Giving a rat's ass about a new foreign minister

Angela Merkel was sworn in as Chancellor recently, and I have to say, I like the ho-hum attitude towards her foreign minister:

GERMAN CHANCELLOR Angela Merkel flew to Paris last night for talks with French president Nicolas Sarkozy on who to choose as the new EU president, a month after winning the general election and hours after her swearing in.

Though her re-election as chancellor was seen as a formality, nine of the 332 government MPs declined to support their leader in the secret ballot, putting a dampener on her day.

"I'm happy that 323 MPs voted for me and I have respect, too, for dissenting votes in a democracy, so all in all I'm a happy woman," said Dr Merkel afterwards.

As was the case four years ago, her parents, Horst and Herlinde Kasner, watched the swearing in from the public gallery while her husband, Joachim Sauer, chose not to attend. Following the swearing in of new foreign minister Guido Westerwelle was his partner, Michael Mronz, a sport event manager.

After a round of handshakes, smiles and flowers, opposition leaders got down to business. (Emphasis added.)

In other words, no one of any importance gives a rat's ass about the sex of the new foreign minister's partner.

I suspect that if the partner of a male U.S. Secretary of State attended his partner's swearing in, a lot of people -- on both "sides" -- would very much have given a rat's ass. That's because (unfortunately) being gay in the United States is not a personal issue as it ought to be, but a political issue.

What I find more interesting about Westerwelle than his sex life (in which I'm about as interested as I am Chancellor Merkel's) is that he does not allow it to dictate his politics. He's against socialism:

Westerwelle is a staunch supporter of the free market and has proposed reforms to curtail the German welfare state and deregulate German labor law. In an interview in February 2003, Westerwelle described trade unions as a "plague on our country" and said unions bosses are "the pall-bearers of the welfare state and of the prosperity in our country".[6] He has called for substantial tax cuts and smaller government, in line with the general direction of his party.
Amazing. In Germany, being gay does not translate into supporting welfare statism.

But in this country, being gay requires being on the left, because both sides of the damned Culture War say so. Human sexuality is political, so according to the "rules," the left is pro-gay and the right is anti-gay (or at least is supposed to be). And it does not matter whether homosexuality is chosen or innate; if you choose to be gay, you have chosen leftism, while if you're born gay, you're born into leftism.

A lot of people on both sides want to keep it that way.

There's a paradox here, though. I don't care about the sexuality of the German foreign minister, and I mean I really and truly couldn't care less. So if I don't care, why would I bother writing this post? I wrote it because last night someone cited the example of the new German foreign minister to illustrate the difference in attitudes between Europeans and people in the United States. I was upset, and I cited Bush's appointment of a gay ambassador, but that didn't wash, not only because an ambassador is not the same Secretary of State, but because the usual people screamed about how awful it was. So even though I don't care about the German foreign minister's sex life, I care about the fact that other people do care -- and care so deeply and passionately that they have made human sexuality a political issue.

Identity politics simply does not work if people cease to care about the "identity" in question. See "The Depoliticization of the Dutch Gay Identity, or Why Dutch Gays Aren't Queer." What that means, of course, is that the rabid anti-gay right is the best political ally the organized gay left could have.

Which means I should care, right?

(I'm afraid I've touched on too many paradoxes for one post.)

posted by Eric on 11.01.09 at 11:21 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/8977






Comments

My brother's boyfriend cracks me up.

He's gay, he's from New England and he lived in Boston for a long time so he has to be a leftist.

He's very honest and intelligent (what he's doing with my brother I'll never know,)but when we talk, oh the the things that happen.

He was talking favorably about price-fixing on drugs, I was trying to argue they don't work but I'm not really good at economic stuff, he is.
Finally I thought of an analogy, I said, "Okay, how has rent-control worked in Boston?"
He started going off, getting red in the face and that's when I interrupted him and said, "Why would it work any better with drugs?"
Uh-oh.

He's against affirmative action but he keeps that opinion to himself.

He was talking about a leftist type inviting him and my brother to a party when the lefty said something about how excited he was about having a "gay" come to his party.
Rich asked, "Oh, do you have a black and a Jew too?" and thought it was pretty funny that the guy didn't see the irony.

Yeah, Rich is a conservative at heart but he's a gay New Englander so he has to be a public leftist, I always wonder how he votes.

Veeshir   ·  November 2, 2009 11:29 AM

I find it hard to understand how any gay or any minority can be leftist. So much of your freedom is constrained by the majority, you'd think anyone who is not white and straight would be for total freedom for everyone to do anything they want. If both well meaning and bad people can use the law to constrain others then we should stop them all right?

But no, it seems like people learn the wrong lesson, instead of learning we should not give people too much power over each other, many have learned we just need to give other people power, and think magically their guy won't abuse the power, or worse that it's ok because two wrongs make a right.

I was pretty flabbergasted when a gay friend of mine said Americans are "too stupid" to buy houses or purchase health care for themselves, and the government has to treat them like children and do everything for us. People can't be trusted with freedom because they might hurt themselves or others. But of course he doesn't want his freedom to be constrained. He doesn't see the contradiction in those two views.

plutosdad   ·  November 2, 2009 11:57 AM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


November 2009
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          

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits