Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jim Nabors and How Liberalism May Win Its Way to Defeat ^ | February 2, 2013 | Kurt Schlichter

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 week’s 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 didn’t 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.

That’s it. No outcry. No furor. No TV preachers bemoaning the coming of Sodom II: Red, White and Blue. Nothing.

Let’s face facts. In many ways, the liberal’s cultural narrative has prevailed regarding gays, minorities, and the role of women (including single mothers). That’s 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 it’s potentially a big political problem for liberals down the road.

Back in the Sixties when Gomer Pyle, USMC, was a network smash, liberals weren’t 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 couldn’t possibly be anything as mundane as criminals and rioters. No, the problem was “society,” by which liberals meant everyone who wasn’t 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 didn’t 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 doesn’t 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. It’s not a perfect analogy – liberals really did, at some level, believe criminals were victims while modern, mainstream conservative don’t 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!”

What’s 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 party’s record on job creation? Ha!

Politics aren’t 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 liberal’s 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, it’s gone in a puff of smoke. As Gomer Pyle might say, ”Shazam!”

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: conservativewomen; gayrights; hollywood; homosexualagenda; liberalagenda; liberalism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last
To: lurk

“The author seems to assume that collectivists come to a point where they will quit advancing their endgame.”

I agree. If there will always be groups that reject ‘gay marriage’, the state will always be there to punish them when they reject whatever impossibility the state is calling marriage at the time. I just don’t see them putting down that whip. They would only put it down if everyone eventually accepts ‘gay marriage’, and for many religious groups this will never happen.

The major reason ‘gay marriage’ is such an issue is because the state has the ability to punish those who disagree with the definition it uses to recognize the institution.


21 posted on 02/02/2013 6:48:04 AM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: allendale
Gays can celebrate publicly their lifestyle and “marriages all they want. The bottom line is that they are really quite miserable and unhappy.

I agree, but let me recast that statement in a more general fashion:

Liberals, with the unwavering support of the MSM, have learned to "win" arguments in the arena of public discourse. That is a far cry from saying that their "winning arguments" are correct and make our nation a better place. Quite the opposite. Many of their "winning arguments" will ultimately lead to failure by having a high cost and devastating consequences for our society and nation.

The most infuriating truth is that, again with the unfailing support of the MSM, liberals will be able to successfully blame Republicans for massive problems that liberals really caused. We can only hope that disengaged, low-information voters will start listening to the correct message and assign blame where it really resides: with liberal/progressives.

22 posted on 02/02/2013 6:48:49 AM PST by RatRipper (Self-centeredness, greed, envy, deceit and lawless corruption has killed this once great nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

Yep - and we don't remember hearing him getting in our faces about it.

23 posted on 02/02/2013 6:51:03 AM PST by trebb (Allies no longer trust us. Enemies no longer fear us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: allendale
Darwin rightly observed that unless a trait aids in the propagation of a species, nature has a way of abolishing it.

You are absolutely correct! I have a Masters in Biology and have been teaching it for almost 30 years. It has always been completely illogical to me that "gayness" could be anything other than a choice. A gene for homosexuality would not have been "selected for" because, until the advent of modern fertility methods, two homosexuals could not produce a child.

24 posted on 02/02/2013 6:53:19 AM PST by srmorton (Deut. 30 19: "..I have set before you life and death,....therefore, choose life..")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
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.

I have a problem with that statement.

As somebody with a criminal mind himself, Clinton never gave a damn about anybody, and a criminal was just somebody standing in his way, and authorizing an execution was one more step towards realizing his ambitions.

The road to achieving power, is littered with Clinton's victims.

Clinton is the last person to be held up as a crime-fighting politician. He was just as much a criminal as those he authorized to be put to death.
25 posted on 02/02/2013 6:55:18 AM PST by adorno (Y)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Well goooooolllllll-laaaaay!

26 posted on 02/02/2013 6:59:50 AM PST by j_guru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: adorno

Well, to me, that’s exactly what the statement you have a problem with, said. Using different words but meaning the same thing. Clinton was entirely a politician, not a crime fighter in the least, is what the statement said to me when I read it. So when I read yours, it served to reinforce that point, rather than “correct” the statement.

27 posted on 02/02/2013 7:02:39 AM PST by txrangerette ("...hold to the truth; speak without fear..."(Glenn Beck))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
How Liberalism May Win Its Way to Defeat

Sorry, but, liberalism is assured of many victories for many or most future elections.

Crime is not what drives liberals to vote for or against a politicain.

Gay rights is also not the biggest reason that liberals vote for their "favorite" politicians.

Even the right to abortions, is not why liberals vote for their favorite politicians.

What drives people to vote for liberals, is the government funding for the easy and lazy lifestyles that many prefer. When government is in the business of handouts and "free" benefits, at least half of the voters will jump at the opportunity to get their share.

Liberalism is no longer about ideals or the rights of some downtrodden groups. Liberalism nowadays, is about, creating dependency, to assure that, those dependent voters continue electing liberals to power, and power is the only thing that liberal leaders care about, and power is the only means by which they can implement their agenda.

