Classical Values :: Self respect comes in more than one flavor....

Self respect comes in more than one flavor....

Let me start by saying that I greatly respect Andrew Sullivan, and I didn't enjoy writing this post at all, but I felt compelled to do it, because a central reason I blog is my opposition to identity politics. (I'm hoping that maybe what's got me upset was just an offhand, ill-thought-out remark; I make 'em all the time. But who knows?)

Anyway, Andrew Sullivan recently declared that "no self-respecting gay person could vote for Bush."

Is this logical?

Considering the many times Sullivan has defended the war in Iraq (which is the number one reason most people give for being anti-Bush), I will have to assume that Sullivan equates "self respect" with support for same sex marriage.

If that's the case, I must disagree. Homosexuality is not heterosexuality. There are many differences between gay and straight relationships. The laws and social mores designed for the heterosexual scheme of things reflect these differences. I see no reason why homosexuals should feel the need to ape heterosexuals, and even less reason why they should be forced to do so. This is my biggest objection to same sex marriage. It would place undue pressure on what were once private relationships outside the sweep of society's radar. It would allow gay palimony, gay divorce, and bring the heavy hand of the state where it does not belong. Same sex marriage would not be limited to a "right" chosen voluntarily, because it would create new duties and causes of action which could be used even against homosexuals not wishing to marry. I realize that many do not share my concerns, but I think that to call people who neither need or want the state to enter their lives in such a manner lacking in self respect is a bit of a stretch.

However, the FMA is another issue, because it would, by making incidents of marriage a suspect category, bring the state into private relationships in another, horrendous, way. I vehemently oppose the FMA, and I disagree wholeheartedly with Bush's support of that ill-written amendment. Why, though, would Bush's support for the FMA make homosexuals who vote for Bush lacking in self respect? What about the many heterosexuals who don't support the FMA? Are they too lacking in self-respect if they vote for Bush? Or must "self respect" touch on important, personal, hot-button issues?

Let's see..... I am annoyed by many things Bush has done, but I can't say they rise to the point where I'd question my self respect if I voted for him. But I try to separate the personal from the political. As a gun owner and Second Amendment advocate, why isn't my self respect implicated by Bush's support for the assault weapon ban? What about doctors and scientists who are appalled by the ban on cloning and the antics of Leon Kass's Commission? Women who are furious about the abortion issue? Blacks who are furious about a lack of commitment to affirmative action? Are they and many others with pet causes all lacking in self respect if they vote for Bush? And even if someone's feelings about a particular issue are so strong as to implicate that person's self respect, is it then fair of him to judge the self respect of others?

What about self respect as it applies to the country? Isn't there such a thing as national self respect? Why, I could imagine even homosexuals wholly in favor of same-sex marriage who might be able to put the country's interests ahead of their own (or at least believe in good faith that they were doing that), without suffering from any loss of self respect.

This is by no means an endorsement of Bush. But I do believe strongly that if homosexuals are free citizens, they should be able to make up their own minds without being shackled to identity politics.

Thus I am disappointed in Andrew Sullivan's remarks, not because he's decided against Bush, but because he seems to be invoking identity politics.

And I hate to see identity politics labeled as self respect, because it strikes me as exactly the opposite. It's a form of groupthink. If I had to follow a group, I would not be a free citizen. I could never respect myself.

MORE: Here's Glenn Reynolds on Andrew Sullivan. Despite many disagreements with Bush (stem cell/biotech/bioethics issues, abortion, gay marriage, the Drug War, etc.), for Glenn Reynolds, the war is

the number one issue. For Sullivan, I guess, it's not. I had thought that it was.

I had too.

But that is not why I am disappointed.

UPDATE: Much to his credit, Andrew Sullivan addressed my central concern (which was NOT same sex marriage, but identity politics) here:

One reason why I was so surprised by Jonah Goldberg's assertion last week that I was playing to the gay audience with my non-endorsement of Bush is that I have spent much of my career alienating the gay establishment by arguing against some of their shibboleths. I have opposed hate crime laws; I have had reservations about employment non-discrimination laws; I favored the right of the Boy Scouts to practise discrimination (even while I deplored the discrimination itself); I have challenged AIDS orthodoxy: I have battled victimology in the gay world; I endorsed Dole over Clinton in 1996 and Bush over Gore in 2000; I have praised the drug companies' successes in HIV treatment. Very few members of a minority have been as controversial as I have in the gay world. It just happens that I believe that the Constitution is not the place to decide social policy and that civil marriage is a civil right for all Americans, not just the straight ones. I say that to all audiences. Always.

That's fair enough for me, and had I read it before I wrote the above post, I probably wouldn't have bothered. (I was beginning to think that either he changed his mind over the years, or else thought that gays who didn't agree with him lacked self respect.)

Comments

I challange you to battle of wits! It begins now! You sir, have bologna feet! HA HA!

Tobias · June 19, 2004 02:37 PM

You win; I taste defeat. I'm licked.

Eric Scheie · June 19, 2004 05:18 PM

Hokay! I can see your contrarian streak burning brightly -- as mine is. You're feeling defiant against Andrew Sullivan telling you what to do -- and I'm feeling equally defiant against Glenn Reynolds and a hundred other bloggers and commenters telling Andrew Sullivan, and me, what to do. I admire your disagreement with me! Great minds do _NOT_ think alike. Good!

I'll comment more fully later, but I'm feeling really, really energized and bubbly now because -- guess who called me on the phone tonight and talked to me for hours?

JEANINE RING!!!!

Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete · June 19, 2004 11:04 PM

Thanks, Eric. You put it much better than I ever have. Given how much his writing has meant to me over the years, I can't dismiss Andrew Sullivan completely, but he's really gone off the deep end with the gay marriage thing, and the tossed-off nature of blog posts can't entirely account for it given that he takes the same tack in his articles now, too.

And Steven, while I don't want to provoke your easily-aroused wrath :), how does saying that Sullivan's reasoning for not supporting Bush is inadequate constitute telling him what to do?

Sean Kinsell · June 19, 2004 11:41 PM

I thought you were going to ask me the more important question: Who is Jeanine Ring? Indeed. And: Who is John Galt?

I've been in a super-lovey mood all week, but....

Nothing makes me angrier than somebody telling me I'm not allowed to get angry, so here goes:

G: Atten-HUT!

S: Yes, Sssir! What are your orders?

G: Vote for Bush, you faggot!

S: I can't. The FMA...

G: What are you, a Kerry-lover?

S: No, but the FMA...

G: Forget the FMA! Vote for Bush! A vote against Bush, a vote against the FMA, is a vote for bin Laden. You're either 100% for Bush or else you're 100% for the terrorists.

S: Can't I be for _me_?

G: NO! That's SELFISH! And SELFISHNESS is EVIL! Everybody knows that.

S: I'm evil then.

G: Don't you love your country?

S: Yes.

G: Then it's your patriotic _duty_ to subordinate your petty egoistic concerns to the greater good, the Folk, the Homeland, the State. The State -- bigger and ever bigger, more and more macho! Line up behind our Fearless Leader. Vote for Him in November -- or else you are unpatriotic. Vote for Bush or else you're a traitor!

S: But there's this man and I love him, I want to marry him...

G: Fuck that, you faggot! Forget marriage, that's for sissies. Love, romance, weddings, commitment, vows of eternal fidelity, all that -- _girly_ shit. Are you a man's man or a girly-boy?

S: Well, I'm...

G: Look, I'm a libertarian warblogger. I don't mind if you guys bugger each other's butts in your bedrooms or behind the bushes or in bathhouses, or, if you insist, I'd even let you get (eeeeww!) married. Doesn't hurt me any. No skin off my ass. Live and let live, I've always said. But...: DON'T YOU KNOW THERE'S A WAR ON?? Vote for Bush! Support everything he does 100%! If you disagree with him on something like the FMA, OK -- but then: SHUT UP ABOUT IT! Say something nice about our Leader or don't say anything at all. That's your patriotic duty!

