The Ugly Side of Social Conservatism

The Republican Party is generally known as the pro-military party. Even when its members create foreign policy blunders like the Iraq war, it is rarely seen struggling to maintain its image as a party that supports the troops, supports military expansion and the use of that military. This is typically the realm of the Democrats, who have historically found challenges in cultivating such an image.

At tonight’s CNN YouTube Debate for Republican presidential candidates, a video question was asked by Retired U.S. Army Brigadier General Keith Kerr, and host Anderson Cooper immediately revealed that Kerr was in the audience. Given the Republican Party’s pro-military image, you would think it would be second nature for the partisan audience to provide a convincing ovation for the General’s 43 years of service, and for the candidates to shower him with appreciation for that service. At the last Democratic debate, the audience gave an Iraq veteran a powerful standing ovation before he even had a chance to ask his question. Military appreciation is part of American culture.

Tonight’s debate was a different story, though, as General Kerr was greeted by a lackluster applause likely half-forced by the CNN staff. This was because Kerr revealed that he was gay, and he asked the candidates why they believed men and women in uniform were not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.

Kerr served his country for over four decades, rising through the ranks to become a brigadier general, and revealed after he had retired that he was gay. If he had done so before he had retired, the military would have been forced to discharge him under the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy. Kerr pointed out that two people are removed from the United States Armed Forces daily due to their sexuality, regardless of the vital contributions they had given to an already strained military.

Earlier in the debate, I found myself agreeing with the GOP candidates on some issues, such as wasteful spending and curbing illegal immigration. On other issues I differed, like Iraq and taxes, but I could always respect where they were coming from. The entire scene surrounding Kerr’s question disgusted me.

The first candidate to respond was California Representative Duncan Hunter, who briefly thanked Kerr for his service then prefaced his opinion by stating that he agreed with the view of moderate former Secretary of State Colin Powell, as if to remove himself from the statement he was about to make. Hunter claimed that gays in the military were bad for cohesion, and his reasoning was that most of those who serve in the military have conservative values and see homosexuality as immoral, and that it would be a disservice to them to “force” them to be around gays. Essentially, Hunter said to General Kerr’s face that it’s wrong because we believe it’s wrong. He offered no tangible evidence that having a gay person in the military makes a unit less cohesive, only that many in uniform think homosexuality is wrong and are therefore uncomfortable around homosexuals.

Shouldn’t a politician be saying what they believe and not just echoing the views of those who elected them?

The second candidate to speak was former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. He pointed out that the Uniform Code of Military Justice specifies that what matters is the conduct of the serviceman or woman, and whether or not it affects cohesiveness, morale, or anything else. As much as I respect Huckabee, I can’t seem to think of what kind of conduct he might be referring to. After having declared their sexuality, what exactly would a homosexual do differently from a heterosexual while on active duty? After having passed through initial screening and training, isn’t everyone qualified to be in uniform? I think it partially comes down to some deep-seeded fear in socially conservative men that given the chance gay men would be constantly attempting sexual advances on other men, having physical relations in front of them, or trying to convert them to homosexuality. A gay man wouldn’t make a pass at another man any more often than a straight man would make a pass at a woman, and social conservatives need to realize that homosexuality is not a choice and it therefore cannot be viewed as a movement with an agenda.

The third candidate to speak was former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, whose answer was the most confusing. Host Anderson Cooper recited a statement Romney had made years ago, which read “I look forward to the day that gays can serve openly in the military”. In true Romney fashion, he rejected his own previous opinions by stating “Today is not that day”. When Cooper pressed Romney on whether he still looked forward to that day, Romney danced around and avoided answering; getting boos from sections of the audience. And people call Hillary calculating?

Kerr was then given a chance to comment on the responses his question received. Clearly unsatisfied, the feeble aging man explained how he thought servicemen and women were professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians into a microphone which cut off half way through his sentence. He finished after being handed a replacement microphone. The result of his courageous statement was a few jeers from sections of the audience and an eventual cutting off by Anderson Cooper. This man deserved much, much better.

Arizona Senator John McCain was the last candidate to speak, thanking Kerr for his service and explaining that military leaders he had spoken to had said that the current policy was working.

Most pertinent to Kerr’s question is the idea that these Republican candidates do not believe that military men and women are professional enough to work alongside gays and lesbians. Remember, this is the party that constantly touts that the U.S. military is the best in the world in every aspect, worthy of any challenge and the utmost respect. This view easily has its merits. Tonight, though, this issue forced them to express a clear doubt in the military’s ability to meet a particular challenge, in a tone completely devoid of disappointment, and without any tangible evidence. Behold the irrationality of social conservatism.