Outings

David Corn reports the existence of "The List" a roster of gay Republican congressional aides. Said staffers are becoming the target of anger from GOP types who believe Mark Foley was being protected by an insidious cabal of gay conservatives who somehow managed to prevent the leadership from doing anything about what was happening. More intriguingly, Corn writes:

I have a copy. I'm not going to publish it. For one, I don't know for a fact that the men on the list are gay. And generally I don't fancy outing people--though I have not objected when others have outed gay Republicans, who, after all, work for a party that tries to limit the rights of gays and lesbians and that welcomes the support of those who demonize same-sexers.

I've always found there to be something of a generation gap among liberals in this town on "outings" with younger people saying go for it, and our elders being more hesitant. Certainly, I'm all for disclosre. The Republicans don't just "welcome[] the support of those who demonize same-sexers," they've made gay-bashing (along with terrorism) one of the primary emotional foci of conservative politics in America. If liberals got to make up all the rules of the game, homosexuality wouldn't be an issue in American politics. But we don't get to make up the rules unilaterally, and the right has decreed that it is an issue -- a major issue -- and the left needs to play by the rules of the game as it exists.

What's more, the very fact that we're even talking about a "list" here is indicative of how far into the fever swamps of homophobia conservatives have dragged us. We're supposed to believe, I guess, that straight men have never behaved lecherously vis-a-vis women they have a supervisory relationship with? If you believe that, I've got a bridge I'd be interested in selling you.

Comments

The problem is you're talking about outing a person. Regardless of their political affiliation, they're still people on that list. While I appreciate your point that heteros can behave at least as inappropriately as homosexuals, many homosexuals prefer not to be out, for their own sake, the sake of their families, or for the sake of their lovers. That should be respected, even if the person is a republican.

However, I guess I'm open to outing, Larry-Flint-style, republicans who have crusaded against rights for the gay/lesbian community and are on the list. There are many republicans who have been silent on the issue, and even 1 or 2 who support homosexual rights. If they're on the list, are they as deserving as being involuntarily outed as some bigot who actively seeks to restrict rights of people based on their preferences? I would say no.

The other problem, as the author points out, is that the list could be mere speculation. Then, whoever points it out is on a smear compaign and doing more harm than good.

Posted by Mike | October 5, 2006 9:52 AM

I'm not sure I'm buying that, MY.

I mean, how do I know you hold a clear title to the bridge?

Posted by kid bitzer | October 5, 2006 10:06 AM

Another problem is that both parties, including the party that's home to most liberals, have demonized gays. DOMA, you'll recall, was signed by Bill Clinton. Ygelesias, do you out a gay Democrat who's voted against gay marriage? You should, by your logic. For that matter, why not reveal an adulterous affair of a pol who goes around preaching the importance of family.

Outing politicians--using their private lives against them--is unethical, period.

Posted by david mizner | October 5, 2006 10:07 AM

More proof that the Democrats' claim to "tolerance" in bunk. The fact is, as Matthew's post shows, Democrats are far more intolerant of others' lifestyle choices than Republicans.

Posted by Al | October 5, 2006 10:23 AM

I'll second Mike, but add these additional problems: 1) there is something distasteful about outing aides and staff members who, while they may largely subscribe to the GOP, aren't responsible for the policy and public positions of their employer. I've seen sites that even out office staff. Lord knows I've had employers whose ideology I disagreed with.

2) the practical effect of such outing is less to push the GOP and moderate Democratic party toward homophilic positions than to ensure that gay people aren't employable in a good swath of political life. The fact that I'd rather not see my gay brothers and sisters go Republican and in fact see a certain Uncle Tomism among most Log Cabiners doesn't attenuate a situation in which gay people are bearing the brunt of this strategy.

Given your previous resistance to hypocrisy arguments I'm surprised you're behind this kind of outing, since its rhetorical appeal lies mostly in exposing hypocritical situations.

Posted by Chris | October 5, 2006 10:46 AM

Please don't go down this road. Outing people, exposing lists...if this was coming from the other side, I'd be screaming facism and McCarthyism. The only things like this do is increase partisanship and American tribalism.

Posted by gene | October 5, 2006 11:09 AM

Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap.

