-By Warner Todd Huston
Once in a while you see one of the Old Media’s little anti-conservative tricks that just screams to be pointed out and in a story about Illinois GOP Chair Pat Brady’s apostasy on gay marriage we see one of those tricks screaming out loud and clear.
The story focuses on Chairman Brady’s personal crusade to upset centuries of man/woman marriage traditions only to replace them with an anything-goes marriage policy. Chairman Brady has stepped aside from his role as Chairman of the Party, decided not to abide by his own party’s platform, and entered into a campaign to legalize gay marriage in Illinois.
I don’t begrudge the chairman his personal opinion, of course. I also appreciate that he is going to pains to note that he is doing this outside his role as GOP chairman–though I am not sure how one can easily separate the roles. I mean, when a party chairman calls you on the phone, regardless of what he is saying you are still talking to the party chairman!
Regardless, Brady says he feels that the GOP is “on the wrong side of history” on the issue of eliminating traditional marriage. This, to me, is not a logical position to take. “History” is not always right. “History” once supported keeping women from voting. That changed. That was good. “History” has also said that “social issues” are more important to teach our children in school than reading, writing, and arithmetic. One change was good. The other not so much, but BOTH were “on the side of history” and the times. It seems that “history” is sometimes on the wrong side of… well, of history.
You can give a million examples from all over the world where “history” was both wrong and right. Being “on the side of history” is no panacea to morality. It is the issue that matters, not the measure of public opinion.
Anyway, whatever. Mr. Brady has his opinion and it is one that runs contrary to conservative principles.
That all being said, the Old Media is desperate to use Mr. Brady as a way to attack Republicans and a recent piece written by the Daily Herald’s Mike Riopell reveals that attempt.
Riopell’s piece notes that Brady launched his little anti-conservative campaign to undermine traditional families but noted that for all his phone calls and cajoling he only got one vote. So, what does this ONE vote mean to the Daily Herald’s Mike Riopell?
Check out his penultimate paragraph (my bold):
The flap over Brady’s views on same-sex marriage emphasizes a divide in the GOP over some social issues, but he points out Democrats weren’t united on the issue, either
“Emphasizes a divide”? Let’s review, shall we? One guy (Pat Brady) went on a personal campaign to tear down traditional marriage and after all the efforts he got one vote to go his way (Freshman GOP senator Jason Barickman).
One guy–one opinion–one vote.
How is it a “divide” when 99.9% of the party and all its elected senators but one ignored Brady’s advice?
Obviously there is no divide, at least not as evinced in this vote What we are seeing here is Mike Riopell’s attempt to create a divide where none really exists. And that, my friends, is a typical, Old Media rhetorical trick to manufacture a reality to replace the truth.