A reminder of why I remain sick of identity politics
I might be mistaken, but I don't think Ace is terribly sympathetic to Andrew Sullivan's plight. (Or, for that matter, that of Gren Gleenwald, whose hatred and vitriolic excesses I think make Sullivan look kind and reasonable.)
I should probably warn readers that Ace is pissed, so if you're easily upset, you might want to do your touchy-feely yoga exercises before clicking the links.
Whether Sullivan is engaged in the type of deliberate rumor-mongering about Fred Thompson that Ace complains of, I do not know. For his part, Sullivan denies it:
Wonkette inferred some gay rumor, and then the blogosphere ran with it. Please. All I meant was that Thompson, as a single man, had had a lot of dates with a lot of women, something that strikes me - and a lot of Republicans as well - as completely fine. I have never heard a single gay rumor about Thompson and never intended to be interpreted as spreading one.
If he's never heard a single rumor, then why mention any? In any case, whether they are allegations of rumors or inferences of rumors, they strike me as preposterous.
This is such total, utter crap. Honestly, I wish I didn't have to write this post, but the country's obsession with sex does not stop simply because I stomp my feet and demand it.
I do think that to the extent Sullivan encourages any such rumor-mongering, he is engaged in a betrayal of his own principles, and while I don't agree with the characterizations Ace heaps on Sullivan, I think Ace has a good point here:
Let's flash back: Back to the days when Andrew Sullivan was, he claimed, all about sexual privacy. He shrieked about it, in fact. Exposing someone's private sexual behavior was the worst form of Sexual McCarthyism. As one of his post-titles had it.
I've defended Andrew Sullivan, and I still condemn the very same sexual McCarthyism that he once condemned. I think it's worth noting that in October. Sullivan did condemn the Democrats' out-the-Republicans campaign as a "witch hunt." (Why that link and many of his older links no longer work, I don't know.)
I hope Andrew Sullivan's views on sexual McCarthyism haven't changed.
What worries me is that he seems to be promoting a mindset that I find anathema, but which I've warned is becoming an
agreement along the following lines:
RESOLVED: Gays do not belong in the Republican Party.
In other words, one's political orientation should be driven by one's sexual orientation.
I think that's identity politics, and it is the antithesis of political freedom.
It's also the antithesis of sexual freedom, but I guess that's long been a casualty of America's war on sex.
I hope Fred Thompson doesn't become a casualty of the war on sex, and I don't mean that as gay rumor-mongering. FWIW, I don't think Fred Thompson is gay in the least. I would not care, but the idea strikes me as absurd. However, this good man (who I think has the makings of a great president) is already under attack for the "trophy wife" nonsense, and the campaign hasn't even begun in earnest.
Does it all really have to be about genitalia?
I guess so.
Welcome to the world of premature elections.
(There's no need to worry about issues, for we all have genitals....)
UPDATE: The new (apparently moved) link to Andrew Sullivan's "witch hunt is a witch hunt" post is here.
UPDATE (07/13/07): Writing at Pajamas Media, Rick Moran has a must-read post on the latest battle in the Sex War:
I could go on and on listing issues that have some bearing on the nation's health and well being or are just huge stories of national and international import.
And yet, David Vitter gets caught with his pants unzipped and a media frenzy erupts.
And Larry Flynt is offering to pay a $1 milion bounty -- on Republican sex offenders. For "hypocrisy" of course.
There's so much hypocrisy all around that it's unbelievable, and I agree with Rick.
The ultimate question of who wins the Sex War is probably related to who wins the related Hypocrisy War. Right now, there's a relentless push to show that the Republicans are more hypocritical than the Democrats, but I think what's being forgotten is that merely being a Republican does not make one a sanctimonious moral scold. If the noisier Republicans learned how to tap into their laissez faire roots (all they have to do is shut up a little louder) and let the Democrats go too far with the sexual scolding, the ordinary people (especially those who only want to be left alone) might realize that where it comes to upholding sexual morality, no one has a monopoly.
I argued specifically against the liberal recipes for gay equality: against hate crime laws and even against employment discrimination laws. I argued that a conservative position on gay rights would leave private discrimination and prejudice alone and change only the government's stance so that all citizens are treated equally by the state, even if they are subject to discrimination by private entities. Virtually Normal did contribute, I think, to a deeper understand that marriage rights and military service were central to the gay rights movement. In that, it helped revolutionize the gay rights movement - against the wishes of many of its leftist leaders. But I had no luck trying to shift the liberal nannying and tolerance-mongering of the gay establishment.
Still, we're not all liberals. For the record. But it's a quixotic position, I will sadly concede. Freedom is not as popular as it once was. And liberals have helped whittle it away.
Once again, I think it's a mistake to pigeonhole Andrew. Whether you agree with him or not (and I often don't), there's a consistency over the years that I admire.
posted by Eric on 07.12.07 at 02:43 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/5247
Comments
I didn't get that out Sullivan's posts. I read it as saying that the republican rank and file are more permissive than the republican leadership and in the realm of sexual choices and, to that extent, the rank and file are poorly represented by the leaders.
He also said that there will be revelations about Thompson's sex life. I don't think he was promoting revelations, merely expecting them. He didn't get specific as to the nature of the revelations and his statement, in my opinion, could only be construed as suggesting Thompson is gay if one believes that gay revelations are the only kind.
tim maguire · July 12, 2007 05:03 PM
Andrew Sullivan's politics is driven entirely by his sexual orientation -- he proved that by reversing his stance on Iraq when GWB endorsed a federal marriage amendment. So of course he's promoting raw identity politics; he can do no other.
In a personal e-mail to me some time back, Sullivan was absolutely livid that I could be against gay marriage, given that I was in a 29 year gay relationship.
I told him that my position was that The Church (The Catholic Church he still clings to like a baby wrap) would never change, and why should we expect it to.
His response was that he was for civil unions, and that the state should not discriminate by sexual orientation.
But his writings indicate something quite different.
What he wants, IMO, is social acceptance. He can't hope to get it from his church, so he thinks that my passing laws somehow people will applaud gay marriage.
Won't happen. Period!
And beside, I've learned to accept the Outlaw Life. It's kind of neat. You know you're a degenerate to begin with, so those double standards that society places on straights don't apply.
When I'd just turned 23, broke and alone, and enticed into a room at the St. Francis Hotel in San Francisco by the most urbane and handsome young man standing in front of Gumps one late winter night, I knew that sexual mores and religious morality be damned I'd found heaven on earth, and to hell with the rigid standards of Church, State, or society.
Sullivan still accepts those standards, and seeks acceptance and/or forgiveness.
I feel sorry for him. And while I still glance at his blog from time to time, it's to learn just how far he's betraying his political beliefs.
Endorsing John Kerry? What next, Jane Fonda for Secretary of State?
Sullivan can't really be taken seriously anymore.
I look at his blog like I'd look at a train wreck - morbid fascination.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
I didn't get that out Sullivan's posts. I read it as saying that the republican rank and file are more permissive than the republican leadership and in the realm of sexual choices and, to that extent, the rank and file are poorly represented by the leaders.
He also said that there will be revelations about Thompson's sex life. I don't think he was promoting revelations, merely expecting them. He didn't get specific as to the nature of the revelations and his statement, in my opinion, could only be construed as suggesting Thompson is gay if one believes that gay revelations are the only kind.