"We are the new party of the inclusive!"

My, my, how quickly pandering and moral compromise become virtues when one tastes victory. We can't blame libertarians (or "South Park Republicans") for wanting to mold the Republican Party in their own image, but without jumping into the factional spitting match, I submit to you this: when those for whom the term "Big Tent Party" inspires adolescent snickers become too prominent in it, the Republican Party will crumble.

The issue at hand, as you may have guessed, is the mini-controversy arising from a post by Michelle Malkin:

Many social conservative groups have launched a protest against the White House inauguration committee's decision to invite Kid Rock to perform Jan. 18 at the Washington, D.C., Armory in a concert hosted by Bush daughters Jenna and Barbara. ...

Some "South Park conservative-" types are ridiculing the protesters. "Lighten up," they say. But I'm with the family groups on this. The inaugural celebrations should highlight the best the GOP has to offer. A guy who, as World Net Daily points out, "dedicated his first album to songs about oral sex and who was voted the Sluttiest Male Celebrity at the 1999 MTV Video Music Awards" and who titles songs "F--- U Blind" and "F--- Off" doesn't belong there, even if he is a rare celebrity Bush supporter.

After years of arguing with liberals over the difference between "censorship" and "sensibility," some of the responses are only surprising because they are coming from further right than usual. Alex Brunk takes the tack that there's nothing out of the ordinary about Kid Rock, after all, so declining to hand him a microphone (accessing a considerable audience) at our shared celebration is exclusionary:

Sure a lot of his songs are inappropriate, but so what, he's no different from any other musician that way. ... And as long as Kid Rock doesn't sing something inappropriate at the inauguration, there's no reason we should exclude him from the event.

INDC Bill apparently shares Alex's range of listening habits:

I guess they don't allow contemporary musicians in the big tent - four years of Pat Boone and the Oak Ridge Boys it is. And that singing cop. But how many times can you listen to the National Anthem in a row, really?

That's right. You got your "contemporary musicians" like Kid Rock down one aisle and your Pat Boones down the other, with nothing between. Peruse the lyrics (Parental Advisory!) that Michelle has included in her post for a sense of just how run-o'-the-mill Kid Rock really is.

Even allowing for the undeniable fact that Kid Rock is "profane and raunchy," no less a personage than John Hawkins takes the position that supporting our cause is sufficient expiation for those sins:

... as far as I'm concerned, anybody who's supports W and sticks up for the troops like that is OK to play the inauguration in my book.

I'm particularly sympathetic to the praise of Kid Rock's support for our troops, but I would warn fellow right-wingers against elevating political support to a height that diverts our eyes from other considerations. There are more important things than rewarding stars for taking the right stance. Woven throughout the criticism of Malkin's post are hints that Republicans are catching the Democrats' lust for the "youth vote":

This is exactly the kind of behavior that drives young people away from the Republican party. Congratulations, Michelle, you’ve championed the act of alienating some more potential (R) voters.

But attempting to appeal to that particular voting bloc comes at the price of a central conservative objective: molding them. Of course, as Jeff Blogworthy points out, attracting younger generations can be very helpful toward that goal:

We cannot persuade everyone to our way of thinking in a single epiphany. If we want people like Kid Rock and his followers to change and embrace a better way of life, it is a change that will occur incrementally. If we immediately break fellowship, what chance do we have to persuade them?

The problem is that the increments at hand aren't of degrees, but of issues. As Hawkins alludes, the "fellowship" is over politics and national security, not "a better way of life." While applauding the geopolitical agreement, we can too easily allow acceptance of social differences to become affirmation. Jeff Blogworthy notes that the "establishment criticized Jesus for associating with 'tax gatherers and sinners'," but we're not talking about mere association with regular folks. We're talking about putting a prominent figure — who, as far as I know, has not repudiated his older material, no matter how much he may have "matured" — up on stage for emulation.

And that is where our blind eye becomes most detrimental. Consider the opinion expressed on Bobo Blogger, from which I took the title for this post:

Kid Rock raises his young child as a single parent, is muli-talented, having recently scored some points with country radio, and while not the best role-model, he is a model of what one can do in America. Up from the worst streets in Detroit to fame and stardom. ...

What he does for entertainment value sould not relegate him to the depths of slime. However, while not entirely a fan of his music, and certainly not his early cuts, I still admire a working class guy who makes it big albeit as a slut!

It is an indication of corruption, not beneficent inclusion, when how a man makes it from slum to stardom is apparently of as little concern as whom one must parade in order to keep the kiddies' hands in the Big Tent.