The Carrie Prejean story is one of those awful things that never quite goes away, and yet I have become more and more interested in it. It seems to show a lot about how the left controls society.
I was reading the “Savage Love” column recently, for those of you not familiar with it a sex advice column written by a homosexual man that has long run in free weeklies. A reader, who identifies himself as strongly for gay rights, writes to object that Savage has gone in with Perez Hilton on the vilification of Carrie Prejean. The column is here-
Savage tells him he originally did not go along with this, but later did due to further statements by Prejean changed his mind. First however the state of mind of the reader.
The reader is uncomfortable with the attack on Prejean, but why? I speculate it is because he wants it to be thought he supports gay marriage because he is a reasonable person, and not because he is terrified of being publicly humiliated. To an observant person who doesn’t care, or cares but does not want to be aggressively trashed, the obvious lesson from this incident is to answer, when asked, that you support gay marriage. Those who oppose it will not try to destroy you if you say this, but those who support it will if you say you don’t, so saying you support it is the safe, non-controversial answer.
But if the safe thing is to support gay marriage, where is the reward in doing so? People who support it because they actually believe in it would like to be thought well of for it, not merely left alone by the hyenas. What the reader does not understand is that he, and others like him, must solve this problem by actively, and not merely passively, showing their support and working for the establishment of the desired policy.
This is true for any socialist issue. There will be three groups that materialize. The first is opposed, and will be attacked. The second assents, and will be left alone. The third actively supports, agitates, and promotes the policy, and gains power and status by doing so.
The problem comes in when those in the third group try to maneuver for leadership, as they always will. They get more aggressive, and the bar keeps getting moved. Mere assent is not enough. After all if you can protect yourself just by assenting maybe you aren’t really a supporter after all, just an opportunist. Mere assent is then punished, and some level of activism is required for safety. But if one attends meetings and gets up to the microphone to voice support, maybe this too is only to make oneself comfortable, and neither this will guarantee safety.
Something very much like a feeding frenzy may result. Under historical Stalinism the initiators of the process often became its victims fairly quickly, because the process assumes a life of its own. I hesitate to say it becomes “uncontrollable” because probably there were those who understood the process, knew what was happening, and pointed it in the direction they wanted it to go.
The reader is very naive and seems to think people will believe as they will and the chips will fall where they may, most likely for gay marriage because that is what decent people want and most people are decent.
From what I know of Savage he is a perceptive and intelligent person. I saw him on the local access channel in Seattle a few years ago talking about the culture of the city, exhibiting an uncommon insight. I don’t doubt he is inclined from the beginning to view Prejean as a silly, repressed, and not very bright child. But I doubt the idea of shaming her appeals to him. I think he saw that his credentials would be questioned if he didn’t go along so he did. Perez Hilton is a repulsive toad who lives to humiliate people far more accomplished, attractive and loved than he could ever dream of being. His treatment of Prejean is just what he does every day anyway, so it hardly rates any mention. I think Savage genuinely wants to help people, as well as make some money and notoriety with his column, so it is worse to see him go along with it.
The problem then is not the Hiltons (or Olbermanns) because they are always part of the population, but the Savages who go along with them out of convenience.