Republicans have been as busy as bees MAKING UP CRAP. Swift Boating Kerry, putting "D-FL" in press reports about Foley. The Arkansas Project was a badger game. Etc. So, crap, crap, crap on the gentility stuff. The Republicans changed the rules on how personal behavior would be treated and have sucked up to the shysters and schlubs of the Christian Piety Industry.

Hoist 'em and mock 'em.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 5, 2006 11:10 AM

typo from above: fascism

Posted by gene | October 5, 2006 11:10 AM

"Given your previous resistance to hypocrisy arguments I'm surprised you're behind this kind of outing, since its rhetorical appeal lies mostly in exposing hypocritical situations."

Good point, Chris. Curious to see how Matthew would handle that.

Jeffrey Davis -- Following your argument along, it would seem like you'd also be in favor of making up stuff about Republicans. I can't say I would.

At any rate, a point to remember: decency and gentility aren't the same thing. The first is a lot more important than the second, and it's what is being debated here.

Posted by Kyle | October 5, 2006 11:23 AM

That should be respected, even if the person is a republican.

Fuck that. Welcome to the basics of a social contract. You respect me, I'll respect you. If you're against outing--which I am, mildly--it should be on the basis that it will be a punishment of sorts for the outed, and it's hard to sort out who deserves that level of punishment, or even what "that level of punishment" will be in the individual case. It is much easier to make a case in favor of outing gay Republicans with clear political power than other gay Republicans. Even then, I'd be leery, though I couldn't say why.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 5, 2006 11:32 AM

Outing people, exposing lists...if this was coming from the other side, I'd be screaming facism and McCarthyism. The only things like this do is increase partisanship and American tribalism.

Remember - partisanship is good. Bipartisans (such as, oh, Bush-kissing Lieberman) are evil.

Holding up a list, and threatening to name names, is the greater good if you are a Democrat. Holding up a list, and threatening to name names, is McCarthyism if you are a Republican. Democrats are, by definition, good and therefore not McCarthyites.

Up is down. Black is white.

Posted by Al | October 5, 2006 11:47 AM

In the brutalism era of American politics, worrying about devastating someone's life by revealing legitimately private matters is so out-of-date. It's either that, or give up the 'game'.

Posted by Robert the Red | October 5, 2006 11:51 AM

Holding up a list, and threatening to name names, is the greater good if you are a Democrat. Holding up a list, and threatening to name names, is McCarthyism if you are a Republican.

1. I think it's the Republicans who are presently threatening the outing--they're the ones with the pedophilia scandal they want to blame on the Big Gays.

2. There's a difference between naming names over something you think is unimportant, and naming names over something you think should lead to obloquy for the named.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 5, 2006 11:56 AM

"Given your previous resistance to hypocrisy arguments I'm surprised you're behind this kind of outing, since its rhetorical appeal lies mostly in exposing hypocritical situations."

Good point, Chris. Curious to see how Matthew would handle that.

Ummm, Matthew would be a hypocrite about it! Which, of course, is not a problem, since he thinks [a]s an approach to moral or political philosophy, however, anti-hypocrisy has very serious flaws.

See how it all works out perfectly for Matthew?? He can support actions like outings, which operate "mostly in exposing hypocritical situations", or he can accuse people of being hypocrites, and yet he can still take the the position that anti-hypocrisy is not a good basis for judgements, because, well, that hypocrisy isn't a good basis for judging him!

Matthew is very, very slick.

Posted by Al | October 5, 2006 11:58 AM

1. I think it's the Republicans who are presently threatening the outing--they're the ones with the pedophilia scandal they want to blame on the Big Gays.

Hmmm. That's not what the Corn post indicates. It said it was drawn up by "gay politicos". Somehow, I doubt those "gay politicos" are Republicans.

2. There's a difference between naming names over something you think is unimportant, and naming names over something you think should lead to obloquy for the named.

And being gay is unimportant? Tell that to HRC or the NGLTF!

Posted by Al | October 5, 2006 12:06 PM

More proof that the Democrats' claim to "tolerance" in bunk. The fact is, as Matthew's post shows, Democrats are far more intolerant of others' lifestyle choices than Republicans.

Saying that a gay person is gay reflects "intolerance" how exactly?

