out to oppress the downtrodden, Clinton reassured the mommies in suburbs across America that he would protect them from the criminal element by famously putting 100,000 cops on the streets.
Liberals had embraced the conservative agenda that the cause of crime is criminals, and that the proper response to criminals is not soul-searching introspection into how society has victimized these unfortunate souls but, rather, to consign them to our dungeons for long periods without a hint of regret. By figuratively tossing criminals into jail and throwing away the key, the Democrats freed themselves from the soft-on-crime ball and chain.
As America coalesced around the conservatives views on crime, the Republicans lost perhaps their most potent political weapon.
Flash forward two decades as the Republicans still search for a weapon of comparable power to the mugger-hugger imagery that served them so long and so well. Sure, the tax and spend charge is nice, but it just doesnt have the same visceral impact as a Willie Horton.
In 2012, the Democrats certainly had a field day beating on the Republicans, but this time it was on the cultural issues that America for better or worse seems to have made up its mind about. Its not a perfect analogy liberals really did, at some level, believe criminals were victims while modern, mainstream conservative dont hate gays or minorities or women or want to keep Kevin Bacon from dancing.
All their work over the years to normalize homosexuality, to promote acceptance of minorities, and to redefine the roles of women has succeeded. The liberals have largely won these fights to the extent they were even being fought other than on some issues regarding gays. But that success may turn out to be a problem for them in the coming years.
After all, besides savaging Republicans for all sorts of imagined oppressions, what more remains for the left to talk about? Republicans are too sensible with our money? They want America to be too powerful and too free? Maybe immigration, except the Republican establishment is generally so eager to reform the system that Obama seems to be trying to torpedo the entire endeavor in order to keep it around to milk with chants of ¡Sí se puede!
Whats left after the cultural issue scourging strips away the issues that most Americans hate? What remains are positions most Americans love?
In future elections, the Democrat desperately seeking to tar his opponent as anti-gay, anti-minority or anti-woman is going to have to contend with a Republican who is gay, a minority, a woman or even all three. Then what will the Democrat have to talk about? His partys record on job creation? Ha!
Politics arent static people and societies change, and what is a powerful line of attack in one election cycle may very well become a hackneyed cliché in the next. The fact is that even many conservatives are slowly embracing the cultural consensus or just conceding the field by figuratively muttering Whatever (although how society is generally moving in a conservative direction on issues like life and religion is another subject entirely). Pretty soon, the liberals tired attacks on conservatives as culturally out of touch may draw shrugs instead of votes.
One moment, the liberals have harnessed a powerful meme; the next, its gone in a puff of smoke. As Gomer Pyle might say, Shazam!
The attention-whoredom that is homosexuality can survive everything but apathy. Gays will become like the Wiccans. When people are no longer shocked, there won’t be any point in playing Gay.
Spoiler alert: So was the first Darren Stephens on Bewitched, and Mike Brady and Alice the maid on Brady Bunch.
Gays can celebrate publicly their lifestyle and “marriages all they want. The bottom line is that they are really quite miserable and unhappy. The queer lifestyle is a curse. Always found it ironic that liberals celebrate Darwin but conveniently ignore Darwinian law when it comes to homosexuality. Darwin rightly observed that unless a trait aids in the propagation of a species, nature has a way of abolishing it.
The Democrats will go back to basics. Claim Republicans are not fit to lead, by pointing to the latest pick for Dept of Defense. Claim they want to starve children by cutting welfare and food stamps. Racist for not supporting SAP (Special access pass) for illegals. Hate women by not paying for birth control. Hate minorities by not allowing Obama to do anything about the economy. I could go on, but if you think the liberals will ever run out of excuses for their failures Ive got a free healthcare system to sell you.
Nicely done. It has long been clear that gays are merely bad little boys seeking to offend their elders. Theirs is not, after all, a desireable or even a practical life style.
But they kept it to themselves, didn’t they?
And that was a wonderful example of conservatism "winning its way to defeat" - as most of the fascist government overreach we are dealing with today has been a direct result of politicians trying to avoid the "soft on crime" label.
Gays have a tightrope to walk. They have to say they were born gay in order to treat homosexuality as a civil rights issue. But they long deep in their souls to scream “IT’S MOMMY AND DADDY’S FAULT” so they can punish their parents.
My brother is gay and it’s like two pitbulls fighting inside of him. He really wants to lash out at our parents for making him gay.
The second Darren was portrayed by a homosexual.
Never going to remove all gays. It has been around since forever. It would be nice if it were re-closetized. The blatent flaunting of it is what is sickening and will (is?) tear down western society. People who show pride in this aberrant lifestyle is destroying America. The soviets(now the Russians ) were the ones who pushed this on us as a form of undermining of our society. You may have notice that the Putin administration has criminalized homosexuality in HIS Russia.
Back in the closet with ye, faggots.
Not the first, but the second Darrin.
The people are fickle. Once they get tired of one group and their mantras they will turn to the new flavor of the month. In the future Old White Guys, who love Patriotism will be popular because they will seem new. People who —like Reagan—see things in black and white and not gray. Once the Democrats have trashed the state—and the pain is universal—people will try anything. They may even go for the man on the white horse—a Napoleon to fix things. So, America may swing far right. the nightmare the Democrats have imaged will come to pass.
Didn’t know who Kurt Schlichter is, but I’m going to start reading his stuff.
I was at a Bob Hope USO show in Vietnam & Jim Nabors came on stage. Instantly there was muttering everywhere, “You know he’s a fag, don’t you?”
Liberals live for causes. They can’t stand normalcy and thrive on disruption. Never underestimate their ability to create a “crisis” usually where the so-called powerful (conservatives of course) are oppressing all sorts of people who don’t deserve being oppressed. They’ll find some phony issue and skewer Republicans. The lib sheep will swallow the new cause hook, line, and sinker.
That article is a bunch of hooey.
The culture of the last 300 years in America is dead.
God, Country, Family, Integrity, Morality.... Standards and Ideals that have sustained and built this country are being abandoned, torn down and destroyed.
In their place, the exact opposite...... The ideals of the Democratic Party.
The fact people voted gay marriage is a bad sign and the author implies that we have to givie up on this front. The same was said by abortion decades and ago and we did not give up and we are slowly winning that argument. I think the same thing can happen with gay marriage. Before Roe v. Wade, several liberal states had liberal abortion laws and the rest did not. There’s no reason to think gay marriage will fare any differently. Opposing gay marriage is vital.
The author seems to assume that collectivists come to a point where they will quit advancing their endgame.
We are far from arriving at their endgame. They will be constantly pushing on the next thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.