Erick Erickson on The Resurgent seems resentful that a not unknown tactic was used by the gay community to improve their lot in life:
In the book After the Ball, psychologist Marshall Kirk and ad man Hunter Madsen painted a picture of what the gay rights movement should do to normalize and advance their agenda in America. The book came out in 1990. Kirk and Madsen treated their book as a manifesto and we have witnessed their vision.
The propaganda effort the authors set out included inserting gay men and women into Hollywood to start writing shows with gay positive characters, then make gay characters normal characters on shows. They would get friends in the media to positively cover the gay rights movement. Advertisers would feature gay men and women in advertisements as an ideal. Gay celebrities would be championed. Churches too would be involved, with liberal churches rejecting Christian orthodoxy championed and those that kept the faith vilified. …
Using the media, activists on the left truly do aim to divide up this country. Gun owners are increasingly portrayed as a hostile, rogue fringe by the media. Christians are now intolerant bigots who must be stamped out. Large families are bad too. Their carbon footprint must be reduced. Culture is being shaped by PR and the media is so busy generating outrage for clicks and revenue it does not realize it is being played. But of course some of the media is complicit.
“At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights—long after other gay ads have become commonplace—it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents,” Kirk and Madsen wrote. “To be blunt, they must be vilified.”
Is Erickson truly unconscious of the fact that this is a path already traveled by an element of the conservative movement? While I don’t know if long-time NRA Executive VP Wayne LaPierre and his compatriots published a manifesto, it’s very easy to identify the same elements in the absolute gun rights movement as Erickson claims to see in the gay rights movement: division of society, vilification of opponents, use of media such as magazines, books, and movies to “normalize” an extreme position. In support of gun rights absolutism, I can testify to reading a number of such articles in REASON Magazine over the years, often featuring Professor James Lott’s imprimatur; uncountable movies have popularized the use of heavy weapons in defense of house and home; scholarly studies to bolster the assertion that more guns makes for more safety.
So Erickson’s outrage is either hypocritical or deeply blind to his own side’s methods. The fact of the matter is that this is simply a way to bring an agenda in front of the mass audience; the problem Erickson ignores is that the mass audience then has to digest and decide whether or not to accept it.
Has it done so with gay people? While much progress has been made, I don’t think it’s quite there. It’s still a matter of education and consideration. Why do I say that? I recall the struggle in Minnesota over the gay marriage amendment (which basically said marriage was between a man and a woman), and how that moved from solidly Yes to a victory for the pro-gay, No side. To me, that was folks considering the issue for the first time and changing their positions according to their reasoning.
How about absolute gun rights? Polls suggest that, upon due consideration, absolute gun rights are not accepted by most of the United States population. The reasoning presented by gun rights absolutists has not been convincing, and the incidents that have been occurring have also militated against that position. SCOTUS has certainly indicated that limitations on gun rights are acceptable, so this isn’t a case of popular whimsy butting up against a bulwark of the Republic. If we want to give the American public credit for thinking for itself, which can be hard to do some days, then Erickson must accept both results. And chew on the fact that advocates of both agendas have used the same strategy for advancing its agenda.
It’s just that some agendas are more worthy than others.
