It is becoming increasingly obvious. Conservatives stand for nothing but cynicism anymore. Not even the presumption of a moral bullwork against the phony panic button issues they use to manipulate the moral outrage of an impulsive, volatile electorate. Like Senator Mel Martinez’ (R-Fl) Schiavo memo declaring a “great political opportunity,” this is just another example of a pattern of recidivist shameless opportunism.
“Both in lying and in telling the truth people are guided by their beliefs concerning the way things are. These guide them as they endeavor either to describe the world correctly or to describe it deceitfully. […] The bullshitter ignores these demands altogether. He does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are” (Harry G. Frankfurt, On Bullshit; Princeton University Press).

Going with benda here.
This Finklestein article is plain gossip. If anyone brought up Beillin’s homosexuality and his recycled party, nobody would care. So who cares who this Finklestein is sleeping with?
Not me.

Ben D, if you even bothered to tread the quote, you would answer your own question.he toted the party line while being a hypocrite.

“Obviously Republicans stand for nothing but shameless opportunism…”
Karl Rove has more or less admitted that this is at least how he operates.

It’s not just whom he’s sleeping with but whom he’s permitted to marry. The Republican Party explicitly opposes gay marriage, insisting that marriage — and the state and federal benefits it grants — be permitted only between a man and a woman. For an architect of Republican policy to flout that policy in his personal life is typical hypocrisy — much like Republicans opposing abortion while paying for their wives/daughters/mistres ses to “take care of things” out of state.

Hard to pick a quote that isn’t larded through with self-corroborating “everyone knows” type statements, but this one will have to do:
Obviously Republicans stand for nothing but shameless opportunism, as Finkelstein enjoys the very rights that his bread and butter clients would deny others. Good enough to hire, not good enough to marry.
– – – – – – – – – –
… and if he wasn’t “good enough to hire” you would be all over the Republicans for rejecting him – citing THAT as evidence of their prejudice against gays.
Finkelstein is a big boy. He chose to work for the people he did – because he shared other opinions that he felt more important than the gay rights agenda, or simply to further his own career.
He was outed in the mid 1990s – and people who worked with him probably knew sooner. None of these people rejected or denounced him – and there are plenty of consultants as talented as Finkelstein.
From the NY Times:
Over the past 20 years, Mr. Finkelstein had identified himself as a libertarian and an opponent of big government, distancing himself from social conservatives as they have gained political muscle and dominance in the party.
Mr. Finkelstein has regularly described himself as a libertarian who supports same-sex marriage and abortion rights while opposing big government. In an interview with Maariv, an Israeli newspaper, after the American elections last year, he criticized the Republican Party as growing too close to evangelical Christians, warning it could cause long-term damage to the party.
Details of Mr. Finkelstein’s relationship have appeared in regular news accounts over the years, as they did in the Boston Magazine article, which reported that Mr. Finkelstein lived with his partner and two children in Ipswich, Mass.
– – – – – – – – – – –
In other words, the Republican party is big and diverse enough to include both libertarians with Finkelstein’s agenda and religious conservatives with overlapping, but different agendas. None of them dismissed or denounced him, or refused to work with him. He hasn’t worn a sequined jockstrap at any Pride Parades – but he by no means lived a lie, he clearly made his views known. He was respected and people worked with him. Finkelstein himself was free to decide which causes he would work for.
Sounds like good old “reality based” political activity to me.
Sorry if the facts disrupt your cardboad cutout stereotypes of Republicans or religious people.
And it’s always amusing to see the difficulty “freethinking liberals” have with gays, blacks, and others who actually think for themselves. The NERVE of that Finkelstein to wander away from the rhetorical box we’ve defined for him!
Get a clue.
Ben-David

Bill Clinton: Gay GOPer ‘self-loathing’
Former President Bill Clinton wasn’t about to let just anybody attack his wife – especially a gay Republican operative.
Clinton fired back yesterday, suggesting that political consultant Arthur Finkelstein, who has launched a “Stop Her Now” campaign, is suffering from “self-loathing.”
…continues…

