Introduction
So this last week saw a number of tawdry details about politicians’ lives come tumbling out into public view. No, no, I don’t mean anyone from Epstein’s client list. No, friends, let’s be realistic. What are you, crazy?
A Quick Run Down
There was the Democrat lady, Susanna Gibson, running for state rep in Virginia who was revealed to be a producer of homemade porn together with her husband. She live-streamed the porn, posted it online for all to see, used it as a fund-raiser, and then when it blew up as a story, complained about the invasion of her privacy. We all had to sit down for a moment after that one. We can all see now that privacy was a big concern of hers. Good to know, good to know. Very private person.
Then there was the revelation of an ongoing adulterous affair between Kristi Noem, governor of South Dakota (who had apparently been under consideration as Trump’s possible veep choice), and Cory Lewandowski of Trump era fame. There was that. That was a couple of tons of no good. Even though Noem had already taken herself out of conservative favor with her tranny-wobbles, it was still an eyebrow raiser, and the kind of thing that makes you go huh.
And then for the silver medal—well behind Gibson though—came the release of a Boulder theater’s surveillance tape of right-wing congresswoman Rep. Lauren Boebert engaged in a grab fest with her date, a Democrat. He, for his part, is a man who owns a bar that has hosted at least one drag show, which perhaps shows that her conservative values were more adaptable than previously thought.
The only one who came out of the week’s revelations with reputation unscathed was David French. He dwells on top of an aquifer of righteousness, which he can easily draw on for occasions like this.
So Let Us Deal with the French Slam First
David French wants the public square to have room for drag queens to do their thing. He wants them to have access to public libraries in order to be able to read to the widdle kids. His argument for this is a pro-liberty argument, not a pro-drag queen argument. I happen to reject that argument, but I am able to distinguish it from the idea that drag queenery is the best thing since French toast. So to speak. French argues that allowing for such things is “the price we pay for freedom.” So if you follow this line, it would be hitting below the belt to say that David French types “love their drag queens.” His argument is that he loves freedom, and putting up with drag queens is the price you gotta pay. If we get to restrict them, then they get to restrict us, and he doesn’t want that. Thus far the argument.
The thing that makes David French so hypocritical—as opposed to simply wrong—is that he does not apply this standard across the board. A distinction that he grants to himself is one that he refuses to grant to others. How so?
Since freedom is apparently the kind of thing you can go into the marketplace of ideas and purchase, why doesn’t French allow other believers to do the same thing? They are willing to vote for someone like Trump, not because of his adulteries, but rather despite them. They would much rather vote for a true-blue family man—with the marital ethics of Pence, the strategic genius of Stonewall Jackson, and the policy positions of Calvin Coolidge. But alas, we no got. So because Trump is almost certainly going to get the nomination, and is going to be running against some Bolshevik, why is it not permissible for a voter to say “this is the price we have to pay for freedom”? If that makes us enthusiastic for adulteries, as French claimed, then it makes David French enthusiastic for the sexual grooming of children. Equal weights and measures, man.
Why does French get to hold his nose to support the drag queens, and we don’t get to hold our nose as we go to vote for someone like Trump? Trump has been invaluable in a number of ways (always remember Dobbs), but it is also plain he does not have a coherent worldview. He is a very transactional man, and the coinage of his realm is personal loyalty. This is not the same thing as having a biblical worldview, as clearly demonstrated by his recent and (very terrible) answers on heartbeat bills and his fumbling the question of whether a man can become a woman. Couple that kind of thing with his vaccine-pride and his earlier sexual misbehavior, and that constitutes a sufficient price we have to pay for a freedom, right? Because if Trump is elected again, we will have more freedom, and he is not elected, we will have less freedom. But he does bring liabilities with him, and voting for a man with such liabilities is the price we have to pay for freedom. Learned this from David French.
But couldn’t French reply that the selection of our leaders is a sacred trust? We therefore have to stick with our high standards there in that realm, as opposed to what we allow private citizens to do—you know, the grease paint and grooming thing. What French is failing to see is that the zeitgeist, the ethos of the sexual revolution, the mojo behind the tranny-jihad, is in far greater control of our culture than the president is, whoever the president might be. Culture really is upstream from politics, and so cultural leaders are far more influential than political leaders. Which leads to the next point, and then I’ll be done.
The Next Point
I remember a time when it was a matter of political concern that Ronald Reagan had been divorced. The culture had standards of propriety and decency, and the possibility of a divorced man being president was encroaching on those standards. When we compare that buttoned-up era to now, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the remains of last night’s family dinner have been scraped into a bucket, and this morning are the pigs’ breakfast.
What flies in the public square today that didn’t used to fly in the public square? Back in the day, there were certainly people who lived the life of raunch, and there always have been. But they knew better than to bring their behavior out to center stage. They knew better than to demand that the entire society as a society applaud their despicable behavior. And why? Because the society had standards, and was not in such a diseased state as to be unable to defend those standards.
But what occupies positions of cultural influence and leadership now? Pride parades, with applause mandated by HR. Cardi B’s foul song WAP. Drag queens out there being family-friendly. And if they want to define family-friendly as twerking for the six-year-olds, and someone objects, the pressing problem is “what are we doing to do with the bigot?”
There is no question that when a culture starts to disintegrate, you cannot arbitrarily stop the process. You cannot just say, “thus far and no farther.” The rot that we have permitted and countenanced in the realm of entertainment, motel rooms, public libraries, pride month celebrations, award shows, and more is going to spread. And at some point, you will start to get . . . Gibson, Noem, and Boebert. And here we are, right on schedule.