The inevitable result of identity politics

Identity politics turns people into one dimensional characters, who must act out a set script.  If you’re black or Hispanic, you must be a Democrat, even if you oppose abortion, take a jaundiced view of gay marriage, and want school choice.  If you’re a woman, you must support equal pay for comparable work, even if that will destroy the economy and dramatically lessen the total number of jobs available.  If you’re a white male, you must be the epitome of all things regressive and evil.  Oh, and if you’re gay, you cannot be a principled conservative and must, instead, be humiliated and destroyed:

California GOP Rep. David Dreier and a number of other politicians are the unwilling stars of a controversial new documentary with an explosive premise – it’s time to blow open the closet door on prominent politicians who have hidden their homosexuality while actively working against gay causes.

The film “Outrage,” which opens today at the Embarcadero Center Cinema in San Francisco, presents interviews and documentation charging that a number of prominent legislators – including Dreier, the U.S. representative from San Dimas (Los Angeles County), GOPFlorida Gov. Charlie Crist and former Democratic New York Mayor Ed Koch – have remained closeted while publicly opposing legislation on issues such as same-sex marriage, HIV/AIDS funding, and gays in the military.

Liberals frequently confuse their compulsive need to typecast with hypocrisy.  Let me set the record straight.  Hypocrisy means to advocate one course of conduct or belief for others (usually with a sacrifice to them), while espousing another for yourself (usually to your benefit).

Thus, it’s hypocrisy when Al Gore goes around demanding that we all drive in cars made out of tissue paper, and live in houses that are freezing cold in winter and furnace hot in summer, all the time driving himself in a safe and comfortable SUV, and living in a series of energy-hog mansions.  It’s hypocrisy when Michael Moore demands that we all divest from Halliburton, but invests in it himself.  It’s out and out lying when Bill Clinton says “I did not have sex with that woman” or John Edwards assures the American people he never had an affair.

It is neither hypocrisy or lying, however, when gay men and women have a principled opposition to same-sex marriage, HIV/AIDS funding or gays in the military.  These same gay people, after all, are not being accused of sneaking off to Holland to get married, while denying those rights to American gays; of funneling money to those of their friends ill with HIV/AIDS while denying it to others; or whatever would be hypocritical behavior with regard to gays in the military.

Without any hypocrisy, it is perfectly possible to be gay, but believe that marriage is a specific institution unique to men and women.  You can hold to that position and still colorably demand full civil rights for gay unions that are then recognized nationwide.  Likewise, without hypocrisy, you can be gay, but recognize that cancer or heart disease or some other disease deserves equal access, not just to funding, but to fund raising.  And of course, you can be gay and believe that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is a workable compromise that allows gays to serve in the military without offending the heterosexual sensibilities that currently prevail in “this man’s Army” — all without being a hypocrite who voices one view and acts upon another.

The film “Outrage,” however, typecasts gays, and denies them the right to examine issues through a lens other than their own sexuality.  I say this without knowing or caring whether the men and women named in the movie are actually gay.  What I care about, deeply, is the pressure the gay community imposes upon its members to abjure independent thought, and to march lockstep through a series of complicated and contentious issues.

For a community that, a mere 40 years ago, broke free of the shackles imposed against it, it’s a real tragedy that it now insists upon imposing similar shackles upon itself.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Charles Martel

    Book, a lot of gays are self-hating, and a lot are not.

    The self-haters are the ones insisting on redefining reality to make them feel better about themselves. After all, if you can have people whisper in your ear enough times—often under compulsion–that you are da bomb, sooner or later you might come come to truly believe it yourself.

    Gays who have accepted what they are without all the drama and angst seem content to understand that a tiny minority cannot dictate terms to the much vaster majority, and are happy to see the great progress in the form of civil unions that people of good will are happy to recognize and support.

    Frankly, I’ve had it up to here with Professional Queers, Professional Aggrieved Latinos and Professional Victimized Blacks. These dunces would be hard to take seriously if it were not for the destruction they cause and the negativity they disseminate.


  • David Foster

    OT: I have a post up on nuclear weapons, Israel, and the Obama administration which references Book’s post of a few days ago on Predatory and Prey.

  • Mike Devx

    It’s a cynical attempt to destroy their gay political opponents, because they believe that a candidate who is known to be gay cannot survive the voters in a Republican primary. There is no moral high ground in doing that, so they have to find a way to recast it in a moral crusade, so that they can feel good about what they’re doing.

    It’s not much different from the assault on Sarah Palin (or Ms. Prejean) for simply being a committed Christian, with conservative values. Find an opening, and attack with all the viciousness they possibly can. Even though – as with the gay issue – an assault on a woman merely for her belief system is a repudiation of everything the liberal activists are supposed to stand for.

    Or the assault on “their” Black people in California for supporting the traditional definition of marriage in California. Wasn’t that a tough pill to swallow? “Hey, you Black people, we Democrats are supposed to “own” you!” (And isn’t it nice that they want to own Black people again?)

    Gay rights, feminism, black civil rights… and on to any other such struggle you might care to name… once a Democrat power constituency gets formed, they will turn on their own and assault them, until everyone is marching in lockstep with the Democrat identity politics belief system.

    My only question is, are they blinded by their own ideology into not realizing that they are repudiating everything that the origins of their “struggle” once stood for… freedom from oppression, freedom to be treated equally? Or do they truly realize their own hypocrisy, and not care; and make their noises about hypocrisy deliberately to conceal their descent into vicious amoral tactics against their own?

  • Ymarsakar

    My only question is, are they blinded by their own ideology into not realizing that they are repudiating everything that the origins of their “struggle” once stood for… freedom from oppression, freedom to be treated equally?

    They are perfectly fine with freedom from oppression. For themselves and those they care about. For others? No. Too high a price to pay.

    The ultimate in selfish narcissistic vain glory, Mike. And it doesn’t take much to upgrade it to the megalomania of a cult leader or the fury and barbarity of a mob.

  • Ymarsakar

    It’s not much different from the assault on Sarah Palin (or Ms. Prejean) for simply being a committed Christian, with conservative values.

    I think to a certain extent, Libertarians, some Republicans (Like Olympia Snow and the anti-Palin clique), along with almost the entire base of the Democrat party, are unable to resist propaganda. They don’t know what it is, but they think they do. They think they are talking about propaganda and unconventional war, but all they are talking about is an illusion in their heads.

    This is demonstrated by how easy they are to manipulate and how they never question the contradictions inherent in their positions.

    Thus, Obama voters can vote for Obama and say this is because Palin was an extremist and Bush a right wing warmonger, and then when Obama starts being recklessly dangerous in promoting war abroad and when Obama is nationalizing industries ala Banana Republics/Venezuella, the Left says “Obama is our leader, toe the line or you aren’t an American”.

    For the “muddy middle”, however, things are slightly different but not fundamentally. For those people, they didn’t care for Sarah Palin and saw her as a “polarizing figure”. All the while, they were fooled by Obama’s “moderate guise” and told the rest of us that “Obama would be a moderate” or “they hope Obama would be a moderate”. They didn’t hope the same things about Sarah Palin. Why? Because their minds got jacked and owned by the media news, interviews, and George Soros strategies, that’s why.

    Their minds are not their own. Their opinions are not even their own. They can be made to think, to believe, or to feel whatever propagandists tell them to.

    And that, irrespective of any single political difference I have for them, is why they are a liability as well as worthy of contempt.

  • Ymarsakar

    I remember some damning specifics on this case as well. The Left and idolitard moderates kept repeating that Sarah Palin was extreme, a polarizing figure, that she would make schools teach abstinence against the rights of the children or the wishes of the family.

    Well, we got Obama making federal funding mandatory on tax payer dollars for abortion. Whether you agree with abortion or not, whether you need it or not. Tax payers going to fund, mimis.

    And then it was about political corruption and how Sarah Palin was corrupt or abused her authority in Alaska. Now we have Obama the fooking the magistrate of Rome having airplanes over New York City and embarrassing us to the entire world and making us look triple the fools, not to mention bowing down to Saudi Arabia, kissing the ass of Hugo Chavez, and spreading it for the Mullah Counter-Revolutionary “Sharia” squad. Not to mention the tax cheating frauds that Obama nominated as worthy of telling the rest of us how to pay our taxes and how much of it to pay. But the Republikkans, now they were the real corrupt culture, yannow Pillow C.

    Every single political issue used to convince the weak willed, sissy moth ball flying moderates to vote Democrat or even that the Republicans were not worthy of the vote, was 1000% true for Obama, and only for Obama and the Left.

    Propaganda is not about the truth, mind you. Thus it doesn’t matter whether the Republicans are worthy or have problems, just as it doesn’t matter whether atrocities happened or not in Iraq. The goal of propaganda is to manipulate the perception of individuals, through their emotions or other avenues of contact, to make them think what you want them to think, in order to ultimately make them act the way you want them to act.

    And it doesn’t matter if you use 99.999% of the truth or only .01% of the truth in propaganda. It doesn’t matter if they know they are being manipulated or think they are “independent” fracking thinkers that came up with this sweet idea of “Obamanation” on their own or not. If it works, it works. If they do what you want, they have done what you have wanted. Just like an atom bomb will incinerate your pathetic little house made of wood regardless of whether you are evil, good, an environmentalist, or an idiot. Not to imply, of course, that environmentalists and idiots are mutually exclusive spheres of existence.

  • Rhymes With Right

    If conservatives were to go after gay political figures like this, we would be condemned as homophobic hatemongers who were violating the privacy rights of adults.

    On the other hand, when liberals do it they are lauded as heroes.

    Interestingly enough, it isn’t conservatives who do this sort of thing at all — so who are the real hatemongers?

  • Pingback: Watcher of Weasels » Regulator Watch: FDA Regulators Claim Cheerios Is a Drug()

  • Pingback: The Colossus of Rhodey()

  • Pingback: Soccer Dad()

  • Wolf Howling

    A superb essay, BWR. The gay community is becoming particularly aggressive in pursuing their brand of identity politics.

    If I may, I was going to do a post on the unbelievably aggressive push on gay rights in Britain and wanted to include a reference therein to a post you did a long time ago about a fair of sorts held in SF that invovled gay man. It included a poster with gay men in a last supper pose. I can’t find the post you did on it. If you happen to remember, would you mind e-mailing it or putting it in a comment on this string. Thanks.

    Hmmm, as to identity politics, we seem to be at least topicly in sync on Watcher’s Council posts. I am almost tempted to ask what we shall write on for next week’s submission.

  • Charles Martel


    Go here to see what Michelle Malkin wrote about Miller Beer’s sponsorship of the Folsom Street Fair and the Last Supper-like poster that stirred so much controversy:

    The search terms “Folsom Street Fair Miller” are enough to get you started.

  • Pingback: Watcher of Weasels » Q: What Does A Two State Solution and A Blood Tax Have in Commom?()

  • Pingback: Rhymes With Right()