The New Right:
A Response to Chadwick Moore
What to do with Chadwick Moore? In the days after his “coming out” as a NYC resident Republican through his article on the New York Post, he has sparked outrage from the left and celebrations from the right, leaving the majority of the crowd unsure what all the shouting is about. The first thing of supreme importance that Chadwick Moore would like you to know, is that he is gay. Not only gay, but a gay conservative. In his dual articles, the first a coverage of Milo Yiannopoulos, and the second a personal piece on his newfound political party, Moore portrays himself as an icon of veracity, supposedly sifting through the lies of the left to explain the failure of Democrats and the dangers of groupthink. This account is not a condensed version of his two articles, nor is it in any way a critical analysis of their impact; instead, it seeks to analyze the foundations of Moore’s argument, and critique the madness, if not the method.
Methodically, Mr. Moore seems impenetrable; in his first article the expert journalist offers a relatively unbiased (or what seems to be unbiased at the time) interview with Milo Yiannopoulos, a highly controversial “twitter troll”, whose headlines have been “Would You Rather Your Child Had Feminism or Cancer?”, and ““Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy”. This article seems neutral, with only brief glimpses into Moore’s inner thoughts through small reflections and penetrating questions. But, after Moore’s move toward the right in his second article, his first suddenly becomes more interesting — was he swayed by Milo Yiannopoulos thoughts? Or was the interview biased — based on a rejection of liberal ideas that only consciously manifested after the article was published? What we do know, is that his decision to talk about Yiannopoulos was nuanced. He is no green journalist, he knew that the decision to talk about one of the most hated men in the world would have backlash, much less associate him with the gay movement by putting the account in the Out magazine. Moreover, we know that he does not sympathize wholly with Yiannopoulos; the last question he asks Milo, was whether “his assertions about the mission of the alt-right are based on reality”. I couldn’t have phrased that any better.
But his attention to method, and his attempt to stay “neutral”, all ends in his second article. In it, he first acknowledges that he predicted the “controversial” nature of covering Milo Yiannopoulos, but then he awkwardly shuffles off to talk about his surprise at the animosity the article receives. He does this throughout the article, first talking about his reticence with President Trump, and then generalizing all Trump’s supporters as “engaging” when compared to Democrats. He has forgotten about the middle. Where, in his article, does he talk about the Moderate Democrats? He characterizes all of New York as a “liberal bubble”, and would like us to think that the entire Democratic Party are radicals who have mobilized generations to step in line in tasteless formations.
“And I began to realize that maybe my opinions just didn’t fit in with the liberal status quo, which seems to mean that you must absolutely hate Trump, his supporters and everything they believe. If you dare not to protest or boycott Trump, you are a traitor.” (Moore)
Moore claims that all Democrats, or at least all of the ones living in New York, are living in a “bubble”, and are “incurious and mean-spirited”; but, he refuses to acknowledge the fact that there are many conservatives that are more radical than him, and there are liberals that are more “right-oriented” than him. He acts like we should all be either scared, angry, or ecstatic that gay men living in New York City could be Republican — in short, he does what he condemns the Democratic Party for, generalizing groups of people without serious analysis. We agree that he should have the right to free speech, that ideas are not “dangerous”, people are; but we can strongly disagree without impeding his free speech.
In many ways, Moore is a product of this election — an election so divisive to both parties that it seems to have burned out the important moderates in discussions. His account is an unconscious testament to the power of Trump’s Presidency: we now live in a world where you have to choose one party or the other — at least that’s what he seems to believe.
Towards the end of the article, Moore abandons all methods of persuasion for his own personal beliefs, citing Ann Coulter as “smart and funny and not a totally hateful, self-righteous bigot” — the same woman who called the disenfranchisement of women a “pipe dream”. But perhaps I am, as Donald Trump’s Twitter Retinue says, overreacting, that this is just “bathroom-talk” not meant to be taken seriously. And that, I suppose, is the real Democrat’s flaw: we believe what people say — when Yiannopoulos says things like “women don’t act this way” and compares feminism to cancer, when global warming is denounced as a “hoax” — we, unlike some Republicans, cannot turn the other cheek and, in step formation, go and vote for them nonetheless. We cannot claim to support family values, and then vote for “pussy-grabbing”; we cannot claim we believe in national security, and then refuse to listen to the CIA and FBI when credible charges of election fraud are raised; we cannot get on PRIDE Parades and then support Mike Pence’s Electroshock therapy, or call Trump “Daddy”; we cannot believe in the freedom of religion, and talk about wanting a Muslim Ban.
Yes, the Democrats are known to have “tribalism”, and yes many of us are embarrassed at the personal response Moore’s article of Yiannopoulos received, but his vision of politics that generalizes all Democrats, and blindly tries to explain Republicanism as the ultimate truth just rubs us the wrong way. And we’re allowed to say that.
Editor's Note: It should not need saying that the views expressed by the subject of this piece in no way represent the…www.out.com