Bob Dylan told us not to criticize what we can’t understand, but there goes Zionista again.
“Nu? What is foundation of conservative principle after all?”
It’s very complicated. Conservatism today comes in various forms, each not entirely compatible with the others. The very nature of “conserving” is complex: which era’s qualities are to be conserved? Pre-Enlightenment (traditional/ religious)? Classical liberal (Founding Fathers)? Pre-60’s? To ask for some single “foundation” of conservative principle is to misunderstand conservatism. (Liberalism today is equally various and complex.)
“Is the emphasis on private enterprise or public interest? ”
How about both? Conservatives tend to emphasize private enterprise in the economic sphere and public interest in the social sphere (although this varies for each conservative). No contradiction here.
“What happens when a laissez faire competition, free from the oppression of a regulated level playing field, conflicts with a tendency toward legislative interference into the most intimate moments and personal commitments in American’s lives?”
Hmmm. All depends on the reason for the legislative interference.
“Surely conservatism cannot remain so inconsistent while it claims superiority over the “moral relativism” of liberal humanism, because that would appear… well, opportunistic.”
It’s hardly “inconsistency” where different people in the same movement disagree (it would be nice if liberals/ leftists allowed the same degree of dissent in their own ranks) or where different policies are designed for different spheres. Your view of “consistency” is the foolish consistency that is the hobgoblin of…well, you know.
“Show us all that you are something more than just a cheap bully.”
Ben David is one of the most thoughtful posters here, with an excellent record of making real, content-based arguments rather than throwing around insults. Showing you up, as he did in his last post, doesn’t make him a bully. Why don’t you answer his arguments instead of calling him names?

J: “Showing you up, as he did in his last post, doesn’t make him a bully. Why don’t you answer his arguments instead of calling him names?”
I asked him some questions. Can we at least let him answer before we pronounce me shown up? Meanwhile…
(Cont’d): “Conservatives tend to emphasize private enterprise in the economic sphere and public interest in the social sphere (although this varies for each conservative). No contradiction here.”
Unless we approach the subject of National Wildlife Refuges, forstarters. Stick around, relax. We’ll talk….

Ben-David,
Arthur Finkelstein acted with a freedom that Movement conservatives largely seek to destroy. Your assertion that recognizing and confronting the hypocrisy under these circumstances somehow reveals an intolerance is rather convoluted, since the very right Mr. Finkelstein and his partner exercise is endorsed by liberals for anyone in a similar situation. Your statements leave the impression that you would limit this right only to Finkelstein and his partner. Meanwhile, in the name of “traditional values” Republicans and other conservatives have authored state referenda which would not recognize the Finkelstein marriage.
Ben-David: “Affirmative action and other liberal policies are invasive goverment interventions supported by liberals that redistribute wealth and opportunity based on moral arguments. But isn’t such intervention inconsistent with ‘keep your laws off my body’ and other slogans of (selectively!) laissez-faire morality?”
While I admire your turn of the phrase “laissez-faire morality,” it is nevetheless something of a political non-sequitor. Again, the legal option to abort a pregnancy in no way forces anyone who believes that life begins at conception to opt for the procedure. On the other hand, reductions of regulations limiting the role of private enterprise in the public sphere have a much wider impact beyond the benefit to those taking advantage of the opportunity. For example, allowing the extraction of resources from public lands, without any implementation of conservation standards, agrivates the public problem of depleted resources for the sake of short term private gain. I admit that my participation in affirmative action debates is limited, and on that issue I am open to your point.
Getting back to the larger issues surrounding “traditional values,” I challenge the conservative notion that tradtional values are under any actual assault simply because there are options whereby individuals may guide their own lives by standards not limited by any bibilical or otherwise theological standard. Further, the legitimacy of standards outside of bibilical or otherwise theological standards in no way prohibits you from guiding your life likewise. In fact, liberal values allow room for an actual level playing field in a marketplace of ideas.
Perhaps Movement conservatism once stood for something other than my-way-or-the-highway and every-man-for-himself, but that’s not been the record of those conservatives who now have the power to implement policy.
Finally, I appreciate your articulation of a better argument than “Get a clue.” I know that kind of cheap stunt excites the likes of J, but it is hardly a substitute for substance.

