Love her or hate yourself!

Former president Bill Clinton thinks it is an act of self-loathing for a gay man to oppose his wife's political candidacy on the one hand, while at the same time marrying his partner:

Former President Bill Clinton wasn't about to let just anybody attack his wife - especially a gay Republican operative.

Clinton fired back yesterday, suggesting that political consultant Arthur Finkelstein, who has launched a "Stop Her Now" campaign, is suffering from "self-loathing."

Finkelstein married his male partner in a civil ceremony in Massachusetts in December, with a few of his conservative clients at the nuptial.

"... He went to Massachusetts and married his longtime male partner and then he comes back here and announces this," Clinton said at a Harlem news conference.

"I thought, one of two things. Either this guy believes his party is not serious, and is totally Machiavellian in his position, or there's some sort of self-loathing there. I was more sad for him."

While Bill Clinton's loyalty to his wife is admirable, I've got two questions about self-loathing:

  • 1. Is it self loathing for a gay person to oppose Hillary Rodham Clinton?
  • 2. Or is it self loathing to be a gay Republican who disagrees with his party?
  • Unless Hillary Clinton is running on a platform of gay identity politics (which she is not) I think the first question is ridiculous on its face. Still, I have to pose it, because if Bill Clinton thinks the tie-in is obvious ("he married his longtime male partner and then he comes back here and announces this"), others must too. Perhaps Hillary is so closely identified with the gay marriage issue that opposition to her constitutes opposition to gay marriage. Is that it? According to Andrew Sullivan (who ought to know), here's Hillary's position on gay marriage:

    "Marriage," she said, when pressed to take a position, "has got historic, religious, and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been: between a man and a woman."
    Sullivan devotes a great deal of time disagreeing with Hillary's position.

    Does that mean that Andrew Sullivan would also be a self-loathing hypocrite were he to oppose Hillary Clinton? Somehow, I doubt it.

    There's also the issue of gay Republicans. There is much ferocious opposition to the very idea of such a thing, and while some of it comes from moral conservatives in the Republican Party, they're not as shrill as the Democrats. Bill Clinton is hardly from the Democratic Party fringe, either. There is a general consensus that any homosexual in the Republican Party is the equivalent of a gay Uncle Tom, and guilty of self hatred, because since all Republicans hate homosexuals, any Republican who is a homosexual must hate himself.

    Of course, black Republicans are also considered Uncle Toms, so this may come down to identity politics more than anything else. Certainly, it's more than single issue politics, because no one would call a Democrat against abortion or gun control an "Uncle Tom," nor would they refer to a pro-choice or anti-gun Republican that way. "RINO" or "DINO" perhaps, but not a "self-loathing" hypocrite. The reason is because if you're in favor of the right to keep and bear arms, that is not considered your identity in the same way it is if you favor sexual freedom. Don't ask me why; I consider gun control and penis control equally offensive, and if self-loathing is defined as belonging to a party which opposes something you believe in, then I'd be guilty of self loathing in either party. The problem with me is that I can't see my entire self through the lens of any single issue.

    I could see Bill Clinton's point if Arthur Finkelstein actively opposed that which he has now done. But from what I've read, that simply isn't the case. According to the New York Times, Finkelstein is on record as a staunch opponent of the moral conservative wing of the Republican Party:

    One of Mr. Finkelstein's associates, who declined to speak on the record, citing Mr. Finkelstein's desire for privacy, said Mr. Finkelstein did not view his marriage as a political statement and had specifically decided to have a civil ceremony rather than a religious one. This associate argued that over the past 20 years, Mr. Finkelstein had identified himself as a libertarian and an opponent of big government, distancing himself from social conservatives as they have gained political muscle and dominance in the party.

    ....Mr. Finkelstein has regularly described himself as a libertarian who supports same-sex marriage and abortion rights while opposing big government. In an interview with Maariv, an Israeli newspaper, after the American elections last year, he criticized the Republican Party as growing too close to evangelical Christians, warning it could cause long-term damage to the party.

    What this means is that Finkelstein is simply one among many Republicans who are opposed to their party being controlled by the religious right.

    Democrats might argue that they'd be happier if they joined the Democratic Party, but then, so would the religious right!

    Since when is fighting for your beliefs hypocrisy?

    Sheesh!

    (But I guess if it's hypocrisy for gays to oppose Hillary, it must also be hypocrisy for gays to oppose socialism!)

    UPDATE (04/13/05): I've written another post on whether self-loathing is unique to gay conservatives, or even gays in general. I don't think it is, and I'm wondering whether it's another stereotype grounded in unconscious prejudice.

    posted by Eric on 04.12.05 at 08:29 AM





    TrackBack

    TrackBack URL for this entry:
    http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/2196






    Comments

    Eric, you are a star! This post just got a mention on Inside the Blogs on CNN (part of Judy Woodruff's Inside Politics program).

    Graham Lester   ·  April 12, 2005 04:25 PM

    Thanks for letting me know about this, Graham! Wish I'd caught it, but I found the transcript.

    Eric Scheie   ·  April 12, 2005 07:13 PM

    Why should gays like socialism? The old USSR didn't treat them well at all. Castro's even worse. Communism is a utopian scheme and anything that doesn't fit the mold gets "eliminated".

    And even in a moderate socialist economy, you can bet your boots that the powers-that-be will be looking at the costs of AIDS and quietly euthanising lots of patients. At least with capitalism there's an incentive for the much-maligned "Big Pharma" to research cures and vaccines.

    Sorry if I sound like a second-rate Sullivan clone, but this is one of the points where he makes a lot of sense. (I have medical issues of mine own so I see where he is coming from on this.)

    David Ross   ·  April 12, 2005 09:16 PM

    "I could see Bill Clinton's point if Arthur Finkelstein actively opposed that which he has now done."

    That's the part I will never, as long as I live, get. It's not hypocrisy to oppose something you never agreed with in the first place just because you're gay and it happens to be on the gay-activist laundry list, nor is it hypocrisy to exercise a right you haven't noisily campaigned for. And as for "self-loathing," you could just as easily accuse people who push their gay-gay-gayness in your face all the time (and build their entire worldview around it) of over-compensating. It's not as if there were any shortage of psychoanalytical cheap shots to go around.

    Sean Kinsell   ·  April 12, 2005 09:58 PM


    March 2007
    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1 2 3
    4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    11 12 13 14 15 16 17
    18 19 20 21 22 23 24
    25 26 27 28 29 30 31

    ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
    WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


    Search the Site


    E-mail




    Classics To Go

    Classical Values PDA Link



    Archives




    Recent Entries



    Links



    Site Credits