Derek Hunter writes at Townhall:
“It may not always have seemed like it, but there was a method to Andrew’s madness. The same can’t be said for Yiannopoulos.
Aside from being British, part Jewish, and a gay man who loves black men, I don’t know who Milo is. And I have no idea what he wants to accomplish beyond getting more people angry, making money and selling more books (which has now been canceled).
Anyone can make people angry, but that anger should be a means, not an end. With Yiannopoulos, that appears to be his brand. CPAC should have known this. A simple Internet search would have told anyone that. But they couldn’t be bothered.
CPAC’s leadership came off as the square old guy at the club who wants to appear cool so he speaks in hashtags to impress the young people. Their goal should have been to advance conservative principles; the only “hip” they should worry about is not breaking theirs. …”
I’m going to have to defend MILO here.
I’ve already spilled a ton of cyber ink explaining everything that is wrong with him. I won’t go through that well known list again, but there was another side of the ledger. MILO has done more to advance free speech on college campuses than all of these cucks combined over a period going back forty years. The fact that we live under an iron curtain of political correctness is a testament to the failure of conservatism.
In spite of all the faggotry, the makeup, the vaudeville act, you could at least say MILO was doing something productive. Conservatives weren’t doing anything about it. The situation was getting worse, not better. In fact, MILO had just scored a major victory over political correctness at Berkeley. Conservatives can’t take that accomplishment away from him. They only lose culture wars and neuter themselves.