Zionista –
Is it hypocritical for a guy who worked to elect people who were anti-gay-rights to now indulge in the fruits of gay-rights legislation?
Maybe.
Or maybe when Finkelstein started his political activity – almost 30 years ago – he astutely estimated that the time was not ripe to press this issue, and so he promoted other things that were important to him.
Maybe – since he and his partner have children – he was more concerned about shaking up the educational system, or other “family” and “quality of life issues”.
Maybe he agreed with those gay intellectuals who actually oppose the normalization of homosexuality (a memorable NY Times article summed things up nicely in its title:
“Now that Canadian Gays Can Say ‘I Do’, Many Ask: Do I?”).
Maybe now he IS backtracking hypocritically, or has simple mellowed or changed his mind.
I am not responsible to think for Arthur Finkelstein. And neither is anyone else. That’s the point.
Arthur Finkelstein is entitled to lead a multivalent political life. He is not obligated to act as a single-issue stick figure of Gay Victimhood.
Most of the liberals commenting on the Finkelstein nuptials were bothered more by the ideological ‘betrayal’ than by any personal hypocrisy. Most talked about Those Awful People that he associated with. The NY Times had a great quote from a close friend of Finkelstein’s that cut directly to the personal contradiction – but it was the LAST sentence in the piece, after all the huffing about fundamentalists.
Bottom Line: both Finkelstein and the fundamentalists determined and pursued their own political interests – freely, in a mature way. Where they found common cause, they freely chose to work together – and did so in mutual respect. Nobody was ostracised or denounced.
This is what real “tolerance” and “diversity” look like in the real world. The old saying is true: politics often makes strange bedfellows. There are a lot of stranger things in politics than Finkelstein’s conservativism – unless your ideological tunnel vision prevents you from seeing him as a 3 dimensional person.
The charge of hypocrisy is a veiled denunciation of someone who strayed from the politically correct role assigned to him. The inability to accept Finkelstein as Finkelstein – to see beyond the gay label – is an example of the monolithic class-based thinking that many Democrates feel is crippling their party. It is impossible to conceive of a gay person who agrees with conservative ideas, so Bill Clinton expresses the liberal view that Finkelstein “must be a self-loathing homosexual”.
Finkelstein is still a strong voice among conservatives, and an entire wing of the Republican party agrees with his statements about the need to limit religious influence in the party. Many prominent liberals openly wish for such a robust internal debate within the Democratic party.
Zionista – you took another swing at the issue of morality in secular law. But there is no getting around the truth: when liberals legislate their values, it is just as intrusive and invasive as any other moral/political agenda.
Abortion rights activity has already gone way beyond passively ensuring a woman’s right to abort. For example, there have been efforts to remove the requirement of parental notification before aborting the fetus of a minor – undercutting both moral and material aspects of parental authority.
There is the push to support late-term abortion, which is not supported by most Americans. This is a classic example of rigid liberal doctrine at its worst. The prohibition of late-term abortion leaves the woman ample time to exercise her “choice” while recognizing the (social, moral) truth that at some point the pregnancy stops being “fetal tissue” and starts becoming “a baby”.
Yet the abortion-rights absolutists cannot bring themselves to hear the other side, cannot engage in the give and take and political compromise that allow the law to approximate the moral will of the majority.
Arthur Finkelstein and the Republicans – both libertarians and fundamentalists – are able to hear and compromise. That is why the platform they present appeals to so many Americans who are neither libertarians nor fundamentalists.
The liberals are also pushing for socialized medicine – which would produce a situation in which the majority of Americans wind up paying for abortions in circumstances they may not support. Wouldn’t that be an imposition?
Again – the law is an expression of moral values, even in secular America. There is no bright line dividing permitted moral impositions like affirmative action from other moral legislation relating to marriage and other behaviors.
You may perceive the liberal agenda as less onerous because you agree with it – but the electoral results of the past 20 years indicate the most Americans view affirmative action and other morally-motivated liberal interventions as burdensome and contrary to their own values.
I confess to being delighted with your use of the term “movement conservative”. I associate the term “movement” with the Black Panthers and that whole funky range of liberal “movements”. To use this term in reference today’s conservatives – who are much more truly diverse and innovative than their Democrat/liberal counterparts – reveals just how stuck much liberal thought is in the 60s.

