« Sunday Morning Happy Ending Post | Main | This Is What It Looks Like When Nationalism Eats Your Soul »
August 19, 2007
Shorter James Kirchick: I can’t get laid because of “liberal intolerance”
By Kathy G.
This is a little old, but better late than never.
It’s a piece by James Kirchick, a New Republic writer who happens to be Martin Peretz’s assistant. He’s a wanker of the first order, but interesting because he embodies a lot of the worst tendencies of “centrist” (read: neoconservative) media discourse in general and the New Republic in particular.
In this piece, he bitches about how hard it is to find a date when you’re gay and conservative. But he doesn’t blame that on the paucity of out, gay conservatives. Instead, it’s somehow the liberals’ fault. Here’s his reaction after his most recent boyfriend dumps him, allegedly because of their different political orientations:
So much for dating a proud, progressive, and ostensibly tolerant liberal. But with him, as with other liberals I know, tolerance does not always extend to appreciating someone else’s differing political views. Now living in Cambridge and having grown up in the suburbs of Boston and gone to school at Yale, I’ve been surrounded by liberals for nearly all of my life. Most would be astonished to hear that they’re the most intolerant people I’ve ever met.Where do I even begin with this?
First of all, Kirchick has a confused notion about what tolerance is. Tolerance is a civic virtue, not a personal one. It means that you have the right to freely express your political and religious views without government interference. It means you have the right to be free from discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. It means that your neighbors and co-workers are obligated to treat you with respect.
But dude, “tolerance” does not mean anyone is required to like you, be your friend, or want to date you. Let alone fuck you.
Secondly, he doesn’t seem to have any real understanding of why so many gay men are not exactly big fans of conservatism. Well, let me spell it out for him: for the GLBT community, politics is not some abstract realm. It is a life and death issue. Countless GLBT men and women have died because of homophobia -- from hate crimes, suicide, and the delayed government response to AIDS. And the conservative movement is the force in this country which has legitimized and institutionalized the hate.
I realize that, more and more, the AIDS crisis is falling out of our public consciousness. I’m probably sounding like the Ancient Mariner here, but I remember walking the streets of New York City in the early and mid-90s, where every day I would see men in the prime of life with skin covered with lesions and sores, so frail they could barely walk. AIDS was, and continues to be, a national tragedy, and it should never be forgotten that many thousands of people in this country died from it needlessly, because of the inaction and outright hatred of conservative politicians.
It’s interesting that in this piece, Kirchick avoids identifying himself as a conservative. He describes himself as a libertarian – always a sure give-away that yes, of course you’re a conservative, but too ashamed to identify as such, given the gigantic clusterfuck conservatism has been in practice. He also smugly alludes to his “political independence.” Yeah, that’s real “independent” of him – holding wingnut views on everything from Iraq and Cuba to unions and the minimum wage, but being liberal only on the one issue where his self-interest is involved, gay rights.
Kirchick mentions the Mary Matalin/James Carville relationship as if it’s a model he’d like to emulate. Excuse me while I vomit. I know the media likes to portray that relationship like it’s some sort of cute Hepburn-and-Tracy romantic comedy. But I find the two of them repulsive, and their relationship to be the ultimate in shallow Beltway careerism, cynicism, and mutual exploitation. And the exploitation may actually be a lot more one-sided than it appears, given that Carville reportedly leaked information about John Kerry’s election strategy to his wife (who, let’s not forget, is a top aide to He Who Shall Not Be Named).
Kirchick’s best bet would probably be to stick to dating conservatives. And there certainly are more than a few gay, conservative men out there. Oh, but wait . . . they’re mostly a bunch of creepy closet cases. Now whose fault is that, I wonder? Hint: not the liberals’.
August 19, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
There's always Andrew Sullivan, but I'm not sure he's much of a conservative anymore. I think being a jerk is a job requirement for working for Peretz.
Posted by: beckya57 | Aug 19, 2007 3:34:13 PM
I am not gay, nor conservative, but I know gay conservatives, and your second to the last sentence is an unsupported slam, and not terribly funny.
I am very liberal, but I can tell you that many many liberals are in fact, very intolerant of others. Conservatives are too. It is a human trait that we should all be aware of.
As a liberal, I cannot speak to the conservative experience, but I do find that many people, are horribly informed, and most people pick liberal or conservative based more on their family and friends than on any deep understanding of their history, their values, or an educated knowledge of the issues. Hey, we're only human, and it's naive to assume that many people's political thoughts or policy preferences are terribly well thought out. And more naive to think these people realize that. Liberals included.
That said, I am astounded this guy would think that a breakup based on different political values is in anyway noteworthy, or can be blamed on some specific group's hidden intolerance.
And I agree completely about Matalin/Carville. Yuck.
Are you the Kathy (or Kate?) G that occasionally comments at Brad DeLong's blog?
