After collaborating with gay associates for almost thirty years, I’ve reached the conclusion that most gay men hold a fundamentally center/right view on most economic and national security issues.  The over-riding feeling expressed to me from my gay friends is the deeply held desire to be left alone.  And after watching GOProud Chairman Christopher Barron take this obnoxious attack from non-entity Cenk Uyger for having the temerity to identify himself as a conservative, I’ve reached the greater conclusion that the conservative movement needs articulate and courageous voices like this as part of our team.

As Mr. Barron puts it: “I have an easier time being openly gay with conservatives than I do being a conservative with other gay people.”  So, if CPAC and the Republican Party can be accepting of gay conservatives who don’t hold exactly to every single position espoused by the party, why can’t Broadway do the same?

The chill wind of intolerance was most evident when the Broadway community “outed” Sacremento Music Theatre executive Scott Eckern as a financial supporter of California’s Proposition 8 campaign which defined marriage in the state as being between one man and one woman (you know, the definition we’ve lived with for thousands of years). Unlike Mr. Barron who does not equate opposition to same-sex marriage with bigotry, the tolerant voices of Broadway sang out at fortissimo against the shocking and intolerable position that Eckern shared with the majority of Americans, including President Obama.

Eckern, classy and dignified, stepped down from his position so as to save his board the difficult task of dealing with the controversy, and the authoritarian leftists who populate Broadway choruses, wardrobe departments and front offices had a very, high-profile scalp for their efforts.  And, the clear message was sent to anyone else in the industry who might dare to think that marriage should stay defined as being between a man and a woman: Keep your bigoted mouth shut.

In response to the Prop 8 victory, Broadway composer Marc Shaiman put together this video mocking religion and characterizing Prop. 8 supporters as stupid and hypocritical while depicting supporters as intelligent, cool and enlightened:

The sketch was also performed live at a fundraiser supporting same-sex marriage efforts called “Defying Inequality” that raised $400,000 for gay rights groups.

The strict adherence to the gay left dogma can be seen in the product put forth on Broadway’s stages as well. Last year’s “Next Fall” about a gay couple comprised of a Christian and an atheist portrayed Christian Southerners as backward, hypocritical dolts while the atheist, liberal New Yorker is enlightened and full of wit.  It was produced by no less than Elton John and it received nearly unanimous raves from New York’s liberal theatre critics.  Of course, “Next Fall” was rewarded with a Tony nomination for Best Play.  The Broadway audience was not as kind to “Next Fall” and it closed after only 132 performances.

Meanwhile, one is hard pressed to find any play on Broadway in the past two decades that deals with any contrary viewpoint of left-wing gay politics with anything but derision. Characters expressing any opposing position are depicted as stupid at best, evil at worst. From Tony Kushner to Terrance McNally to Eve Ensler, playwrights who promote the extreme gay political position are celebrated, even when their behavior is repulsive (like when Ensler asked a six-year-old girl what her vagina smelled like as part of her “research” for 10th anniversary edition of “The Vagina Monologues”). The closest thing one can find to a gay-themed play that features a Republican in a positive role is an Off-Broadway disaster called “Abraham Lincoln’s Big, Gay Dance Party” which “celebrates” the founder of the GOP as a bisexual.

The intolerance also affects the performers on Broadway. The “tolerant” left went crazy when Broadway diva Kristin Chenoweth appeared on the 700 Club to promote her album of Christian music.  Of course, Ms. Chenoweth has been nothing but supportive of the gay community and has spent exhaustive amounts of volunteer time on behalf of AIDS charities, but the fact that she would even appear on the “hate-filled” 700 Club inspired a “Boycott Kristin Chenoweth” movement that actually caused a bit of damage to her stellar reputation.  Ms. Chenoweth had to bend over backwards to accommodate the intolerant and close-minded gay-left who couldn’t see fit to allow her to promote her album to people who might not share their views.

So, as the Republican Party embarks on this very healthy and invigorating internal discussion over the inclusion of gay republicans who agree with so much of our political agenda, I yearn for a day when such an open and frank discussion could be had within the theatrical community populated by folks who pretend to be the most open-minded artists in the world but actually resemble the city council in “Footloose”.

Until Broadway opens its mind and starts including a diversity of opinion amongst its artistic ranks, how can true creativity thrive?

