|
|
|
September 01, 2007
Larry Craig, traditional throwback?
(A South Park Republican idea....) WARNING: Graphic language and offensive opinions follow. Sunday School GOPers, consider yourselves warned. In my last post, I said that "perhaps I should try again" to defend the seemingly-indefensible Larry Craig. At the end of the post I asked in desperation whatever had happened to the South Park Republicans, and worried that "Jimmy Carter Republicans" might be taking over the party. Extreme language, no doubt, and an unfair comparison, because the Republicans are not politically like Jimmy Carter. I only meant to express disagreement with the Sunday School approach to politics, because I think this dooms the GOP to an endless cycle of becoming defenseless victims of Democratic dirt digging. And I do mean defenseless. GOP activists might like to say that they "don't tolerate" Family Values deviationism, but the way this works in practice is what I'd call "CATCH AND CAVE." The Democrats catch, and the GOP caves. When I asked where the South Park Republicans are, perhaps I should have said "where are the Republicans with the balls to play political hardball?" Why the GOP leadership can't just tell Larry Craig to "come out" as the Democrats would is beyond me. But they can't, and I think the Democrats know they have them by the balls. What this means is that Democrats get a scandal pass, and Republicans don't. Because the public does not care about sex scandals; they're merely titillated. Despite the Monica Lewinsky scandal (or rather, because of it), there was a huge groundswell of support by ordinary people for Bill Clinton. They overlooked the serious crime of perjury because they were annoyed by GOP moralizing, and the GOP didn't get it then, and they don't get it now. (Hence, my poignant plea for a little South Park Republicanism.) [I realize that the term "South Park Republican" isn't Brian C. Anderson's invention, but screw semantics. Besides, I'm willing to settle for South Park Conservatives!] Anyway it's easy to sound the alarm and yell for help from South Park Republicans (or conservatives). That still leaves a key question unanswered: What would a South Park Republican do? To answer that (and to attempt, one last time, to defend Larry Craig, who is resigning today), I thought I'd start by returning to a question I might have casually dismissed more quickly than I should have: On the other hand, if Larry Craig did not want to have sex with the vice officer, what in God's name was he doing tapping his foot, and then pleading guilty? If he is completely heterosexual, well, that presents obvious problems.... I mean, what do you call a heterosexual man who goes into bathrooms and taps other men who are total strangers on their feet?A practical joke? Not bad, as South Park Republicanism goes, and it might work on a cartoon episode. But I'm realizing that I overlooked something. In the old days, there used to be a such thing as heterosexual men who had sex with gay men without being gay. It's old fashioned, and today is mainly seen in prisons and in other countries. I've seen it firsthand in Mexico, and I used to see it a lot in Hawaii in the 1970s (especially by military guys hitting on drag queens and pretending they were women). But that's been so long ago that it took an article in the Guardian (prompted by the Larry Craig speculation) to remind me. The title is "One or the other? Larry Craig's vehement protest that he is not gay despite soliciting sex in a men's toilet would, once upon a time in America, not have seemed so absurd," and the writer explains what was once a traditional phenomenon (please bear in mind that I don't share his political perspective and I don't use the term "homophobia"): ....once upon a time, men like Craig were actually viewed on terms that, though not necessarily accepting of their behavior, may have been in closer accordance with their real desire to be tacitly permitted to engage in sexual relationships with other men while still being viewed as "straight."They still are, in prison subculture, provided they're not on the receiving end of you know what. In his groundbreaking book Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940, the historian George Chauncey uncovered a vibrant gay male world that proliferated, sometimes quite openly, in the working-class dance halls, saloons and hostels of New York City during the early 20th century.I saw pretty much the same thing in Mexico in Hawaii. It used to be called "trade" and it was much more common -- back in the good old days when all a guy needed to do was say he "wasn't a queer" and if he was masculine and prepared to back it up, no one would question it (unless he was looking to pick a fight or something). Rather, according to Chauncey, the early 20th century culture's notion of normative masculinity had an established niche for "heterosexual" men who might also have an occasional desire for a different type of bodily pleasure that only another male could provide. A married man could pick up a "fairy" (a male prostitute) in Times Square and still be seen as straight: merely in need of a particular experience he could not obtain from his wife.Again, that sounds quite believable, and while I wasn't alive then, I'm old enough to have heard about such things first hand by ancient queens I've known over the years. The writer says it died out in the 30s and 40s, but I've heard about stuff like this which lasted well into the 50s and 60s. (IMO, it was the gay revolution that drove a stake through the heart of "trade" but that's another, very complex subject and the issue here is defending Larry Craig, right?) During the late 1930s and 1940s, Chauncey writes, the lines between the gay and straight worlds hardened. The Great Depression's challenge to the male's role as familial breadwinner led to fears that the "deviant perversity" of gays would further undermine the normative gender arrangements rendered fragile by economic collapse. Municipal authorities responded to the dominant cultural fear by explicitly outlawing men from attempting to pick up other men. Such new regulations, strengthened in the post-World War II crackdowns on gays in urban centers, made it increasingly difficult for the occasional homosexual to navigate the two worlds safely.Well, FWIW, I've ranted against that "anxious view" so many times I've lost count. I am convinced that the gay movement and the anti-gay zealots are mutually obsessed (mutually anxious, I guess), and they drive the meme constantly, to the point where people just assume "gay or straight" -- and that's all there is to it. Back in the days of "trade," very few heterosexual men would have thought to describe themselves as "straight" because activists had not yet been able to implant the idea that sexual categories were to be imposed on everyone in the form of such labels. Yeah, there were "queers," "fags," and "homos," but they weren't so much a lifestyle