S: Hmmm.... But that FMA... That law in Virginia...

G: Are you some kind of ONE-ISSUE voter? Are you like those weirdo anti-abortion fanatics with their pictures of fetuses? What's more important, this ONE ISSUE or -- or THE WAR?

S: Ummm.... Isn't 'THE WAR' ONE ISSUE? I mean, that's all YOU ever blog about? Isn't that ONE ISSUE? Why can't we each have our own priorities?

G: That's a different kind of issue. OK, you can vote on the basis on the economy, economics, $$$$$, if you want, that's allowed. But -- none of this girly stuff. Sex, love, marriage, privacy, individual rights, homosexuality, abortion, religion, spirituality, introspection -- all that is for sissies. THERE'S A WAR ON!! Put on your uniform as warblogger, line up behind our leader, and blog about the big he-man stuff: war, troops, guns, tanks, ships, planes, bombs.

S: Yes, I agree, we absolutely need all of those, as much as we can build. I'm the opposite of a pacifist, as you know. I'm a violent hawk every bit as much as you are. I want to kill terrorists as much as you do. I want to win this War every bit as much as you do. But, there's also the Enemy within...

G: Forget that 'Enemy within' crap! The ONLY issue that matters is the material issue of the Enemy without and killing as many of Them as possible, as many as we need to kill to save our cities from another 9/11. You used to be a great warblogger ever since 9/11, but you've gone sissy because of this obsession with the FMA, marriage, love, all that girly stuff. It's OK to blog about that once in a while, but your main focus must be on the WAR. Write about military hardware, fisk the peace-ifists, get back to doing that. You've been so good at that. You used to be everybody's favorite warblogger.

And, most of all, SUPPORT OUR LEADER 100%. Vote for Bush, no matter what he does to you. IT'S YOU PATRIOTIC DUTY! YOU'VE BEEN CONSCRIPTED IN TO THE ARMY OF WARBLOGGERS. NOW, LINE UP BEHIND OUR LEADER, VOTE FOR HIM IN NOVEMBER -- OR ELSE YOU'RE A TRAITOR. DO YOUR DUTY, BE A GOOD WARBLOGGER, SHUT UP ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE, AND OBEY OUR COMMANDER IN CHIEF. CONFORM. CONFORMITY LEADS TO VICTORY! TOTAL OBEDIENCE LEADS TO FREEDOM!

S: Hmmm.... So, I should just blog about THE WAR against the external Enemy 24/7?

G: Yes. That's your manly and patriotic duty. To speak out against Bush on the FMA is to vote for Kerry. A vote for Kerry, or for anybody other than Bush, or anything less than an ENTHUSIASTIC vote for Bush, is a vote for Saddam and bin Laden. Bus = America. A vote for Bush is a vote for America. A vote against Bush -- or any criticism of Bush -- is a vote against America.

S: That's because Bush is leading us in this War On Terror?

G: Yes.

S: And that's the one, single, overriding issue?

G: Yes.

S: I should blog about military and security issues 24/7, and not be so obsessed with the FMA?

G: Yes.

S: Because our President is our War leader, I must support him, because the War against the external Enemy overrides everything else, and so all good, patriotic Americans must put that before everything else, and think about nothing else until the War is won?

G: Yes.

S: But -- but -- BUSH isn't thinking about the WAr 24/7! HE talks about the FMA all the time. At least 4 different times he...

G: That's different. He has to appease HIS BASE in order to get re-elected so He can Lead us to Victory in This Great War.

S: His base? You mean people like Lou Sheldon or Marilyn Musgrave? People who hate people like me?