Posted by Scott Lemieux | October 5, 2006 12:08 PM

I'm not sure the "blame it on gays in Congress" thing will work as a tactic against Democrats because I think the Democratic gays are already out and there aren't very many of them anyway. It's the Republican gays who keep a low profile. So if Republicans want to promote the idea that there was a gay conspiracy it is going to have to be mostly a gay Republican conspriracy. Either that, or the threat to name names is completely idle, intended only to inspire the wingnuts to conjure up a conspiracy of whoever they wish to smear.

Posted by lily | October 5, 2006 12:47 PM

I'm not sure the "blame it on gays in Congress" thing will work as a tactic against Democrats because I think the Democratic gays are already out and there aren't very many of them anyway. It's the Republican gays who keep a low profile. So if Republicans want to promote the idea that there was a gay conspiracy it is going to have to be mostly a gay Republican conspriracy. Either that, or the threat to name names is completely idle, intended only to inspire the wingnuts to conjure up a conspiracy of whoever they wish to smear.

Posted by lily | October 5, 2006 12:49 PM

And being gay is unimportant? Tell that to HRC or the NGLTF!

I've said this before, but it's clear the stupider something is, the more pleasure Al gets out of saying it in public. For apparatchiks like him, the greater the degree of self-abasement and humiliation you're willing to engage in, the more it proves you love The Party.

Posted by grh | October 5, 2006 12:49 PM

Sorry about the double post.

Posted by lily | October 5, 2006 12:50 PM

Jeffrey Davis -- Following your argument along, it would seem like you'd also be in favor of making up stuff about Republicans. I can't say I would.

That doesn't follow from my point at all which -- to make things explicit -- was to screw false gentility. Democrats typically do the Kevin Bacon bit, "Thank you, sir, may I have another."

Maybe you think the mild, "That's a misrepresentation" or "Oh, another lie" works. No, it doesn't. You can't counter a deluge of lies in a mass media age by playing Job upon a pillar. Unless your own virtue is your point. Carry the battle to the bastards. You'll certainly remember Foley's attack on Clinton, yes? Oh, we must maintain decorum. Uh huh. Nuts to that.

When the rightwingers and Republicans give you an issue on a silver salver don't suddenly go on a diet.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 5, 2006 1:14 PM

The pink list?

Posted by Tail Gunner Joe | October 5, 2006 2:00 PM

I oppose outing, except in the case of 'Al'.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | October 5, 2006 3:00 PM

If the Republican Party can't even keep tabs on their own staffers, who have supposedly formed a gay mafia, let alone stand up to and/or outmaneuver them, how the hell do they expect anyone to believe they are capable of outwitting and outmaneuvering highly trained, sophisticated, and dedicated terrorist groups?

Of course, it's all BS, but good for a laugh nonetheless. Cowering in fear from the possible retribution of their own gay staffers?

Please.

Posted by jimm | October 5, 2006 3:29 PM

Outing is wrong. In an ideal society, your sexuality would be of interest to potential sex partners and your family/kin network and no one else. In the meantime, people should be able to choose when and if they want their sexuality revealed and to whom.

There are some rules that come before politics.

Posted by Pithlord | October 5, 2006 3:48 PM

As far as I can tell, there is very little resembling thought among gay intellectuals (or feminists, for that matter) these days (and really hasn't been since the less middlebrow elements of the gay [and feminist] movement were officially banished or died off; gay marriage excites certain voters [in a bad way, mostly] but it is really no more radical or interesting an idea than franchising delicious, high quality coffee and unique mug designs), but I remember reading an essay back in the 1990s (can't remember who wrote it) suggesting an ethical standard for voting, namely hyprocisy.

It is not that just anyone should be outed, but that politicians (or others) involved in advancing some kind of anti-gay agenda (this would include Foley, I gather), ought to be outed. This too is obvious, and doesn't quite pass as thought either, but it seemed almost worth mentioning.

As a side note, isn't it funny how Andrew Sullivan is always berating and belitting the queer theorists (who to be sure often themselves don't have too much interesting to say, or at least say clearly and concisely [I did enjoy trying "Epistemogy of the Closet" in college though, which may contain more words not in the Oxford English Dictionary than almost any other English language book ever written...I liked the "Billy Budd" part) and praising the likes of Whitman and Plato (without really discussing what is in Whitman and Plato)? Would Whitman and Plato really be all that enthusiastic about Andy's wholesome, middlebrow view of homosexuality?

