LIBERAL COMPLICITY

From New York Magazine, Frank Rich reminds us of the historical liberal complicity with homophobic forces:

Whitewashing Gay History

The second thing that’s wrong with the picture is far less obvious because it has been willfully obscured. In the outpouring of provincial self-congratulation that greeted the legalization of same-sex marriage in New York, some of the discomforting history that preceded that joyous day has been rewritten, whitewashed, or tossed into a memory hole. We—and by we, I mean liberal New Yorkers like me, whether straight or gay, and their fellow travelers throughout America—would like to believe that the sole obstacles to gay civil rights have been the usual suspects: hidebound religious leaders both white and black, conservative politicians (mostly Republican), fundamentalist Christian and Muslim zealots, and unreconstructed bigots. What’s been lost in this morality play is the role that many liberal politicians and institutions have also played in slowing and at some junctures halting gay civil rights in recent decades.

More here.

I have an indelible memory of former Senator Sam Nunn (D-TN) self-righteously and publicly excoriating President Clinton's plans early in his first term to allow gays to serve openly in the military. Nunn was on the Senate Defense Committee, chairman, I think, too, and was obviously pissed off that the new Baby Boomer President would use our armed forces for "social experiments." Yeah, that's the same phrase we now identify almost exclusively with Republicans talking about the end of DADT, but Nunn and lots of other Democrats were all saying the same thing back in the early 90s.

It was something of a wake-up call for me. I had only recently decided I was a liberal, only recently starting to vote for Democrats instead of Republicans, and I was put through some definite cognitive dissonance upon my realization that the words "Democrat" and "liberal" do not walk hand in hand. I mean, in spite of years of conservative rhetoric to the contrary. In the end, of course, Clinton backed down, and instead we got Don't Ask Don't Tell, which, bizarrely, led to a massive uptick in witch hunts against gay service personnel. I continue to be outraged by the whole fiasco.

But Rich's essay observes well that liberal complicity over the years with the forces of homophobia was never simply about Southern conservative Democrats. Shitloads of bona fide liberals, on other issues, have played the anti-gay card, too. My take is that more than a few of these types were actually supporters of gay rights in their personal lives, but were too afraid of taking a stand in their public lives--others were just plain homophobes, and behaved accordingly. But it's the former group that infuriates me the most. When getting reelected is more important than morality, and that's what civil rights issues are, morality, then you may very well have some portion of official governmental power, but you're no leader. You're a piece of shit.

Don't get me wrong: I don't like the homophobes, either, but refusing to do what you know is right for reasons of personal gain is nothing short of despicable. Actually, the Democrats, as a party, continue to suffer from this on a whole host of other issues.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$