There are a lot of other things in this story that make me question Mark Sanford’s judgment. How can any sane man think that he can jet off to South America for a week and have it go unnoticed? My brother runs a pizza joint and if he shows up fifteen minutes late the place is in chaos. How can a guy who runs a state think he can go off the grid for a week? I have long believed that a secret is only a secret if just one person knows it. How did the Governor’s love email get out? Gov. Sanford’s mistress claims her account was hacked. That means someone knew where to look for these love letters.

Here is another problem: Almost no one gets caught the first time they break a rule or a law. I am gonna guess that Governor Stanford has had another girlfriend or two in his past. I believe in forgiveness and that people can change but you do that in private and not while you are trying to fend off the liberals who are trying to ruin our country while your ex-mistresses are popping out of the woodwork. Mark Stanford needs to make some apologies and a quick exit from the political stage.

When he turns in his papers, I have the perfect person to replace him: his wife Jenny Sanford. She has been reported to be one of his top advisors and has experience in business and government. I also think she gives the other Republican Party hottie, Sarah Palin, a run for her money in the looks department. Here is what I like most about Jenny Sanford; she was not standing next to her husband when he gave his apology for his Argentine adventure. I have often wondered where these politicians find women who are willing to walk out behind them after they have been treated like doormats. She gave her husband a chance to straighten up when she found out about the affair a few months ago but now she is telling him to go suck eggs. She cares more about herself, herself self-respect and her values than the power of being First Lady of South Carolina with the possibility of moving up in a few years. If Hillary Clinton had that kind of spine, she would be sitting in the big chair right now instead of hoping that she can hang on and get her shot in 2016.

It is both reasonable and fair to ask reformers of the Republican Party – those suggesting that we jettison the right wing and seek the gooey center of American politics — exactly how many of their convictions they are willing to compromise in pursuit of electoral success. It is also fair and reasonable to ask whether the people can truly admire or trust any public servant that is willing to sacrifice their convictions upon the altar of political power.

Party reformers are quick to point to the Democratic Party model that has proved successful, to whit: silencing the far left of their party and supporting centrist or blue dog candidates. Or so they say. The list of pro-life, pro-family, pro-second amendment, Global warming skeptic democrats in party leadership positions is very short indeed.

More significantly, a new liberal by any other name is, well, still a new liberal. The bed-sheets in the white house had barely been changed before the newly empowered party approved new funding for abortions internationally and attempted to hide funding for domestic abortion clinics in the stimulus bill, moved to nationalize banks and auto manufactures, pushed to nationalize healthcare, reversed welfare reform and killed the D.C. school voucher program. Then they had lunch. No. Far from moving to the center — from abandoning their principles — democrats simply lied about what they were up to. In some circles this is called being politically savvy; in others it is more correctly called being dishonest. And there is a reason the left is deceptive about their intentions: they know that if they told the truth they could only get elected in California and certain districts of Caracas.

Conversely the conservative principles of family, faith, personal liberty and entrepreneurship are the very values that resonate with the vast majority of the American people; we need not be fearful of espousing them. Indeed we ought to shout them from the rooftops. But principle is not a brand and it is the Republican brand that is in need of a bit of spit and polish. The party brand has become associated with disingenuousness and weakness, two traits the American people do not suffer lightly (as Democrats will no doubt discover after the honeymoon ends.)

Two recent examples.

In March congressional Republicans lambasted the earmarks in the stimulus bill claiming their Democratic colleagues were not serious about cutting wasteful spending. The furor died down when it was revealed that a full 40% of the earmarks were going to Republicans. It is difficult for voters to take seriously Republican promises to guard the public trough from pork barrel spending when they are sopping their biscuits in the gravy.

Last week the Media reported that the Social Security and Medicare Trust funds will become insolvent much sooner than predicted. Republicans have begun to play “I told you so.” The problem is that 4 years ago when former President George W. Bush attempted to transform Social Security Congressional Republicans retreated from the challenge. Perhaps they were high on the satisfaction of having created a brand new entitlement: prescription drug benefits. It is next to impossible to present oneself as the party of entitlement reform after having created a new entitlement boondoggle and failing to find the political will to reform another.

On the issues people care most about – health care and the health of this economy– the GOP has failed to define the debate and are in danger of being outflanked by the left just as they were outflanked on social issues. Where the party should have credibility it has lost trust and most importantly when it should have been leading it instead decided to follow.