Posted by Linus | October 5, 2006 3:50 PM

Jeffrey Davis and SomeCallMeTim - Why so hateful? My guess is a couple of lovers scorned by gay republicans working in congress and hoping to extract revenge by exposing them. Please, let's not punish some no-name staffer or idealistic aide just because your hatred for Bush and republicans causes you to foam at the mouth. Remember, the campaign theme of the dems in 2004 was "Republicans suck! At least we're not them," and it didn't work very well. Contrary to your view, the discourse has to remain at a respectable level if we want our candidates in.

Posted by Mike | October 5, 2006 4:01 PM

Jeffrey Davis and SomeCallMeTim - Why so hateful?

Exsqueeze me. It's called "anger".

the discourse has to remain at a respectable level if we want our candidates in.

That worked so well in 2002 and 2004.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 5, 2006 4:19 PM

Barney Frank has long said he knows of several Republican congressmen that are gay and he will out them if they cross the line. What has he been waiting for? Anyone who isn't bling knows Santorum is gay (and no, I'm not doing this as a joke, but in all seriousness). Then again Bush is sooooo closeted it isn't even funny. He's the poster child for overcompensation. Few things are as scary as an overcompensating closet-case with an Oedipus complex and his finger on the button.

Posted by Reality Man | October 5, 2006 5:10 PM

Outing staffers is a bad idea not because it's immoral, necessarily, but because nobody cares. The last thing anybody wants to see is (tea and) sympathy for Republican Congressional Staffers.

As far as the morality goes, we stop having a moral obligation to care about your inner emotional state once you step into politics, nor do you have a legitimate interest or expectation in keeping *any* fact about you private. This may apply to staff, but only at Roy Cohn levels of influence.

But even if there were a moral argument, wouldn't it be far outweighed by the public interest in removing Republicans from power? But it has to work, first. No sense spinning the wheels.

Posted by Benner | October 5, 2006 5:19 PM

Re: Would Whitman and Plato really be all that enthusiastic about Andy's wholesome, middlebrow view of homosexuality?

Whitman lived a rather staid middle class life with a partner named Pete something or other. In today's times they'd probably be married in MA.
Plato lived in a vastly difefrent world, but he taught sexual sublimation, and appears to have been celibate, a least in his mature years.

Posted by Jonf | October 5, 2006 7:02 PM

So when are you and Ross coming out as a couple?

Posted by ezra | October 5, 2006 9:22 PM

Matt we need to talk.

Posted by Spence | October 5, 2006 9:26 PM

"Whitman lived a rather staid middle class life with a partner named Pete something or other. In today's times they'd probably be married in MA."

Whitman had multiple affairs with young men half his age, and is believed to have had some kind of sexual contact with one or more pre-pubescent boys on Long Island. The details of the latter story are murky, but there are period accounts and oral histories suggesting a man fitting his description was literally tarred and feathered by the locals in the very area he was known to have lived in New York. I myself believe the story is true.

But biography is only part of it. I can be a celibate capitalist and spend my life advancing - in poems, philosophy, scrambled egg sculptures - radical ideas about sexuality and political economy. Whitman managed to make Americanism and homsosexual pederasty more or less the same thing; that's something, no?

And I'm convinced that since he is my fourth cousin I've inherited the capacity to write really bad novels just like him from our common ancestors (some crusty old Dutch people).

PS I would gather that if Andrew Sullivan started endorsing the substance of Mr. Whitman and Mr. Plato's views about sex and sexuality he wouldn't have that Time Magazine gig for too much longer.

Posted by Linus | October 6, 2006 1:18 AM

"We're supposed to believe, I guess, that straight men have never behaved lecherously vis-a-vis women they have a supervisory relationship with? If you believe that, I've got a bridge I'd be interested in selling you."

It would be nice, so nice, if an equal number of women commented on this Foley case, as men. There might be less - "you know what I mean, older men have fantasies of younger women and he happened to be a gay congressmen hitting on a younger page" - and more discussion of the patriarchal presence of sexual predation on younger girls/women by men, who more easily accept or fall into the role of sexual interest to someone abusing their power (because society kind of tells them this is not that wrong). Plus, does it seem that everyone is afraid of being morally conservative and not just condemn what he did, rather than look to other reasons to condemn what he did? Or do I have no idea what I'm talking about?

Posted by yellow | October 6, 2006 4:51 PM