In search of Conservatism instead of Liberal-lite

Five years ago – Feb. 27, 2008, to be exact – National Review founder William F. Buckley, Jr. died while working at his desk in his home study.

In the March 24, 2008 edition of NR, the editors rightfully devoted the majority of the magazine's editorial space to WFB.

From his Page 14 obituary, we read: "Before he was a conservative, Buckley was devoted to his family and his church."

Let's keep that sentiment in mind.

Let's also keep in mind former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's Page 32 tribute to his friend of more than half a century.

"As the years went by, Bill's legendary resistance to medical advice became the principal issue between us. … On the day before Bill died, he went to see his doctor, for once without any prompting. The next morning, Bill parted from us while sitting at his desk, leaving a hole in our lives and having enhanced the glory of our nation and the nobility of the cause of freedom."

And then, on Page 64 of that wonderful March 24, 2008 National Review, from WFB's son, Christopher Buckley: "Great men are not idlers; their idle is set too high. They are built for speed. I myself was built to lie on the sand and drink beer and be fanned by island ladies. But I am not a great man."

(I like Chris Buckley's self-description.)

By most any measure, William F. Buckley, Jr. was a great man.

Prior to his death and prior to the passing of his wife, Patricia, their steadfast refusal to accept as one of the family's own (an out-of-marriage child fathered by son, Chris) became a subject of rather insignificant news and perhaps overheated public opinion, given that the parties were not public officials.

Regardless of popular opinion, WFB remained a man of principle and conviction.

Some may say he went a bit overboard with his convictions, as he occasionally did with his sailing.

Many years ago, WFB's magazine published an endorsement of then-Congressman Rob Portman for president of the United States. The endorsement was made by a Clinton administration Cabinet member, former drug czar Gen. Barry McCaffrey.

Last week, the former congressman and current Republican U.S. senator from Hamilton County made a stunning announcement to the world that his son is a homosexual.

"I’ve thought a great deal about this issue, and like millions of Americans in recent years, I’ve changed my mind on the question of marriage for same-sex couples," Portman said.

"As we strive as a nation to form a more perfect union, I believe all of our sons and daughters ought to have the same opportunity to experience the joy and stability of marriage."

Portman admitted to having this information from his son two years, just after his Ohio senatorial campaign and prior to his much-discussed possibility of being Mitt Romney's running mate last year.

Portman added this qualifier in his public announcement about his son.

"Well-intentioned people can disagree on the question of marriage for gay couples, and maintaining religious freedom is as important as pursuing civil marriage rights. For example, I believe that no law should force religious institutions to perform weddings or recognize marriages they don’t approve of."

An interesting choice of words, no doubt.

So are these by the senator: "With the overwhelming majority of young people in support of allowing gay couples to marry, in some respects the issue has become more generational than partisan."

Really?

C'mon, Senator. That's a very poor justification for your change of heart.

A majority of young people might be in favor of a lot of things: e.g., driving beyond the speed limit, driving while texting or talking on a cell phone, experimenting with drugs, etc., etc.

You, as a member of the U.S. Senate, ought to make a better argument in this case than simply saying – with no factual documentation – that: "With the overwhelming majority of young people in support of allowing gay couples to marry, in some respects the issue has become more generational than partisan."

With all due respect, that's painting with a pretty broad social brush, while insulting a considerable number of "young people" by pretending to express their views. The only view that really matters in this case is the senator's and how it may impact public policy in Ohio and across the nation.

Granted, more than a few Highland County Press readers have pointed out with accuracy, that I have been a Rob Portman supporter since we met many years ago in southern Ohio. I still recall seeing Rob in the old tobacco warehouse in Ripley. He was wearing a faded Carhartt jacket and I was chewing Levi Garrett chewing tobacco. (Sparky Lyle's brand.)

For the record, I stand by my longtime support of Rob Portman and I do not see that changing. But that doesn't mean we can't disagree. (And, for the record, our disagreement on this issue centers on the senator's expediency, not his son's sexual orientation.)  

Here are my thoughts (purely from an analytical perspective), as I have previously shared with fewer than 10 friends and family members.

Why did Sen. Portman pick the most personally and politically convenient moment to make the announcement, right down to a Friday and NCAA Selection Sunday/St. Patrick's Day weekend?

Those of us in the business and media world have a standing joke about Friday announcements. Corporate America prefers Fridays for personnel terminations and for any unavoidable announcements of bad news. There's a reason. (The media's attention span is less than that of a 6-week-old golden retriever.)

If the senator had this knowledge two years ago, why permit the charade of being a possible VP nomination for Romney, who is openly opposed to same-sex marriage?

By campaigning as a true conservative, and having voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act as a congressman in 1996, how does the senator justify this reversal with those conservatives who supported him for Congress and the Senate?

Personally, I am a live-and-let-live Libertarian. There are two popular topics of debate which I have never editorialized on: Abortion and homosexuality. My thoughts on those subjects are as personal as the subjects themselves.

But I am not a senatorial lawmaker.

What politicians ought to come to grips with is this: Where do they place their legislative loyalties and promises to the voters who elect them?

If one had served for several years as a conservative congressman, and stalwart champion of Second Amendment rights, and one day – Heaven forbid – a family member is shot and killed, does one then have justification to insert his or her newfound personal opposition to guns into the legislative thought process? And, if so, how is that not a disservice to those who voted for him or her?

Similarly, if a liberal like Barack Obama campaigned – as he did – for a bigger and broader government, and then, upon election, eliminated federal agencies such as the National Endowment for the Arts, the Department of Education, Health and Human Services, etc., how would that be interpreted by the liberals who put him into office?

All emotions and family issues removed from the debate, Senator Portman owes his supporters an apology. Especially for sitting on this revelation for two years and during a presidential election of which he had a major role.

To borrow a phrase from William F. Buckley's brother-in-law and Media Research Center President Brent Bozell, while speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference this weekend, "This is not conservatism. It is, literally, Democrat Lite."

We might as well get used to it, too.

Rory Ryan is publisher of The Highland County Press.