An Open Letter: Ronald Reagan, The Big Tent, and Why the Gender I Sleep With Shouldn’t Determine My Suitability As a Republican Leader

A Message To The Republicans Who Care More About Someone’s Sexual Preference Than They Do Their Political Beliefs

The short version of this message is: were you born that stupid or did you just get hit on the head repeatedly as a child?

I don’t usually have a problem with these types, generally they come out in the comments sections of articles and have slightly better grammar (but comparable intelligence levels…okay, maybe that’s not fair) to the youtuber commentators who shout FAG!!!!111!1! at videos they don’t like.  Sometimes there’s the occasional  “conservative” blogger, talking head, or candidate, but they tend to get smacked down pretty quickly.

Other times, however, their stupid ideas need to be discussed out in the open. I’m talking about people who say things like:

Screenshot 2014-04-28 at 5.46.58 PM

The lifestyle of a man committed to his partner? It’s not like DeMaio is running a gay brothel from his office.

Screenshot 2014-04-28 at 5.48.12 PM

*The corpse of Ronald Reagan climbs out of his grave and sucker punches you*

Screenshot 2014-04-28 at 5.47.36 PM

Yeah, yeah, morals…that’s nice. You know what I’d like? A functioning economy, a Republican in office MIGHT get us that. Refusing to vote for a Republican because he has a boyfriend is just childish.

Screenshot 2014-04-28 at 10.29.34 PM

Except that socialism is 100% antithetical to conservative principles and being gay isn’t antithetical to freedom at all.

Screenshot 2014-04-28 at 10.30.06 PM

Shame on Reagan for advocating a big tent approach right? “It is the duty and responsibility of the volunteer Republican organizations, not to further divide, but to lead the way to unity. It is not your duty, responsibility of privilege to tear down, or attempt to destroy, others in the tent. “

 

Screenshot 2014-04-28 at 10.28.49 PM

What does Carl DeMaio running for office have to do with same sex marriage? Who knows.

 

These people are not the majority, thank god, but when I read these sorts of comments I slowly begin to bang my head into my keyboard while thinking “What universe do you live in? Because it’s clearly not ours. We have a shortage of good conservatives who are crazy enough to run for office in the first place and you are more focused on who a man or woman is shacking up with and consensually banging than on whether their policies and political convictions are truly in line with conservative principles of small government, the constitution, and liberty?”

Let me explain something to you.

If you are judging the suitability of a leader based the gender a person prefers to sleep with than, rather than their voting record or opinion on holding up the constitution or shrinking the size of government, you are not a conservative. 

Oh you are certainly a social conservative, but that’s closer to liberalism than you probably realize, especially in the way you practice it. You prefer to morally police the personal lives of politicians more than you care about the actual policies they put forward and that’s both short sighted and terrible strategy if we’d like to win an election any time in the next decade.

You don’t have to like who I sleep with, you don’t have to support gay marriage, and you don’t need to start attending Pride Parades (please don’t, I hate those things) but when it comes to judging someone’s suitability for leadership in politics, stick to their politics.

I date women and yet my principles have a lot more in common with those of Ronald Reagan than yours do.

Maybe social “conservatives” need to think about that a little bit.

We must keep the door open – offering our party as the only practical answer for those who, overall, are individualists.  And because this is the great common denominator – this dedication to the belief in man’s aspirations as an individual – we cannot offer them a narrow sectarian party in which all must swear allegiance to prescribed commandments.

Such a party can be highly disciplined, but it does not win elections.  This kind of party soon disappears in a blaze of glorious defeat, and it never puts into practice its basic tenets, no matter how noble they may be.

The Republican Party, both in this state and nationally, is a broad party.  There is room in our tent for many views; indeed, the divergence of views is one of our strengths.  Let no one, however, interpret this to mean compromise of basic philosophy or that we will be all things to all people for political expediency.

In our tent will be found those who believe that government was created by “We, the People;” that government exists for the convenience of the people and we can give to government no power we do not possess as individuals;  that the citizen does not earn to support the government, but supports a government so that he may be free to earn; that, because there can be no freedom without law and order, every act of government must be approved if it makes freedom more secure and disapproved if it offers security instead of freedom.

Within our tent, there will be many arguments and divisions over approach and method and even those we choose to implement our philosophy.  Seldom, if ever, will we raise a cheer signifying unanimous approval of the decisions reached.  But if our philosophy is to prevail, we must at least pledge unified support of the ultimate decision.  Unity does not require unanimity of thought.

And here is the challenge to you.  It is the duty and responsibility of the volunteer Republican organizations, not to further divide, but to lead the way to unity.  It is not your duty, responsibility of privilege to tear down, or attempt to destroy, others in the tent. 

Governor Reagan to the California Republican Assembly, 1967

_______________
This post was triggered by comments left on a Todd Starnes posting of Dana Perino’s article, Straight talk about gay Republican congressional candidate Carl DeMaio, on Fox News.

 

Advertisements

5 Comments

  1. The greatest irony of all is that most of these idiots probably wanted Rick Santorum as president…which I guess is okay because Ricky is merely a closet case

  2. The divisions in the country at the moment are pretty staggering. I really have a problem with purity people of any sort. I can understand being concerned about a Rino, but it’s the people who want absolute perfection and purity or they’re just not going to support that candidate, so there! All I can say is that it must be nice because last time I checked we’re all going over a cliff.

  3. I would be way more concerned by someone who is cheating on their spouse and sleeping around than someone who is openly committed to their partner, cheating says something about integrity, being homosexual does not.

Comments are closed.