Just because we find Trump unfit doesn't mean that we can forget that the Left wants to eat us for lunch

I have not had much use for The Federalist of late, but there is an important piece up at that site right now. It raises the need for consideration of several levels of the present societal dynamics before us.

It's by Glenn T. Stanton, and is a response to a New York Times piece by Peter Wehner and Jonathan Rauch, two public intellectuals who are friends despite coming at many issues from decidedly different perspectives.

Wehner is one of those figures who has irritated me many times over the years, but not enough for me to write him off. He has some solid conservative credential. he served in the Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 administrations. He wrote a book with Arthur C. Brooks on why the free market makes us more moral. He's pro-life and advocates a resolute foreign policy He's currently with the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He's concerned about seeing that Christian faith is able to thrive in our undoubtedly increasingly secular society, which is a good thing. He understands that Trump has been horrible for conservatism.

Still, he has exhibited more than a touch of what I call Reasonable Gentleman Syndrome - a condition similar to being a RINO, I suppose - over the years.

Rauch has characterized himself as an "unrepentantly atheistic Jewish homosexual." He's an interesting mix of traits. Edmund Burke and James Madison are among his first-tier objects of admiration. He firmly believes that two people of the same gender can be married. On the other hand, he opposes hate-crimes laws, or at least did in a 1991 New Republic article.

Anyway, Stanton takes on the argument the two of them make in the NYT:

Rest easy, orthodox Christians, Jews, and Muslims. The New York Times wants you to know there is no reason to fear your conscience protections being steamrolled by the juggernaut that is the queer politics machine.

In a hopeful op-ed titled “We Can Find Common Ground on Gay Rights and Religious Liberty,” with the rest-assured subtitle “It does not have to be all or nothing,” Jonathan Rauch, whom I value as a long and deeply respected friend, and Peter Wehner say the Supreme Court’s recent Bostock decision provides a golden opportunity for religious conservatives and gay activists to “make a deal.” They speak hopefully of mutually beneficial compromise, with both sides attaining their desired freedoms and protections.

While I trust their talk of compromise is well-intentioned, it is profoundly naïve. Both men are intimately aware of the way the queer movement’s leadership has framed the issue and how dutifully their media and elite partisans have carried their water for decades. Their message? Gay rights are civil rights. Full stop.

This truth claim is not a statement of fact. It is one of faith, ideological conviction, and rhetorical strategy. It is aspirational. The mission is for all to adopt this belief and condemn anyone who doesn’t as a hateful bigot. There is no middle ground.

The call of the day used to be “live and let live,” but no more. Now the call is, “You will respect and affirm everything about my new understanding of sexuality and gender, or else.”

This script has been most effective. But if gay and trans rights really are civil rights, their proponents know the first rule of civil rights is that you don’t negotiate them. True justice dictates you demand them, and don’t quiet down until you’ve attained the fullness of every last one. 

About the enthusiasm that Wehner and Rauch share for the Fairness for All Act, Stanton says this:

When a bill’s rosy title signals that if it is passed, all will be right with the world, it’s a good sign someone’s putting rouge on a pig. First, when you negotiate carveouts for religious protections — a first freedom — you give up, not gain, ground.

The Fairness for All Act provides protections for religious schools, colleges, and charities, but these are tremendously narrow and few given the breadth of possible encroachments that will occur as sexual and gender options continue to expand. This will leave not only religious organizations seriously vulnerable, but also medical and social-service professionals whose work is informed by religious convictions. 

What is unsettling about the terrain that Rauch and Wehner share is that it provides fodder to the Trumpists who say, "You pointy-headed think tank dweebs really have no clue how rabid the Left is, do you? How late the hour is, the kind of fight we must mount in the culture war at this stage."

It's a little tricky, because, yes, a fight must be mounted, but Trump's juvenile insults are supremely ineffective weapons.

Two things must be kept in view at all times: the Left's ferocity, and Trumpism's inadequacy as a countervailing force.