If Rick Esenberg really wants to be seen as a thinker who explores ideas rather than just another guy trying to entertain his side, he really ought to take a long, hard look at this post.
It begins humorously with a spectacular, Fatty Arbuckle-worthy, pratfall:
Patrick Mclheran suggests that, once a Republican gets caught in an embarrassing situation, he becomes a "former" leading contender for the GOP presidential nomination. Charlie Sykes speculates that the only way that he can survive is to become a Democrat.
Or he could become a Senate Republican prostitute aficionado from Louisiana. Or, shucks, he could become a thrice married talk show host who bemoans the loss of authority of dads in today's world and points to feminism or the "culture" as a cause for family breakdown.
He goes on:
Some argue that this means that Republicans ought to drop the emphasis on family values. The reason, presumably, is because conservatives hang on to some notion that these things are wrong. If you can find someone who did not live up to his principles, that means the principles are wrong.
The mind reels at this logical leap. Personally, I don''t think the value of the family is dependent upon whether ostensibly Christian Republicans are capable of keeping it in their pants. How about this: Some say Republicans-- particularly Republicans who have trouble staying married like Charlie Sykes, Rush Limbaugh, Leah Vukmir and Newt Gingrich -- should stop talking about family values because the commitment of prominent party leaders and representatives to the "traditional" family has been dubious.
If you can't stand the heat in the kitchen don't call yourself a chef!
If they want to say they're opposed to gays getting married -- fine, say it. But don't wave the flag of family values. It's offensive to family guys like myself, who, despite being quite a bit younger than Charlie Sykes, has been with his wife longer than Sykes has been with any of his (and hopes that will continue).
And let's take another look at this sentence:
If you can find someone who did not live up to his principles, that means the principles are wrong.
How does Esenberg know that "family values" -- let's say by that he means commitment to family -- is a principle of "Republicans" rather than a talking point or rhetorical red meat? It is for some, sure. But when it becomes a ready-made talking point rather than a "value" borne out of experience, it's a bit hollow, innit? Are family values, for instance, really important to Charlie Sykes? To wit: in both "50 Rules Kids Won't Learn in School" (2007) and "A Nation of Victims" (1993), Sykes is said to be married with three children. It's just that he had different wife when each book was published. Isn't that a tad misleading?
Just in: John Foust makes excellent points in comments.
How about they don't stop talking about "family values" - but that they begin to reflect reality more accurately and honestly?
How about they discuss their conflict between promise and practice. Discuss their gay relatives and how they're treated within their families. Discuss how you let your daughter's boyfriend sleep over, then discuss your surprise at her getting pregnant, and your surprise at their break-up. Discuss how you fell in love with another woman while you were married. Discuss how hope triumphed over experience and how this led to not one, not two, but three wedding cakes. Discuss why cops and DAs get you all hot and bothered and why this made you go astray. Discuss how this squares with their preaching about "family values" and how they should be made into laws for everyone and every situation, and why this equals more flag-wrapped freedom. Discuss why there are so few non-white non-suburban faces at the WisGOP convention. Their problem is the hypocrisy and denial of reality. (And the inner denials grow and grow, until one day you write a blog post stating that Wisconsin's marriage amendment had nothing to do with homosexuals.)
I wouldn't ask them to stop talking. I'll ask them to reflect on their reality and let their political expressions reflect that reality - and if they don't, they'll rightly be called hypocrites or liars, as they're not telling the whole story of human reality.
As you point out, they don't have a corner on "family values". That's just a political buzzword. It can mean opposition to whatever they desire at the moment. The decay of family values can be trotted out as the cause for anything bad that's happened in the world.
Posted by: John Foust | June 26, 2009 at 09:44 AM