The conversation Republicans ought to be having is one that has nothing to do with party moderates versus conservatives and everything to do with repairing a brand by standing up for those principles that most Americans still believe in.

Joseph C. Phillips is the author of “He Talk Like a White Boy” available wherever books are sold.

I read through all of the comments on this site and on others that linked to the article, and rather than jump in, I thought I would address some of the consistent themes here.

To clarify, the overall idea is that Conservatism needs to be packaged and sold on an overriding concept:  freedom and personal liberty.  The secondary attribute of this concept is the natural extension that government should be small, unobtrusive, and focused on state leadership opposed to the consolidation of federal power. 

You know, that wacky concept that guys like Thomas Jefferson thought was a good idea.

From that premise, we can create solutions to the secondary issues that are important to Conservatives of all shapes and sizes:  abortion, women’s rights, gun ownership, gay marriage, public education, tax law etc.  These arguments all feed from and are serviced by the limited government concept. Liberty is the ultimate “big tent” idea that everyone can get behind.

I don’t advocate ditching any principals.  I’m not one of those people who think that we can win by watering down what we are about or believe in.

Let me give you a real world example.  When we develop scripts, especially ones destined for TV and DVD release, we know exactly what the buyers want.  As filmmakers, we slip in neat character idiosyncrasies, our political voice, and interesting situations.  We never, however, lose site of the fact that the film we are making is about, for example, giant, futuristic robots bent on destroying human civilization.

I had one producer who would simply write “blah, blah, blah” in red ink on the margins of my script when the character moments or other elements that I as a filmmaker wanted to convey got in the way of the main story line.  I wouldn’t simply throw these ideas away, but would rework them so that they didn’t distract from the main plot, and potentially turn off audiences who paid to see a specific thing.  Sure, as an artist I would curse the heathen producer who was trying to diminish my beloved characters in an attempt to simplify and cheese out my giant robot film.  But you know what, it only made me a better writer and made the scripts better and more focused.

We also need to face up to the fact that we, by nature, are not predisposed for this fight.  We should not be surprised that they are better at organizing themselves and giving the impression of a unified front.  They are statists who thrive off groupthink and the desire to “out victim” each other by classifying people into small sub-groups.  We are a bunch of individuals.  How do you get a bunch of people, whose ideology runs close to anarchy, to sit down and come up with a cohesive strategy?  I, as a Libertarian type, just want to be left alone.  I don’t crave a label.  I don’t desire to be part of some monolithic group.

That’s why this is so important.  Look at the identity polling.  The largest voter bloc now call themselves “Independent.” What does that mean?  Does that mean that they crave to be part of a society run by a big government?   No, it means that they want to be Republicans but the Republican party is so bogged down in “blah, blah, blah” that they don’t feel that they have a home.  Right now, the Democrats are riding high.  They control the government.  They control the media.  Every major celebrity, from actors to musicians, proudly refer to themselves as Democrats.  By all indicators, worshipping at the alter of the State and Lord Obama is the “cool” thing to do.  Yet, 62% of the country rejects them outright, choosing to identify with either the opposition or neither group at all.

I saw “Star Trek” on opening night.  I have tickets to see it in IMAX this weekend.  While the mouth breathers in the liberal media are blabbing on about comparisons between Spock and Obama  (the only connection I perceive is the ears maybe?) I saw  a different analogy.  Over 40 years ago Gene Roddenberry created his own mythical world.  It spawned generations of loyal, rabid fans as well as tons of copycats (my beloved “Star Wars” and “Battlestar Galactica” included).  But for decades the franchise suffered a slow death.  Stifled by ego-maniacal actors, self-important producers, and a fanbase married to the original “canon,” “Star Trek” became, well, lame.  Now, thanks to some aggressive studio bosses and a talented new group of people, “Star Trek” is back.  Yes, the new guys changed some things, but they managed to maintain the original concepts and ideas that made the original series and films so popular.  They just sexed up the presentation and in the process have created a new generation of Trekkers as well as allowed us old school Trekkies to Vulcan salute each other without fear of ridicule. 

Face it, “Star Trek” is cool again.  With the right marketing, we will be too

Until I met him, he was just another Hollywood liberal loud mouth.

