Dan Savage column on liberals/gay/fundamentalists

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
WELCOME TO OUR WORLD
by Dan Savage


Liberals Are the New Gays

Liberals are staring into the red belly of this country with incomprehension and fear. They are wondering how one even begins to talk to the huge percentage of voters who told exit pollsters last Tuesday that "moral values" guided them in choosing president Bush. Among straight liberals there is a sudden feeling that it is desperately urgent to reach out to these people, that the straight liberal way of life may depend on it.

Welcome to our world.

We gay Americans have been wondering how to engage these people for years, and not just in an abstract, political-strategizing sort of way. For too many gay Americans, the homophobic wing of the "moral values" voting bloc includes mom and dad, the ones who disowned their child simply for being queer. These kids, and those of us who befriend them in their urban exile, have long known that a vast swath of red America would like nothing better than to push us first out of their territory, and then from our coastal enclaves straight into the sea. So the wounded contempt generated by the new map of divided America isn't new to us.

And here is what we have learned about the religious fundamentalists who hide their ignorance and fear behind a cloak of "moral values," and who, through the cynical attentions of the Republican Party, have now become political kingmakers: First, you cannot compromise with them. As the Republicans themselves frequently remind us in another context, to compromise with a religious fundamentalist is to establish a moral equivalence between his or her core convictions and your own; it is, in other words, to cede far too much ground. You do not change a homophobe by suggesting that he is correct, just as you do not change an Islamic fundamentalist by allowing that perhaps nonbelievers should be killed. There will be a temptation among Democrats to do this, however, to pander to America's evangelical fundamentalist voters by aping Bush's strategy of pretending to be one of them. Don't do it. It is inimical to the core values of liberalism, it is a step toward quasi-theocracy, and it would only embolden the bigots, the anti-choice control freaks, and the God-appointed totalitarians.

It is also a waste of time, which bring us to the second lesson gay people have learned in dealing with America's homophobic "moral values" voters: A certain percentage of these religious fundamentalists simply cannot be swayed from their beliefs. There is no debate with them, no appeal to rationality or even common humanity. God has told them what's right, and they're not changing. The gay children of people like this generally have to cut off or greatly circumscribe contact with their parents in order to maintain their own dignity. It is a painful process, but ultimately it creates the reward fundamentalists deserve: estrangement from the open-minded world and a lonely death. The Democrats should do likewise: give up on the fundamentalists who simply won't change, and let them die estranged from our culture.

The fear, looking at the electoral map, is that we simply can't do this now because there seems to be more of them than us, meaning they're not dying off fast enough, or if they are, they're being rapidly replaced by new true believers. Don't buy this, it's too simple. As gay children of religious parents know, there are a good number of nominal religious fundamentalists who are, in fact, open to new ideas. Some voters, like some parents, can change. If you stand up to them, and persistently but politely call them on their pseudo-moral bullshit, these people will eventually come around--if not to acceptance, then to grudging respect, or at least a respectful détente. Great is the number of families with gay children (think of the Cheneys) who discover an elasticity in their supposedly unchanging "values" when someone they know challenges them in the right way.

* * *

Paradoxically, just as straight liberals are finding themselves to be on the same cultural island as gay Americans, a good number of gay Americans appear to be under the delusion that they are welcome in the sea of red. How else to explain the fact that exit polls showed 23 percent of gay American voters chose Bush, down only 2 percent from 2000?

While straight liberals need to figure out how to deal with the evangelical fundamentalist problem better, gay liberals need to figure out how to better deal with this problem: In an election where Republicans deliberately used homophobia to rally their base, the lesson the gay community taught them was, "Go right ahead, we'll vote for you anyway." It appears the Republicans are on their way to doing with some gay Americans what they have so successfully done with the poor and the uneducated. They are turning a good number of us into a reliable constituency that can be counted on to vote against its own interests.

If for no other reason than our own self-interest, liberal gays need to find these conservative gays and beat some sense into them. The pressure on the Democratic Party to move more into the "mainstream" (i.e., away from gay rights) is already huge. If we can't reward with our votes the Democrats who stick their necks out to support us, then we gay Americans are being willing accomplices in our own destruction.

Riot Gear! (Gear!), Saturday, 13 November 2004 01:53 (nineteen years ago) link

That's interesting, thanks Gear. I'm kind of stunned by the proportion of gay voters who chose Bush - he rightly points out that this is nothing new in terms of the poor, but the Right lies, and claims it can help the poor, it divides and conquers the poor telling those on minimum wage that it is the unemployed who are their enemy, not the rich. But what does Bush offer the gay community, even as a lie? I know that gay people don't only elect based solely upon issues of sexuality, but the Republican party are fairly openly homophobic, so I can't understand what is happening there - surely their antipathy towards you has to trump your beliefs about fiscal policy?
I completely concur with his point about not abandoning Democratic ideals to try to capture the centre, but with one distinction. He rightly argues that trying to be less radical won't change people's minds about homosexuals - but thus isn't what Dems talking about this want to do anyway. They are thinking of how to get elected, not how to persue policies of equality. For those people, accepting the New Moral Order is something worth doing if it gets the Dems back in power. Of course I disagree with this, I just think it's a problem with what he is saying. How much longer must the Left keep chasing the centre before we realise that this course of action is fruitless. The purpose of a political party is to represent and campaign for a set of ideals - it's purpose is not to get elected. Government is the means, not the end, for a political party. I hope the Democrats can stop apeing the right, and start being honest and vocal about their ideals - in the end this will result in more good than ending up in power only to realise you are not the Party that wanted to change things in the first place.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Saturday, 13 November 2004 02:11 (nineteen years ago) link

I seem to have killed this thread. Sorry, Gear.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Saturday, 13 November 2004 15:09 (nineteen years ago) link

AFAIC, abandoning gays at this point would be equivalent to abandoning blacks circa 1960s. that is, it is something that should NOT be done -- a line over which we must NOT cross (and if those on our side do, they will trip and get hurt). election results be damned.

Eisbär (llamasfur), Saturday, 13 November 2004 15:39 (nineteen years ago) link

Gays for Bush! It's an oxymoron on a few levels. But seriously, I think there's one aspect which isn't talked about (maybe because most people are more polite than I?). If you regard acceptance and equal rights to be in the interest of gays, then of course it's illogical for someone to vote against their own interests. But there are a lot of gays who hate themselves on some level and may actually support positions that confirm their perceived inferiority. It's unfortunate, but not illogical. And on the bright side, it's an area where there's lots of room for progress.

[disclaimer - this is not in any way meant to suggest that any gay who voted for Bush must hate themselves. There were certainly a lot of people who held their nose while voting for Bush, just as there were many who held their nose while voting for Kerry]

chëshy (chëshy f cat), Saturday, 13 November 2004 18:04 (nineteen years ago) link

I think a lot of people -- not just gays but working class/middle class americans too -- vote republican even when it seems to be self-defeating because they percieve the GOP as the party of aspirations, of economic striving. (Of course it's actually the EXCLUSIVE party of the already-rich.) Misguided in the extreme, sure, but you can understand how somebody might come to believe it. You wanna be rich, well, vote for the guy who panders to the wealthy and their interests. This is what Thomas Frank totally missed in his ponderous book about Kansas and why people vote republician when it seems to go against their interests.
They'll need to ask themselves the Reagan question in four years: am i better off now than...

lovebug starski (lovebug starski), Saturday, 13 November 2004 19:04 (nineteen years ago) link

Yeah, I think that's right. The illusion of class mobility is so strong in the US that people don't want to tax the rich. If only the rich would take the much more sensible option of voting left-wing in case one day they are poor. I wonder if any Jewish Germans woted for the Nazi Party? 'Oh, I'm a socially liberal Nazi - I like their economic policies, but the antisemitism puts me off. Still, I vote with my pocket, not my faith...'. Because as I said upthread, it's one thing for the poor to vote Republican because the Republican promise them wholly positive results, but for gay citizens there can't be anyhting like that - even if the Republican party wants to give you your weight in gold, there is still the fact that they don't want you to exist.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Saturday, 13 November 2004 19:56 (nineteen years ago) link

see also this one: Better Dead than Red which actually advocates a pretty hardcore isolationalism.

But why should liberals in cities fund organizations that attempt to get trigger locks onto the handguns of NRA members and Bush supporters? If red-state dads aren't concerned enough about their own children to put trigger locks on their own guns, it's not our problem. If a kid in a red state finds his daddy's handgun and blows his head off, we'll feel terrible (we're like that), but we'll try to look on the bright side: At least he won't grow up to vote like his dad...

kingfish (Kingfish), Sunday, 14 November 2004 02:25 (nineteen years ago) link

Jesus, that's kind of appalling, especially the assumption that people grow up to vote as their parents do.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Sunday, 14 November 2004 02:30 (nineteen years ago) link

dan savage is the voice of the liberal id. god bless him for it, too.

Eisbär (llamasfur), Sunday, 14 November 2004 02:58 (nineteen years ago) link

he's not exactly HL Mencken (from the blue city of Baltimore, it should be noted), but he'll do in Mencken's absence.

Eisbär (llamasfur), Sunday, 14 November 2004 02:59 (nineteen years ago) link

just cos you suck cock or lick cunt doesn't make you intelligent, interesting, informed or any other synonyms now used to suggest a democrat. I mean, fuck, at least the Republicans let on in advance who tehy're gonna ass fuck over hot coals in pursuit of the golden phallus; Dems and left govts are great at saying, just wait until we get into power and then we'll quietly help you out. Bull fuck. More gay reforms under the Bush regime than Clinton. Only queer bitch who benefited under Bill was Hilary.

Queen G4gimmecocknotrot, Sunday, 14 November 2004 06:42 (nineteen years ago) link

i'm sorry, your email does not have enough ass in it. we will have to reject your post.

please try again, and thank you for your submission.

kingfish (Kingfish), Sunday, 14 November 2004 06:45 (nineteen years ago) link

"Only queer bitch who benefited under Bill was Hilary."

I am still confused by all the Hillary Clinton hate. Come on. It's not like she ate a baby on live television (that I'm aware of).

Describing Dan Savage as the liberal id is OTM.

sugarpants (sugarpants), Sunday, 14 November 2004 17:14 (nineteen years ago) link

Interestingly, (for me at least), 'Bush Baptist' used be a phrase for a person who affects religious conviction for dishonest purposes.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Sunday, 14 November 2004 19:06 (nineteen years ago) link

I see what Geoff's saying - a lot of people are INCREDIBLY disappointed in Bill Clinton's advice to Kerry to run against civil unions/gay marriage in the last days of the campaign (Kerry told Bill Clinton NO WAY JOSE and earned another 5000 brownie points from mme).

suzy (suzy), Monday, 15 November 2004 08:23 (nineteen years ago) link

That's interesting, thanks Gear. I'm kind of stunned by the proportion of gay voters who chose Bush

I think the statistic he uses is for people that self identified as either gay or bisexual. I wouldn't hazard any guesses as to what, if anything, that might mean.

I think a lot of people -- not just gays but working class/middle class americans too -- vote republican even when it seems to be self-defeating because they percieve the GOP as the party of aspirations, of economic striving. (Of course it's actually the EXCLUSIVE party of the already-rich.)

Yes, people vote for the GOP in part because it is 'the party of aspirations' and all that, but then, and I seem to come across this all the time, the rest of it (the parenthetical) makes a leap into hyperbolic Carvile talking points. The Republican party has just as man factions as the Democratic party. Its the same type of thinking that leads people to see the election as decided solely by the 'moral values' of FundaMentalist Christians. I always expect liberals to be reasonable and to not see things in black and white (in fact, consciously avoiding such a thing) and sometimes I am dissapointed.

artdamages (artdamages), Monday, 15 November 2004 09:02 (nineteen years ago) link

nb i am a dan savage fan and not a republican fan

artdamages (artdamages), Monday, 15 November 2004 09:03 (nineteen years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.