G: Yes. He has to please those people, the people who hate you and spit on you and want you locked up or dead. It's your duty as a manly, patriotic, freedom-loving American to let them spit on you and shit on you and to shut up and vote for Our Fearless Leader who is licking their boots in order to get their votes.

S: But -- if they're his base, won't they vote for him anyway?

G: No. They've threatened to stay home or to vote for somebody else, somebody even more like themselves, if Bush doesn't push the FMA.

S: But -- but -- doesn't that make THEM un-patriotic, that they would refuse to vote for Our Great War-Leader if he doesn't agree with them on this ONE ISSUE, this SISSY issue, the FMA? Why should _I_ sacrifice _my_ convictions to the War if THEY don't have to?

G: Because they're morally superior to deviated perverts like you. YOU have to PROVE that you're a good American and not just a faggot limey by shoving aside all your selfish girly values and backing Bush. THEY don't have to. THRY can do whatever THEY damn well please to you or to Bush, while YOU have to just shut up and lick his boots while he licks their boots and they spit on you and shit on you.

Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete · June 20, 2004 12:42 PM

In other words...:

S: What do you call a War -- whether external or internal, military or ideological, military or spiritual -- in which one side is expected to abide by one set of rules while the other side, the Enemy, are allowed to do as they please?

G: Defeat.

S: Right.

Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete · June 20, 2004 01:43 PM

Oh, and by the way, Andrew Sullivan wrote and edited a couple of BOOKS on homosexuality and homosexual marriage. I guess he's not allowed to BLOG about the things he writes BOOKS about. Hmmm....?

(I sound like that other man's man whose name begins with "A.S."! I know what he was talking about.)

Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete · June 20, 2004 08:13 PM

Steven you can say whatever you want here, whether I agree or not.

But -- much as I like Sullivan, he has no more right to judge people's self respect on the basis of how they might vote than they do on the basis of others' sexuality. It's crass, and offends my sense of dignity to have anyone tell me that I must vote based on my penis.

It's just as bad as it would be for a "war blogger" to tell me that I'd have no self respect if I voted for Kerry.

I predict that regardless of who is elected, the FMA will never become part of the Constitution, and the religious right will never realize their agenda. Whether the war would go the same way with either candidate is another question.

By the way, the best reason I can see for voting for Kerry is to stop Hillary Clinton from being president.

(That's not an endorsement for either Bush or Kerry.....)

Eric Scheie · June 20, 2004 08:30 PM

Eric:

Thank you! I understand your feeling. You don't like being told what to do. I don't like being told what to do. Andrew Sullivan doesn't like being told what to do.

I wouldn't dream of telling you how to vote or advising you not to vote for Bush if you find him to be the best choice. I respect you just the same no matter who you vote for. There are a lot of good reasons for voting for Bush and a lot of good reasons for voting against him. I'm not suggesting how _anybody_ should vote. I have no idea how _I'm_ going to vote! Probably Libertarian. I'm certainly not plugging for Kerry if anybody has that impression, he makes me puke!

What teed me off and motivated me to write that long screed was reading a bunch of attacks from pundits and bloggers and commenters, from Jonah Goldberg to Glenn Reynolds, that Sullivan is unpatriotic and wimpy on the War because he doesn't shove aside his "girly" issues and just kiss the water Bush walks on. Because Sullivan didn't just drop everything on 9/11/2001 and from that day on till the crack of doom blog about nothing else but war, war, war in the Middle East, and "rah rah rah" for Our Great Leader*, 24/7, makes him a traitor according to some.

I'm coming more and more to agree with that other A.S. blogger, that other A.S. man's man, i.e., Arthur Silber, about that mentality. It pisses me off. I'm not mad at you, my good friend Eric, my favorite blogger in the whole blogosphere -- but I am mad at a lot of other people, most definitely including Our Beloved President.

And the more people like Sean Kinsell tell me not to get mad, or that there's something wrong with me if I do get mad, the madder I get. That's the way I am.