Yes, he was an award-winning actor and prolific film star. And, yes, he had strong political opinions. (The net sum of his positions added up to no partisan’s delight.)

But Ron Silver was also astoundingly intelligent. Ask anyone who knew him. He spoke fluent Mandarin Chinese and Spanish to go with having a Master’s Degree in Chinese History.

These facets combined to make Silver a most compelling public person, a natural leader and the type of man who automatically commanded respect and admiration no matter the social or vocational circumstance.

I understand why the left is so angry that he changed teams in the last years of his life.

How would you feel if someone you loved — he created the hip and powerful Creative Coalition, for crying out loud — left you in a very public way?

And even though Ron fell into the arms of so-called neo-cons and assorted right wingers, a conversation with him always conveyed that his principles were steadfast and that he was not in lock-step with his current suitors. He even proudly stood by the term “liberal” until the very end.

Ron Silver was always an individualist and a patriot.

By going against the Hollywood left in the thralls of its opposition to the Iraq War, and by supporting the always unpopular Republican Party and its demonized standard bearer, George W. Bush, Silver understood perfectly well that lifelong friends and job opportunities would be lost. Peers even walked away from him on the red carpet at film premieres.

Before New York Times columnist Frank Rich wrote Silver off as another D-List celebrity supporting Bush, the former art critic praised his 1988 best actor Tony Award for David Mamet’s “Speed-the-Plow” as “the performance of his career.”

“Mr. Silver’s frightening eruptions of snarling anger and crumpled demeanor in the face of defeat make what could be another Beverly Hills caricature into a figure of pathos,” Mr. Rich wrote.

Frank Rich later lobbied to get the life-long New Yorker to oversee a campaign to help revitalize Broadway.

Maybe the D in D-list stood for defector.

Last year in New York I had the privilege to hear Ron give an informal, impromptu speech to a group of his peers. Many knew he was fighting an unwinnable battle against cancer, so his words were packed and delivered like an Oscar winning performance. Ron stated eloquently that he had no regrets and had no choice but to stand for what he believed.

In an industry full of many flakes and followers, Hollywood benefitted greatly from having an actor as principled and committed as Ron Silver.

Sometimes I just don’t get the Republican Party.

Back in 2004, a smart, good-looking moderate Republican Hispanic ran for Congress. At the time Victor Elizalde was just under 40 years old and working as an executive at a big-time Hollywood studio. As an ethnic minority, a family man and a rare open conservative in an industry dominated by liberals, Mr. Elizalde represented hope and change for the Republican Party.

Yet because he was running for Henry A. Waxman´s safe seat, Mr. Elizalde got no support from the Republican Party . In fact, no one in the party´s leadership took notice of him. As a result Mr. Waxman trounced Mr. Elizalde with 71 percent of the vote.

Mr. Elizalde has since moved on with his life and is no longer pursuing a political career. What a major waste of talent. Yet again, I blame the conservative movement and the Republican Party for writing off Hollywood completely.

Mr. Waxman has run virtually uncontested for 35 years now. And he causes nothing but  problems for Republicans. To hear him speak, you´d think the Grand Old Party is the No. 1 scourge in the world. Yet Republicans are nice to him and do nothing to hold him accountable for his miserable failure as Hollywood’s key congressional representative in Washington.

In 2006, Time magazine dubbed him “The Scariest Guy in Washington,” touting that Mr. Waxman has spent the previous “eight years churning out some 2,000 headline-grabbing reports, blasting the Bush administration and the Republican Congress on everything from faulty
prewar intelligence and flaws in missile defense to the flu-vaccine shortage and arsenic in drinking water.” Two years later, Britain’s Guardian newspaper similarly described him as “the scariest politician in Washington.”

Since Mr. Waxman was first elected to office in 1974 to represent much of the entertainment business’s core working population, many of the industry´s rank-and-file jobs have flown the coop. Film and television production have gone to places like Canada, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, Romania and beyond – because California is no longer hospitable for doing business.

According to a recent report from the Center for Entertainment Industry Data and Research, Hollywood has been rocked by lost feature-film production. Despite a 30 percent rise in overall
production, the value of productions in the U.S. has declined from $3.93 billion in 1998 to $3.38 billion in 2005, a statistic that when ripple effects throughout the economy are added in, the Center estimated has cost 47,000 jobs per year and $23 billion.

Where was Henry?

You can read the column in full here.