category as they were a projective defensive insult -- usually as reassurance of what someone (typically the user of the word) wasn't. It was possible, though, to say something like "some of my best friends are faggots" and actually mean it. (I heard the phrase.) Though we have much to learn about this story, what has emerged thus far suggests that Craig may fit into this amorphous category: he is alleged to have had several isolated homosexual encounters in his adult life, not sustained affairs with other men.Is Larry Craig a throwback? I'm not sure I'd go that far... At least, not with a straight face! Surely, the country is not ready for a serious "Throwback Mountain" theme film. But South Park Republicans aren't known for straight faces, so I submit the above as a last minute South Park defense of Larry Craig. MORE: To continue the argument ad-South Park-absurdam, I thought a "traditional throwback" poll (limited by the modern script) might be appropriate. Unfortunately, there is no bisexual category. (I am trying to make this conform to the demands of activists as far as I possibly can.) Question One: Question Two: If the poll seems absurd, that's not a bug. It's a feature. posted by Eric on 09.01.07 at 12:38 PM
Comments
I think the man is an idiot, and indefensible, and with this exercise I am not arguing that he should stay, but that the Republicans should stop acting so ashamed of themselves. They seem collectively incapable of playing basic hardball by saying "so what?" and turning the tables on the Democrats. The Republicans are thus dooming themselves to be recurrent victims of the Democrats' serial shame game, and unable to retaliate. Eric Scheie · September 1, 2007 02:29 PM Ummm, oral intercourse is a contradition in terms. The term you want is fellatio, or oral sex, or a blow job. Loki on the run · September 1, 2007 02:52 PM You forgot an option, frustrated. Alan Kellogg · September 1, 2007 10:36 PM Posting this anonymously in case I ever run for the Senate. When I was young, shy, and poor, I infrequently visited a certain adult book store where I knew I could obtain "release" anonymously and without having to reciprocate. Do I wish it was a women who was providing this service through that little hole in the wall? Yes. Do I consider myself gay because of what occurred 15 years ago? No. Did I grow out of that behavior? Yes. Flint · September 1, 2007 11:17 PM The Republican Party theme song should be Don Henley's "Dirty Laundry" -- kick 'em when when up, kick 'em when their down -- Frank · September 2, 2007 12:58 AM I'm a married, female Republican who is more a fiscal and 1st and 2nd Amendment conservative than a social conservative, though I have much sympathy for the social side. I just see it beating the party up over and over with no end in sight. The evidence against Craig is silly and he seems more guilty of precipitous stupidity (pleading guilty) and lacking in judgment than anything else. I agree with the Tarantos and Hinderakers of the world who argue that Craig is guilty of many things but hypocrisy is not one of them. That said, as to your relating of the old days of "trade" and men being straight while acting gay -- has it occurred to you that this started to end around the time women started gaining more power in the family and in society? Speaking as a woman, if I found out my husband was having anonymous sex in public bathrooms, there would be zero forgiveness in me. Not only is AIDS a huge factor but women perceive this as a hideous betrayal (physically and emotionally, despite emotion not being part of the sexual equation for men, OFTEN). I am not interested in the activist gay agenda but generally take a libertarian view. But do not be bringing it into my relationship, and I can tell from listening to Rush (or rather his substitutes this past week) that women are by far more offended by the issues raised by Craig's alleged behavior than are men. Sex for men is a whole different ballgame than it is for women, and women really don't get it. The women I've talked to about this are dumbfounded by all the anonymous gay sex allegedly going on and often by "respectably married family men" like Craig. I don't know if it was once tacitly acceptable to be married to a straight man who occasionally craved a gay encounter, the way wives tacitly accepted extramarital straight affairs, but the world changed when women gained power, independence and a fair amount of control over the home and work life. I have my own ambivalence about the sexual revolution, believe me, but this has to be one of the factors influencing the "you're straight or gay, not in between" rule of the gay community. It's a women's rule, too. It's just unacceptable to most women to be involved with or married to a supposed straight man who is doing this. That said, I was a psych major and I do believe sexual identity often exists on something of a sliding scale (masculine, feminine, and many shades in between). The world we live in for the most part does not accommodate that well and won't acknowledge it. I doubt it ever will. We demand that behavior, at least, be one or the other. Larry Craig got stuck in between but the worst part is how stupid and senseless he was about it (and the execrable behavior on the part of that police officer). Peg C. · September 2, 2007 06:28 AM The incident was entrapment pure and simple. The police do this all the time.This was airport security this time but the motivation was the same.Destroy someones life (no matter whose)so I don't have to hate myself becuase i am GAY.That's right the Senator was the target of a self hating closeted gay man.Happens all the time. ethanthom · September 2, 2007 11:49 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
September 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
September 2007
August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Never too late to Kettle-blog the debate
• Meanwhile, the Newt Lobby grows in strength... (And crushes small business...) • Global Warming Causes..... • Waiting for the other hsu to tap? • "Saturate us with resources" • What if they gave a Republican sex scandal and nobody came? • Greenpeace Knocks Wind Out Of Ted Kennedy's Sails • I'll never get enough of not enough! • America is gone? • "when is enough enough?"
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I give up.
I really am no genius political strategist, but I can't see how keeping screwups around makes for a better/stronger party. EITHER/ANY party.
Is it really to much to hope that we could elect people who will think before acting, or engage their brains before speaking?
I must be blind, because I just can't see this as a gay thing, or a sex thing. All I can see is a man in the public eye handing out bazookas and plenty of ammo to people who don't like him very much, then painting a huge neon bullseye on his chest and shouting "SHOOT ME" at the top of his lungs. And you're asking why we shouldn't keep him around.