The most relevant aspect of the Foley
cover-up is what it says about closets. (Oldie but a goodie.)
There are numerous press reports today,
at ABC,
The New York Times
and at the National Journal,
about conservative activists wanting to “out” gay staffers and
officials in order to “purify” the party following the coming
debacle.
This effort will fail. It will fail
because it is counterproductive. It will fail because it can’t
possibly go deep enough.
It’s counterproductive because the
problem here is not that Foley was gay. The problem is that Foley was
closeted. He hid himself from the world and went about the process of finding sexual solace in a secretive way. The same was true of the Gerry Studds
and Barney Frank scandals, which today’s inquisitors like to cite as
excuses for laying this off on gays. In 1983 Gerry Studds was
closeted. In 1986 Franks was publicly closeted .
Both “came out,” and voters
eventually recognized the difference. An honest gay is no danger to
your son or daughter. Unless they are also a pedophile. And
pedophiles swing both ways.
More important is that this effort can
never go as deep as conservatives seem to want. Because we’re all in
the closet over something.
Is it possible to be a raving anti-gay
lunatic by day and a loving straight father secure in your own
sexuality by night?
I don’t think so. What we have in people like Louis Shelton are
barely-closeted sadists, not people with a healthy sexuality, secure
in themselves. And a barely-closeted lust of power for its own sake,
as James Dobson
exhibits, is not much better.
It would be nice if we could all be
honest about ourselves with the whole world, but that’s not going to
happen so long as darker secrets like sadism, lust for power, and
hatred of the other exist. If we’re going to throw open closet doors
on gays, let’s throw them all open. Let’s see into the hearts of the
truly sick bastards of our society. Let’s have an honest debate. And
then let’s make choices based on total knowledge.
I don’t think the so-called “Christian”
right really wants that. Do we dare call the Inquisitor with his whip
what he really is?
What’s not to love about a liberal getting in a fight with James Dobson? On telecom policy, you’re both on the (pardon the phrase) same wrong page. Both of you think you can get the outcome you desire by regulation. Dobson wants to use government to forcibly unbundle content. You want to use government to forcibly unbundle services. Small-l libertarian Republicans have asked for a long time, “what do the values voters get us?”. Clearly, they got us a majority, but then we end up acting a lot like Democrats with them in the coalition. I say, you guys can have these closet socialists. They’re nothing but trouble.
But you know, I’m left wondering something. Your argument is very convincing that there is likely a troubling closet issue with these people. Let’s say you’re correct. What does that say about statist Dems like yourself? You advocate the same brain-dead policies as the values voters do. Are you just more sincere?
What’s not to love about a liberal getting in a fight with James Dobson? On telecom policy, you’re both on the (pardon the phrase) same wrong page. Both of you think you can get the outcome you desire by regulation. Dobson wants to use government to forcibly unbundle content. You want to use government to forcibly unbundle services. Small-l libertarian Republicans have asked for a long time, “what do the values voters get us?”. Clearly, they got us a majority, but then we end up acting a lot like Democrats with them in the coalition. I say, you guys can have these closet socialists. They’re nothing but trouble.
But you know, I’m left wondering something. Your argument is very convincing that there is likely a troubling closet issue with these people. Let’s say you’re correct. What does that say about statist Dems like yourself? You advocate the same brain-dead policies as the values voters do. Are you just more sincere?