No, gays shouldn’t disown their Trump-supporting, Republican friends


In April, when the LGBT Left turned the U.S. Census into its own Joan Crawford wire hanger moment, I argued the movement was becoming its own worst enemy in the post-marriage equality era. Over the last three months LGBT liberals continue to prove my point.

“We drop friends all the time for a whole variety of reasons—they messed with our loves lives, they lied, they weren’t supportive—so why do some people think it’s such an outlandish idea to dump them for their political views,” Out.com’s Michael Musto mused.

His advice when it comes to Republican friends, especially gay Republicans? “Bye, Felecia!”

Musto’s advocacy for shunning those who hold opposing political views and creating a protective bubble is not a new one. For years, small groups of people have long separated themselves from opposing thoughts and isolated themselves from competing ideas. We called them cults.

But those of us living in a civilized society understand that we are charged with the responsibility of keeping open minds and being receptive to new ideas. This does not mean one embraces every counter point, but it does hold that one shows respect to those holding such points by engagement.

Why it is good to stay plugged in to the marketplace of ideas? Only in the marketplace can you win over the hearts and minds of the public. Does anyone really think marriage equality would have won the day if Musto’s isolation of thought was in place?

Make no mistake: Those who advocate a departure from the marketplace of ideas are usually those who are losing the battle of wits. Defeated and defenseless, their only option is retreat. Even Musto seems to recognize this premise but seeks to rationalize his flight in lieu of fight by arguing those who support Trump are hideous.

Musto asks: “Am I cutting myself off from meaningful discourse? I don’t believe so; I feel I’m short circuiting the chance to hear odious apologias and offensive attempts at spin.” He also charged Trump supporters with supporting “hideousness, which involves attempting to diminish rights for women, LGBTQs, Muslims, immigrants, the arts, and the non-rich, not to mention all those treasonous-sounding doings with Russia.”

Musto is using the “dehumanization of dissent” to run for cover. Coined by scholar Paul Gottfried in his book “After Liberalism: Mass Democracy in the Managerial State,” the dehumanization of dissent is an attempt to label critics as bigots, mentally-ill, and evil so that their arguments are automatically discredited.

One would not debate Hitler, so why does Musto have to debate gay Trump supporters? But in a world where the Hitler card is played more than the race card, people aren’t buying it.

Like it or not, Trump’s America First policies have attracted a large cross-section of the nation, including members of the LGBT community. By ending friendships and purging contrary political thought from his life, Musto is symbolic of a LGBT Left that sees its relevance receding in a post-marriage equality world.

The more LGBT liberals act like they taking orders from Jonestown, the more isolated they are from the public policy debate. Unable to adapt in a post-marriage equality world and unable to accept a Trump victory, LGBT liberals have written their own political epitaphs.

Maybe they can think about that in their ideological isolation.

Joseph Murray (@realJoeMurray) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. Previously, he was a campaign official for Pat Buchanan. He is the author of “Odd Man Out” and is administrator of the LGBTrump Facebook page.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

Source