Z:
Yes, liberal values have a basis in morality. Keynahora, we have a breakthrough.
– – – – – – – – – – –
So do conservative values have a moral basis. The political debate is engaged when people have conflicting values – or perhaps you agree with the petulant Dems who think all their oponents are morons? You don’t seem this childish or foolish…
If by your Kaynahora, you mean to imply that I had to “admit” this – please reread my posts. YOU were the one who started off trying to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable moral legislation. My point has been that all laws express morality, and all political actors – left and right – seek to express a moral view through the law. I never claimed left-wing policies were immoral.
I’m sure you feel embattled given the shrinking popularity of your ideas – but I did not attack you in the way you describe. I know it is natural to assume the Victimology pose, but I never dissed liberal ideas in this way.
In the next sentence you mention straw men – is this one of them?
Further:
Z: Now let’s see conservative “traditional values” compete on a level intelectual playing field
– – – – – – – – – – – –
They already have – and have consistently won growing support over the last 20 years of American elections. Again: will you dismiss all those who voted against your pet projects as morons?
Further:
Z: …a level intelectual playing field, without the nasty rhetoric and demonizing strawmen of “Massachusetts Liberals,” “trial lawyers,” “homosexual agendas,” “the culture of life” (and the implications toward its “opposition”).
– – – – – – – – – – – –
I have had the dubious pleasure of wearing a kipah in some of the more liberal reaches of America and Europe. I assure you that there is plenty of scaldingly, scatologically “nasty rhetoric” issuing from the left – culminating recently in a “Kill Bush” T-shirt! Now THAT’s a “level intellectual playing field” – pitched at a pretty low level.
You yourself have been schlepping a “straw-man” Christian conservative through this thread, doggedly ignoring the fact that religious people worked side by side with a gay man, showing him great respect.
Finally:
Z: As far as your certainty of the electorate’s ultimate rejection of the “liberal agenda,” all anyone can say is, we’ll see.
– – – – – – – – – – –
… why wait? to those already looking around – or glancing up from their navels – the electorate’s opinion is clear. Has been for 20 years.

One last thing.
Ben-David: “… why wait? to those already looking around – or glancing up from their navels – the electorate’s opinion is clear. Has been for 20 years.”
Sure. Scaring their base constituency to the polls with tales of the homosexual agenda’s assault on traditional values….
(Cont’d): “You yourself have been schlepping a ‘straw-man’ Christian conservative through this thread, doggedly ignoring the fact that religious people worked side by side with a gay man, showing him great respect.”
A respect so great that they would deny him everything he and his partner and other couples in a similar situation would commit to each other, or as Finkelstein explains it, “visitation rights, health care benefits and other human relationship contracts that are taken for granted by all married people should be available to partners.”
It isn’t any liberal elite denying them this. And neither does it diminish the viability or sanctity of any straight couples’ marriage. Have you helped someone or hurt someone today?
Latcho Drom….

“Translate”? What a putz. And a cheap bully too.

J: “Bob Dylan told us not to criticize what we can’t understand, but there goes Zionista again.”
Dylan also said, “you just want to be on the side that’s winning.”