Posted by: anon | Aug 19, 2007 3:44:13 PM
Kirchick’s best bet would probably be to stick to dating conservatives.
Or, you know, move. It's not as if there are no really conservative places in the country where the dread liberal might be scarce on the ground. He can get on I-95 South and just keep going until he hits South Carolina. He could offer us paeans to the the native tolerance that he finds there, so as to better instruct us how to behave.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Aug 19, 2007 3:46:16 PM
anon, no, I haven't commented on DeLong's blog. I do read it regularly, though.
Posted by: Kathy G. | Aug 19, 2007 4:00:56 PM
Yet there’s a common, unattractive feature that many conservative gay men share: a serious chip on their shoulder. Being part of a community that is so intolerant of their views, gay conservatives can be embittered, patronizing, and castigatory of their gay brothers. It’s not a particularly attractive attitude.
Ya think?
Posted by: nolo | Aug 19, 2007 4:18:28 PM
What's the difference between a gay liberal and a gay conservative?
A gay liberal likes to watch "The Sound of Music" for Julie Andrews.
A gay conservative likes to watch "The Sound of Music" for the Nazis.
I'm not being intolerant, I truly believe gays should be allowed to hate immigrants too.
Posted by: J.R. | Aug 19, 2007 4:36:35 PM
Best post ever!
Posted by: chris | Aug 19, 2007 4:59:09 PM
Kirchick sez: a few weeks after we broke up, I asked him for his reasons.
Gay or straight, anyone who weeks later wants to know to know 'why' enough to ask the nay-sayer is a cretin that is not only without a clue, but also completely void of social awareness (and fully deserves to work directly for Marty Peretz).
SomeCallMeTim suggests a relocation to 'traditional values' wingnutland, but that would likely force Kirchick to go back into the closet instead of having the social freedom he has in liberal Boston - the freedom his conservative/GOP pals would deny to all gays. What a wanking hypocrite!
I'm glad he's found a BF, which he'd better try to hang on to, because there might not be another foolish enough to tolerate him, even for just sex. (Is Kirchick a libertarian or conservative in bed?)
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Aug 19, 2007 5:17:36 PM
Tolerance is a civic virtue, not a personal one.
It's plainly both.
But dude, “tolerance” does not mean anyone is required to like you, be your friend, or want to date you. Let alone fuck you.
And he makes no such claim. He criticizes the reason for the refusals, not the right to make them.
And the conservative movement is the force in this country which has legitimized and institutionalized the hate.
I think tolerance involves seeing people as individuals and not merely as types. Does Kirchik favor the hate?
Excuse me while I vomit. I know the media likes to portray that relationship like it’s some sort of cute Hepburn-and-Tracy romantic comedy. But I find the two of them repulsive, and their relationship to be the ultimate in shallow Beltway careerism, cynicism, and mutual exploitation. And the exploitation may actually be a lot more one-sided than it appears, given that Carville reportedly leaked information about John Kerry’s election strategy to his wife (who, let’s not forget, is a top aide to He Who Shall Not Be Named).
Shameless. You're the cynical one, speaking ill of a personal relationship you apparently know virtually nothing about, repeating groundless accusations and wallowing in hate. Ugh. That there is less of this kind of shit here than at many other blogs is one reason I like Ezra's blog.
There was an interesting thread related to this earlier this year.
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 19, 2007 5:23:28 PM
He criticizes the reason for the refusals, not the right to make them.
Sanpete, he's making a value judgment saying that it is a moral/ethical wrong to make refusals on this basis. By contrast, I believe it is a moral/ethical imperative to making romantic decisions based on your own value systems. Anything else is a compromise (though, sometimes, a perfectly understandable and reasonable compromise). The thing is, where he lives, there are plenty of possible romantic partners whose personal value systems are more in line with what they're looking for.
It's plainly both.
The obligation is on you to explain how. People's personal relationships are just that-- personal. Some people have no interest in dating the bearded, the brown-eyed, or the non-Christian. That someone would refuse to date the conservative-- particularly when the politics of conservatism so keenly impact the individual -- is not in any way surprising or unvirtuous, any more than it would be a surprise to expect an African-American to marry a supporter or segregationists.
Posted by: Tyro | Aug 19, 2007 5:46:39 PM
Tyro, yes, he's making a value judgment that it's intolerant to limit your personal relationships to those who share your political beliefs.
I agree that romantic decisions ought to reflect personal values. If your most fundamental personal values are to be a good person, then politics need not be a barrier. Those who think it is are, I think, intolerant, unwilling to consider anything deeper than politics in an individual.
There's nothing at all in the concept of tolerance that excludes it from personal relationships, where it's just as important as on the larger scale. (Look up the definition and see for yourself if you can find anything that limits it.) You think it's tolerant and morally fine for someone to refuse to associate personally with gays or blacks, or would you view such a person as a bigot?
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 19, 2007 6:13:37 PM
You think it's tolerant and morally fine for someone to refuse to associate personally with gays or blacks, or would you view such a person as a bigot?
Interesting that you consider being black or gay to be analagous to holding a political belief system.
You repeatedly and consistently in all of your posts deny that political/moral beliefs mean things.
And, no, I would not consider a person who would refuse to marry or date someone who does not share the same moral framework to be bigoted. I'd consider the person to be realistic.
The opening sentence of the article linked to is the author being told "I can’t date someone with a different belief system." The fact that you think that this is "bigoted" and "intolerant" says a lot about how vacuous and nihilistic you are. If we actually believe in our value systems and belief systems, they are about our values. He's not being told "you're not a good person" (though if a person told me he thought that the use of torture and a desire to dismantle the government safety net were part of acceptable policy, yes, I might doubt his status as a good person).
Posted by: Tyro | Aug 19, 2007 6:24:17 PM
I probably wouldn't be able to successfully date a very devout Roman Catholic (it's not come up yet) because I would disagree with a number of their beliefs surrounding sexual intimacy and birth control. That's not because I am intolerant of Roman Catholicism. Condoms are just non-negotiable for me. When I - and most anybody else - make decisions about potential partners I'm necessarily going to weigh a bunch of personal factors about what is important to me in a relationship and people's political views inform their personal characteristics. Kirchick's boy friend did go out with him in the first place, it's not like he rejected a conservative partner out of hand. But things didn't work out, and politics was one reason. I bet there were others too, but this is what Kirchick is focusing on. He's hurt, and he has a platform. I get it. I wish him luck. Get back out there James, don't let this eat at you, plenty of love out there for everyone.
Posted by: justin | Aug 19, 2007 6:36:24 PM
Kathy:
Good job!
Posted by: Frank de Libero | Aug 19, 2007 6:44:09 PM
Sanpete, I think I could date someone who was a Republican if she were a "good person." For example, being a good person, if that Republican supported better tax policies which increased marginal tax rates on high-earners and hedge fund manager fees, was against the Iraq war and the use of torture, wanted to spend government revenues to improve public services and infrastructure, supported universal health coverage policies, and voted for Kerry in 2004, then, yes, I would not have a problem with the fact that person were a conservative Republican.
I know what you're going to say, "Well, that doesn't count, because deep inside she wasn't really a conservative Republican if she did all those things." Let me explain something to you Sanpete: There is no "deep inside." A "good person" who has a good value system does good things and supports good causes. If a person is being rejected, in part, because he or she does not share the same value system as his or her romantic partner, it is because his or her outward actions and decisions reflect this value system. And if you can't make choices about whom to associate with based on their actions and decisions, then what the hell are you supposed to base your choices on?
Values mean things. Beliefs mean things. If you don't act on them, you don't hold them. People who hold deviant, right-wing beliefs systems are those who take actions on the basis of and in support of those beliefs. Sometimes you can work around that with a friend or intimate. Sometimes you can't. And if those belief systems are the basis of one's career, as Mr. Kirchick's are, given his profession, it's pretty likely that one can't "work around it."
Posted by: Tyro | Aug 19, 2007 7:05:56 PM
You repeatedly and consistently in all of your posts deny that political/moral beliefs mean things.
Bullshit, Tyro. Haven't done that here; haven't done it elsewhere. Your imagination is running wild. You also didn't answer the question; you made up your own that was easier for you to answer without contradicting yourself. If you want a fuller explanation of my actual views, instead of your imagined version, you can find it in the other thread I linked to.
If we actually believe in our value systems and belief systems, they are about our values. He's not being told "you're not a good person"
He's being told he's a good person with bad values? How does that work?
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 19, 2007 7:09:03 PM
By contrast, I believe it is a moral/ethical imperative to making romantic decisions based on your own value systems.
Absolutely. Is there a more valid reason for not wanting to date someone than what they believe in and value?
Posted by: Antid Oto | Aug 19, 2007 7:16:40 PM
Your mistake, Tyro, which is very typical of partisans on both sides of issues with moral implications, is that you confuse ends, which are most closely tied with values, with means, which may differ even if the values and ends are the same. Your explanation of a "good person" illustrates this perfectly, all about means, not ends and values. Conservatives want people to prosper and be happy. They disagree with you about some of the means.
Given what you say, and the black way you sometimes portray conservatives, this confusion very probably leads you to see yourself as morally better than conservatives, despite your confused comment that this isn't about whether Kirchick is a good person. If you don't believe that, what you're saying doesn't make sense. Big mistake. And yes, intolerant and bigoted.
Is there a more valid reason for not wanting to date someone than what they believe in and value?
How superficial you want to be about that?
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 19, 2007 7:26:30 PM
James Kirchick is merely repeating a conservative talking point I have heard many times before, "Liberals are awfully intolerant for all their talk about tolerance." Jame's diatribe is just another angle.
For me the "Liberal vs. Conservative" game goes much deeper than values. At this point, for me it is about the last thirty years of Conservatives painting liberals as Satan's representatives on earth. The words of people like Reagan, Gingrich, Limbaugh, Beck, Dobson and conservatives I have met on blogs are indelibly etched into my brain. Most notably, those who proclaim that anyone that cannot afford health insurance should be left to die.
I would be best described as a Social Liberal, the category so often slandered by conservatives and their libertarian stepchildren. I believe that we as a society have a responsibility to help everyone achieve their potential and enjoy the many benefits offered by our modern society. Over the last thirty years, too much has been said by these conservatives about Social Liberals and these things cannot be unsaid.
So, I guess it is true, I am intolerant. But this intolerance is not bigotry. People who lack empathy and understanding for those who are less fortunate than themselves and subscribe to social Darwinism are simply not worth my time.
Posted by: Joelio | Aug 19, 2007 7:54:41 PM
I shouldn't be surprised that some gay men, like some straight men, feel entitled to have their cocks sucked on a regular basis without having to go through the effort of being pleasant enough to have volunteers.
Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | Aug 19, 2007 8:02:50 PM
Sanpete, what was all that you should have learned growing up about the fact that the ends do not justify the means? As I said, you're confusing "deep inside" and "good intentions" with what is the real, the tangible, the resultant. There is no "deep inside." "Deep down" the conservative wants people to be happy, so he needs to pass laws to prevent gays from marrying. "Deep down," the conservative wants to stop terrorism, so he supports the use of torture against suspects. How the hell is that person a "good person"? The means are the ends.
Beliefs have consequences, elections, have consequences, actions have consequences. Actions taken in service to a belief system result in lost jobs, changes in laws, access to benefits or denial of benefits. They are tangible things that have tangible effects. You consistently and repeatedly deny the very
He's being told he's a good person with bad values? How does that work?
No, he's being told their differing value systems make for an incompatible relationship. I did not get much more detail about that particular issue from the article. You're telling every person whose relationship comes apart because of religious differences a bigot? If that's not a sign of nihilism, I don't know what is.
Posted by: Tyro | Aug 19, 2007 8:04:18 PM
It's bigotry, Joelio, if it's based on irrational prejudice rather than actual fact. Your view that conservatives lack empathy for those less fortunate and subscribe to social darwinism sounds like prejudice to me. It may be true in some cases, but as a stereotype it's quite overdone by those who lack empathy for conservatives and think they aren't worth their time.
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 19, 2007 8:08:53 PM
If your most fundamental personal values are to be a good person, then politics need not be a barrier.
Except that being a good, thoughtful person with strong moral values is mutually exclusive from voting for Republicans. I have a lot of Republican relatives and I love them, but I consider their voting patterns to be a distressing signal of moral degeneracy and/or intellectual laziness. Trying to sugarcoat that is pointless. At best, people are complex and can be good people in one aspect and not in others. But I personally demand a certain moral stoutness across the board in someone I share my life with, and that's mutually exclusive from conservative politics.
Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | Aug 19, 2007 8:09:10 PM
Let a gay man chime on this. Fuck gay conservatives. Where the fuck were they 20 years ago while the rest were out there struggling to get them the rights that they so much now enjoy? Hiding in the closet, trying to work the system.
And as for dating them. Sorry, but been there, done that. It really is a mind fuck if you have had the opportunity to date a gay conservative. It's even more of a jedi mind trick if they are gay, conservative and another minority group like black or latino.
Some here would reduce as per usual this conversation to meaningless abstraction. But, in the real world where you are trying to find your soul mate (however hopeless naive of me to even want that) it's certainly not going to happen if you are from earth, and the other guy is from Pluto, and says shit like "I'm American first, gay second." Like the rest of us aren't Americans. Or other such words of wisdom. Trust me- I could go on with a lot of personal first hand experiences, but what would be the point?
At the end of the day- here's what sums it up- we all want to find a place where we belong. If this guy can't understand that includes sharing the same values, that's his fucking problem, and he has bigger issues than dating to address.
Posted by: akaison | Aug 19, 2007 8:12:54 PM
Having suffered through mini marty's wretched oeuvre over at TNR, I truly sense that his long suffering liberal boyfriends may not break up due to his politics. Their scampering away from their prison like relationship may have more to do with the fact that mini appears to be - at least in his writings - an insufferable little shit. He spends too much of his time "outraged", or "appalled", or "offended". Being with such a thin skinned hysteric, of any politic stripe would try the patience of a saint.
Posted by: dekerivers | Aug 19, 2007 8:13:07 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
