|
August 14, 2008
Individualism: the common enemy
A man who runs a gay cruising site has taken flak for the crime of being a gay person who dared to support John McCain. Reflecting on the rather strange rule that All Gays Must Support Barack Obama Or Else!, Richard Miniter asks some good questions: Why should a particular sexual orientation demand a particular political orientation? Sweater-knitters and ice-skaters are not organized along political lines-and neither are all straight people expected to vote for one particular party. Why do Gay rights advocates demand lock-step political obedience? Indeed they seem as vicious against Gay dissenters as they are toward evangelical Christians.They can be even more vicious. That's because while they won't acknowledge it, gay activists need evangelical Christians -- at least, those of the vehemently anti-gay variety. The latter often help advance the gay cause by creating a backlash, and (perhaps inadvertently) helping perpetuate the stereotypes that fuel identity politics. As I've pointed out repeatedly, this has been going on for decades: The irony fascinates me, and I'm reminded of Anita Bryant putting gay rights on the cover of Newsweek in the 1970s and Jerry Falwell selling lurid videos filmed at Gay Pride events. All moral issues aside, I think people are titillated by such things, and they are a good way to get attention and bring traffic.Shrill anti-gay activists and shrill gay activists might not be literally in bed with each other, but they need each other a lot more than is commonly acknowledged. Without enemies, bigots, and oppressors, identity politics would be a much tougher sell. Which is why I think Miniter's concluding questions apply to both "sides": What trouble do they have with a free society where everyone is entitled to go their own way? Why are they tribal, not pro-individual?Because identity politics is a highly manipulative, very successful form of tribalism, and individualism is enemy number one. I can think of no better illustration of how seriously this threat is taken than the attempt by the Seattle public school system to define individualism as a form of racism. (That very revealing definition has since has been purged of course, but they showed their hand.) posted by Eric on 08.14.08 at 10:29 AM
Comments
The further irony is that these interest groups, by guaranteeing their votes to one or the other party, actually undermine their causes. The parties need votes, to get votes they pander. Once a vote is locked up, the pander machine moves on to the next vote. Under their current state of affairs, neither the Republican nor the Democratic parties have any cause to give a damn about their issues. If they would just put their votes in play, that situation would be reversed. tim maguire · August 14, 2008 11:38 AM Minorities often feel powerless, and convince themselves that they are only powerful if they remain united. Such calculations work well for the individuals perceived as the leaders of such groups, but gradually undermine the sense of agency for the rank-and-file, who become even less powerful. Assistant Village Idiot · August 14, 2008 04:19 PM Of course gay voters CAN vote to McCain, but you don't really think that very many will, do you? Its the same with black voters. chocolatier · August 14, 2008 08:31 PM chocolatier, you'd be surprised at how many conservative gays are out there (here in New York City, I know many gay conservatives and even a few gay couples who reliabliy go to the polls every other November to cancel out each other's vote). "Gay" is not inherently a political position. tim maguire · August 15, 2008 10:50 AM tim maguire: LOL, Tim. I moved back to the City a few months ago and have acquired a boyfriend since then; that's exactly the story. I will note, however, that it's my man and his liberal fellow-travelers who are gloating over the prospect of my vote being canceled out, not his two or three right-leaning friends and I about theirs (and given the proportion of New York that's likely to go for Obama, you'd think we would be). Sean Kinsell · August 16, 2008 06:04 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
August 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
August 2008
July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 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 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Green Speculation
Democrats Strike Out Classical Values Cartoons? What if the Ice Age skeptics are ruining the planet? Some One Just Got A Pole Up Their Posterior Russians In Georgia Demobilize Your tax dollars at work Get Your Russian Women Here First Georgia, now Stallone? "having a bit of fun, the swines"
Links
Site Credits
|
|
"Shrill anti-gay activists and shrill gay activists might not be literally in bed with each other"
No, bed isn't likely, back alley, park, or mens bathroom, perhaps . . .
(seems like closet cases prefer semi-public settings for some reason)
(not all anti-gay activists are closet cases, but it happens often enough, that I wouldn't be surprised if one or two activists on both sides of the issue have 'met' in one way or another in their pasts)