The liberal agenda will have politicians pretending to care about gays and women and blacks and Hispanics and crime and guns, and anything else which will bring them votes. But, those concerns are about as phony as a trillion dollar coin, and it's all intended to gain power. It's the "win at any cost" mantra having come to fruition.

The acceptance of gays everywhere, won't change the fact that, we have created a society where at least half the people have come to depend on government for some sort of government benefit or some "free stuff" from government. That is going to be hard to overcome, and gay acceptance into any political party has nothing to do with winning or losing elections for liberals.
28 posted on 02/02/2013 7:09:19 AM PST by adorno (Y)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

It was Richard Cox who was gay (that’s right, Dick Cox), who was the 2nd actor on Bewitched to play the role of Elizabeth Montgomery’s husband, Darren.

29 posted on 02/02/2013 7:12:59 AM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970
I was at a Bob Hope USO show in Vietnam ...

Did you see John Kerry? He served there, you know.

30 posted on 02/02/2013 7:19:14 AM PST by Dartman (Mubarak and Gaddafi are going to look like choirboys when this is over)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Gays might be the last hurrah for white libs, let us be honest the down trodden non-whites and their race politics are not fetching in the least. Beyond the mesiah mulatto teleprompter actor the bench is thin.

31 posted on 02/02/2013 7:23:39 AM PST by junta ("Peace is a racket", testimony from crime boss Barrack Hussein Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

You may be right about most of my statement being, basically, a re-wording of the author’s comments, but...

when reading that part about “criminals were scumbags”, I felt that the author should have first defined Clinton as being one of those scumbags. But, the author makes is sound like Clinton was doing the right thing as opposed to his fellow liberals.

32 posted on 02/02/2013 7:29:40 AM PST by adorno (Y)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

Why be surprised when this old pole smoker announces his gay marriage.

Everyone knew he was a fag for years.It was no surprise.

Half of our entertainers are queer, men and women.Hollywood has been a queer and pedophile town since the 20’s.

The only actors and actress’s who make it in that town without laying down on the job are the relatives of others. Nepotism is rampant.

33 posted on 02/02/2013 7:29:49 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Gomer was lucking he had Sgt Carter instead of R. Lee Ermy. “I’m gonna’ cut your ......”

34 posted on 02/02/2013 7:33:18 AM PST by Terry Mross (Who long before America is no more?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

Actually I thought Gomer Pyle had married Rock Hudson in Las Vegas many years ago.

35 posted on 02/02/2013 7:35:41 AM PST by PJ-Comix (Beware the Rip in the Space/Time Continuum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: adorno
when reading that part about “criminals were scumbags”, I felt that the author should have first defined Clinton as being one of those scumbags. But, the author makes is sound like Clinton was doing the right thing as opposed to his fellow liberals.

That wasn't the point of this article.

The author's only point was that in carrying out an execution during his campaign, Clinton neutralized the "Democrats are soft on crime" charge that Republicans had so successfully used in the past against them, taking it off the table.

Likewise, conservatives shrugging their shoulders over Gomer Pyle's gay marriage is hurting the ability for Democrats to utilize the "Republicans hate gays" charge.

36 posted on 02/02/2013 7:50:50 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Dartman

Nooooo!!! How could I see Jean F’in Kerry while I was in Vietnam while he was on all those secret missions to Cambodia?

And anyway, Kerry served his four friggin months in 1969. I saw the Road Show in Christmas 1971, the same year Kerry hurled his medals (a lie), testified before Congress & called those of us who were still there war criminals & babykillers. I didn’t hear of Kerry at the time but I knew about the VVAW & their commie propaganda. What had me seething then as now was Jane Fonda & her treasonous trips to Hanoi & isn’t it a crying shame there are homeless vets while this shameless b!tch is living large I’d better shut up now before I get banned!

FWIW, I flew helicopters & got close to the `fence’ just once (FB Katum), it was like the surface of the moon looking into Cambodia that place is godforsaken to this day.

37 posted on 02/02/2013 7:55:13 AM PST by elcid1970 ("The Second Amendment is more important than Islam.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970

Thanks for reminding me of Hanoi Jane. I had almost forgotten about her for a couple of minutes. :)

38 posted on 02/02/2013 7:59:24 AM PST by Dartman (Mubarak and Gaddafi are going to look like choirboys when this is over)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

2nd one - Dick Sargent was. So far as I know Dick York was not.

39 posted on 02/02/2013 8:10:03 AM PST by scrabblehack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Forward the Light Brigade

I agree with the swinging pendulum political theory. Also that it will take pain to reverse its swing this time with the momentum built up from freebees. I know even if it meant not seeing liberals pay the price I would fight losing of our rights from the left or right. You do bring up an interesting point that when the SHTF voters might select a guy that promises to make the trains run on time, or revenge on whatever group can be blamed.

40 posted on 02/02/2013 8:17:04 AM PST by shoff (Vote Democratic it beats thinking!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson