>>> nathan at newman.org 06/06/01 07:37PM >>>
Partisanship versus the Politics of Personal Destruction By Nathan Newman
I was going to devote this column to discussion of the Democratic takeover of the Senate and the best methods to block rightwing judicial nominations. Instead, I will focus on the meaning of the media tracking the use of Internet sex sites by gay conservative pundit Andrew Sullivan. But in some ways, they are really related stories.
Now for those who missed the Sullivan story, it starts with Sullivan himself, "gay conservative" being just the start of his contradictions as writer, a moralist against gay promiscuity and anti-abortion to boot. So it was with great glee that a few of his ideological opponents in the gay movement tracked his use of an Internet site where gay men sought out one another for unprotected sex. His opponents passed the information onto the broader media and a minor media firestorm ensued.
A shocking newsworthy story? Maybe, although Sullivan is HIV positive and sought out only other AIDS-infected partners, so despite the salacious story that the media picked up on, it was actually unclear what was being exposed other than prurience at gay sex terms like "barebacking," the term for non-safe sex used on the Internet site. Yes, it's fun to find that moralists of all sexual orientations actually like sex, but it's less fun to find out progressive civil libertarians like to invade people's most intimate personal privacy when it serves their political purposes.
Sullivan labeled the media attack "sexual McCarthyism" and the relationship to McCarthyism (however overblown) is that based on political disagreement, people's personal lives and their personal associations will be investigated and then they will be forced to answer for it in public forums, eroding both personal privacy and dignity.
-clip-
((((((((((((
CB: It is not a full analogy, but Sullivan calling this "sexual McCarthyism" reminds me of Clarence Thomas claiming he was the vicitm of an "electronic lynching" when Anita Hill criticized him .
If Clarence Thomas was arrested for driving or breathing while Black , he would get no support or defense from me, not because he would be a hypocrite, but because he has been a big promoter of racism. Left anti-racists should not spend time defending Thomas from racist victimization.
I was going to say Thomas made his bed, now let him lie in it, but that might not be a good one to use in this case.
Evidently , Sullivan is an almost across the board rightwinger. This whole thread and discussion is diverted from that main issue : Sullivan's total political package, which is reactionary. He puts out mass , reactionary propaganda. Sullivan should be denounced for that , and somebody else's victimization for being gay should be what lefts focus on, especially since it seems to be gay leftists ( "ideological opponents") who are raising Sullivan's hypocricy. If showing Sullivan is a hypocrite undermines his credibility in general, more power to it.
(((((((((
Sullivan labeled the media attack "sexual McCarthyism" and the relationship to McCarthyism (however overblown) is that based on political disagreement, people's personal lives and their personal associations will be investigated and then they will be forced to answer for it in public forums, eroding both personal privacy and dignity.
(((((((((
CB: Politically motivated investigation of personal lives is NOT the or a unique aspect of McCarthyism. That occurs in political fighting in general. Many small town or big city political struggles unrelated to McCarthyism use it. The President was just impeached based on it.
The unique characteristic of McCarthyism was anti-communism. People were persecuted for their political, not personal lives.
It is a feature of this discussion's diversion from the real issue, Sullivan's rightwing politics , that he could get away with trying to analogize himself as a vicitm of anti-communism, when he is , no doubt, an anti-communist.