*No, no, no, Bush isn't Hitler. He's merely a Hindenberg, merely warming the chair for the Hitler to come. We are living in Weimar America.

Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete · June 20, 2004 10:14 PM

P.P.S.:

I _still_ say: Let's roll!

Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete · June 20, 2004 10:32 PM

I'm not into "rah rah rah" here, and I never have been.

As to the "Sullivan is unpatriotic and wimpy on the War because he doesn't shove aside his 'girly' issues and just kiss the water Bush walks on" stuff, those who think that way are being outrageous -- if for no other reason that Sullivan has never been wimpy on the war but a major supporter.

Although he can speak for himself, I don't think it's fair to accuse Glenn Reynolds of characterizing Sullivan the way others have, much less of kissing the water Bush walks on. At best it's reluctant support -- coupled with disagreement. (A bit like Roger Simon.....)

Eric Scheie · June 20, 2004 10:47 PM

Steven, if someone's going to go from the exercising of his right to free speech to the drive-by psychological profiling of people who reject his ideas, I do happen to think that's a problem in and of itself (irrespective of his initials). Sullivan himself knows this; he's had leftist gays calling him "self-loathing" for years for his deviation from the party line. But galling as it is, that isn't even the issue here.

The distinction between "Voting for XYZ means endorsing some policies that are not in our interests as homosexuals who want equality" and "Voting for XYZ means you don't respect yourself as a homosexual" is not an insignificant one. The latter is just wrong, it is not excused by being meant sincerely, and in practical terms, it's a turn-off to people who might otherwise be persuaded by Sullivan's arguments.

BTW, go ahead and tell me I have a stick up my ass, Steven; I can handle it. What I mean above, though, was that I wasn't trying to get you keyed up myself, not that you shouldn't get keyed up about the issue at hand.

Sean Kinsell · June 20, 2004 11:15 PM

I defended Andrew's right to criticize Bush and I still do. However, ultimately we are all going to have to decide on which issue(s) we are going to base our vote on.

I am fortunate in that I am in Kerry's state. He will almost certainly win here which means I will probably be able to vote libertarian without worrying that I am helping Kerry.

But...if it came down to it...I would pick Bush over Kerry based on the War on Terror. That is the overriding and primary issue for me. If Kerry is elected...well we are going to be in deep trouble folks...and that is the truth from somebody in Massachusetts who has watched Kerry for 20 years. He has been a do-nothing senator and he'll be a do-nothing president.

Vote for Bush.

Jim Lynch · June 21, 2004 01:18 AM

One other comment...civil marriage is underway here in Massachusetts and all is well. The world has not come to an end and no deity has struck us dead. It's a good idea and it should be emulated in the rest of the country. Ultimately I believe it will be. In the meantime, gay and lesbian people are welcome to come and reside here in Massachusetts.

Jim Lynch · June 21, 2004 01:20 AM

Eric, Sean, Jim Lynch:

Hokay! I guess we're all "square" now. (Love that word!) I'm not telling anybody to vote for Bush. I'm not telling anybody not to vote for Bush. Or Kerry or that Libertarian guy (Badnarik?) or whoever. I may vote for the Personal Choice party, which sounds even more libertarian than the Libertarians and has Marilyn Chambers running for VP. I really don't know. It really doesn't make that much difference. Vote for whoever or whatever you want.

Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete · June 21, 2004 04:07 PM

What a wonderful rip-roaring exchange. I have nothing to add.

Allan Beatty · June 21, 2004 06:49 PM

Just in case anybody thinks I think Kerry or his flaks are any better:

"Even in gay-friendly Cleveland Heights, Mayor Ed Kelley has some advice for gays and lesbians who want Democratic Sen. John Kerry to defeat President Bush in November: Stop promoting gay marriage."

http://www.marriagedebate.com/mdblog/2004_06_20_mdblog_archive.htm#108787979436019046

Gutless. Spineless. Ball-less And all too typical.

Steven Malcolm Anderson · June 22, 2004 09:35 AM