Carrie Prejean’s fall from grace was not about gay marriage. Her story is not about free speech. The Prejean story is about power. It is about identity politics and political scores. It is about old fashioned payback and the collectivist mind. The Carrie Prejean story is about making a person a martyr in order to calm a political ally. Her story is not new. It is the story of a faction becoming integrated into a political alliance and not getting its issues addressed. This is the genesis of her fall from grace
Back in the seventies, the gay movement was powerless as a political force. The Stonewall riots in New York City in 1969 had unified gays, lesbians, and transgender people into a community of sorts relying on one another for political and legal cover. As a movement they achieved a win in 1973 when the psychiatric association removed homosexuality as a disease or disorder. This was done by more conservative consensus-makers and doctors. But, most of the self-styled leaders of the gay community were radicals. They were, for the most part, left wing fanatics that embraced socialist ideals and methods. Among these ideals is the idea of collectivism by which political power is gained through subsuming your own ideals into a larger group and facilitating changes by working in concert.
Most of the gay community wasn’t up for this at all. The gay community is as politically diverse as the rest of the nation. Most gays and lesbians, in the seventies, didn’t agree with the gay liberation ideals of destroying the institution of the family and freeing sexuality from the socially constructed labels of gay, straight, transgender, etc. An overwhelming majority of men want to be men and women want to be women and they just love and mate with others of the same sex. At first the radicals were marginalized and ignored. They protested and fomented and made outlandish statements while most gay people just lived their lives and quietly, in increments, came out to families, friends, co-workers, and neighbors. The fear of gay people eased with these broader movements but then AIDS reared its ugly head.
AIDS was especially scary because it crept into the population and had devastating consequences. The sexual liberators were the hardest hit, at first. But the gay population soon found they were pariahs in general society because of fear. The collectivist left saw this politically active group as being very tight-knit because of its shared reliance on other gay people for political and legal cover especially in the age of AIDS when they were marginalized further. The gay community had started losing their slow, hard-fought level of acceptance because of general fear of AIDS by the society as a whole.
The collectivist left saw the gay community as an opportunity to increase both their financial and political power in the country. If they ran political cover for the gay community, they argued, could the gay community be a reliable ally. Gay community leaders had been floundering about waiting for someone, anyone to offer this kind of deal. Liberal politicians started calling for more support for AIDS related problems. The gay community responded with votes and checks. A coalition had been completed.
The collectivist left then told the gay community that this ‘marriage of convenience’ would work well for them both as long as the community was willing to pay their dues to the rest of the coalition. The gay community must faithfully support the collectivist agenda without complaining about their own issues just yet. Military service, partnering rights, non-discrimination in the workplace, and special criminal protections would have to wait. The collectivist agenda of special rights for women, racial minority and other various groups had to come first. Just patiently wait and follow our lead and you will eventually get something. It may not be for many years, but it is coming. The then leaders agreed and the bulk of the community followed.
Throughout the eighties and early nineties, the gay community faithfully supported the collectivist agenda getting only support for AIDS research, outreach, and health care. That was the benefit they achieved for subsuming any other issues they wanted passed. The gay community became a central part of the Democratic Party mainly because of the volunteers, cash, and reliable votes they provided. The Democratic Party didn’t really pay them much mind because, after all, they had not yet ‘paid their dues’ like women and minorities and unions had.
Finally, in the early nineties, some gay community members, sick of holding their noses and paying for and voting for these issues they didn’t agree with began caucusing and discussing a partnership with Republicans instead. It was absurd to vote for all these socialist programs if you don’t believe they are in the best interest of the country. The Log Cabin Republicans were born.
The Democrats were scared to death. They could not let one of the most reliable suppliers of volunteers and cash to slip away to the other party. Bill Clinton proposed a little sweetener to keep the gay community safely within the collectivist fold. He boldly backed letting gays serve openly in the military. That silenced many of the more reasonable and conservative voices in the movement. The right wing of the gay movement had only wanted equal opportunities and not a wholesale change in society. This gambit worked. They voted for and supported Clinton helping him achieve a narrow victory. The coalition was safe.
Clinton proposed allowing gays to openly serve in the military and a firestorm of protest greeted the pronouncement. He gave in, almost without a fight, and proposed, ‘don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue’ as a policy. The gay community wasn’t exactly thrilled, but it was a little something. But Clinton, and especially his wife, gave the gay community something even better, at least in the minds of the gay political leaders. The president gave them access to his administration and a place at the table. Of course, he didn’t give them any concessions or actual progress. But the leaders of the gay movement were mollified. Finally, someone actually respected them as important parts of the collective. That was enough for these leaders. The Democratic Party had become their home.
That didn’t placate the rank and file of the gay community. They still wanted equality and respect for all gay people, not just the leaders. So, the Democrats came up with a brilliant ruse to placate the rank and file. The age of political correctness became even more powerful. All gay people and stances on gay issues would become politically toxic if questioned by any one person or group. They spread this controlled speech dogma into other specialized groups in the eighties and it had worked so well it would be perfect for gay community groups also. As a well-coordinated machine, the collective would pounce upon anyone who dared question any in their tight coalition. They’d isolate, criticize and publicly humiliate any who would point out problems or inconsistencies.
The gay community took the bait. They, along with feminists, minorities, unions, progressive socialists, and environmentalists would collectively rise and defend one of their own whether that group or person was right or wrong. Such political cover was a joy to the leaders of the gay community. If a person dared to defy the collective, the power of all the assorted groups would descend like a cloud of locusts upon that person and chew them to shreds. No one dared to ask why political issues like same-sex partnerships or workplace protections weren’t being addressed. They’d be massacred immediately by the collectivist attack machine.
But, many rank and file gay people continued to defy these orders. They were ostracized by the greater collectivists and made to pay with ad hominem attacks and marginalization. The so-called leaders of the gay community made sure their allies knew exactly who needed ‘educating’ by not attacking the issue but instead attacking the person. This removed the question from the table. So now we come to Carrie Prejean.
Perez Hilton wasn’t offended by her answer. He wasn’t even particularly interested in her answer. What he was annoyed by was her refusal to answer it in politically correct gobbledygook. She was not playing the game. She had the audacity to her own opinion. That simply isn’t allowed in the mind of the collectivist. His scree on YouTube was not against her belief in traditional marriage. His scree was personal. He signaled the attack on her. He let the collective know he was offended and that as payback she would have to be eliminated.
This, of course, misses the whole point of a political movement. It isn’t to make people who disagree with you to ‘go away.’ A political movement is to achieve certain goals and raise certain issues. The gay community has bought into this broader coalition that dares not give them their goals. The Democratic Party, which is in firm control of both the Congress and the presidency, could in a New York second pass Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), end gay military discharges, and repeal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). THEY CAN’T. If they pass those three pieces of legislation, the entire gay community will be free to vote their consciences instead of in concert. They’d lose those volunteers, contributors, and voters in a flash. Instead, by keeping the gay community hungry and in need of political cover, they preserve the collectivist coalition.
Carrie Prejean is just a scrap of meat the collectivists have thrown to the gay community to keep them quiet. That is all. There is no politically motivated reason to attack her. There is not issue driving her simple answer. She was used as a political tool to keep the gay community firmly in the collectivist camp and wedged firmly away from the rest of the nation.. The great lie in all this is the idea the Democratic Party is the gay community’s friend. They are not. They are holding the community captive with hope and frightened with friendship. Sharp teeth lie behind the collectivist smile, and the gay community knows it. That is the only reason they made Carrie Prejean a martyr. She is a chit in a political shell game.