Everything is now hyper-politicized. President Obama nominated Eric Fanning, a specialist on national security issues, to be the new Army Secretary, the service’s top civilian leadership post at the Pentagon. For good or ill, the coverage has led with the news that Fanning would be the first openly gay secretary of a military branch.
Of course, GOP presidential wannabe (but never will be) Mike Huckabee blasted the move. “It’s clear President Obama is more interested in appeasing America’s homosexuals than honoring America’s heroes,” said Huckabee.
But issues with the coverage, and the way the announcement was handled, were also raised by Richard Grenell, a leading foreign policy wonk who during the last presidential election cycle had been selected to be Mitt Romney’s foreign policy advisor, before social conservatives erupted and pressured Romney to drop him (technically, to facilitate his resignation) because he is openly gay.
Grenell tweeted “The White House has successfully announced Eric Fanning as the most qualified gay leader for the Army. It’s so offensive” and “I can’t complain about the media defining a nominee by his sexuality because it’s how the White House characterized it. #Irrelevant=Offensive,” and then “issuing press releases on someone’s sexuality is offensive because it’s irrelevant. Is he the most qualified or the most qualified gay?”
Grenell, it’s worth noting, has worked to educate conservatives on gay issues. For instance, in June he penned (at Foxnews.com) The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage.
It’s not as if the press wasn’t going to make a big deal over Fanning being gay, and it would be unreasonable to expect LGBT rights groups not to celebrate it. But I think Grenell raises a point worth considering. Similar to what those who benefit from affirmative action preferences in academia and jobs face, Fanning now has to contend with second-guessing over whether he was appointed because he was the best candidate (who happens to be gay), or because Obama wanted to make a point about gays and the military.
In that sense, the press and advocate statements haven’t done Fanning any favors.
12 Comments for “Eric Fanning’s Sexual Orientation Should Be Inconsequential, but It’s Not”
posted by Houndentenor on
I agree with Stephen on this. The wording is inappropriate. I understand the need to get out front of the story by acknowledging that Grennel is gay but the wording makes it sound like he was chosen for that reason and if you look at his resume it’s clear that he is basically being promoted into the job he’s doing already anyway.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
[I]f you look at his resume it’s clear that he is basically being promoted into the job he’s doing already anyway.
That would certainly seem to be the case from the White House statement on the appointment, in which Fanning’s appointment was announced along with six others:
Franning’s earlier appointments were approved in 2009 and 2013, and I wouldn’t expect any trouble this time around. We’ll see, I guess.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Grenell tweeted “The White House has successfully announced Eric Fanning as the most qualified gay leader for the Army. It’s so offensive” and “I can’t complain about the media defining a nominee by his sexuality because it’s how the White House characterized it. #Irrelevant=Offensive,” and then “issuing press releases on someone’s sexuality is offensive because it’s irrelevant. Is he the most qualified or the most qualified gay?”
Huh?
From Washington Post, CNN, USA Today and LA Times articles, the President said:
The Secretary of Defense seems to have issued statements along a similar line, as in this paragraph from the CNN report that Stephen posted:
So I guess I’m a little bit puzzled by Grenell’s outburst. I don’t see any evidence that the President (or the administration, for that matter) “announced Eric Fanning as the most qualified gay leader for the Army”. In fact, as the WSJ noted: “[T]here is little indication that Fanning’s nomination has anything to do with his sexuality. Fanning has more than two decades of experience working on military policy. He served as chief of staff under Defense Secretary Ash Carter at the Pentagon, as well as serving as the undersecretary for the Air Force, and currently serving in that role for the Army.”
I know that news media is reporting Fanning’s sexual orientation, and that the conservative Christian right is in a full-blown snit. We’ve been through that before, when Fanning was nominated as Deputy Undersecretary of the Navy and later as Fanning was nominated for Undersecretary of the Air Force. Deja vu and all that …
But it seems to me that is a problem that should be laid at their doorsteps, not at the administration’s. The administration seems to be playing it straight, so to speak.
posted by Dale of the Desert on
Hmmm….a controversy that never happened?
But would it have been inappropriate if it had been true? Or is it inappropriate that the media have focused on the distinction? If a woman were elected president for the first time would it be inappropriate to publicly mention that point? If a Muslim were nominated as Chief of Homeland Security? If a quadraplegic were nominated as SCOTUS Chief Justice?
And would the Christian right have a full blown snit fit in any case?
posted by Lori Heine on
So…people without very good sense are going to come to stupid conclusions. Shrill and tiresome demagogues are going to be shrill and tiresome. The press is going to sensationalize.
And the sun will rise in the east. And grass will be green. So what?
There is nothing objectionable about this appointment. The mainstream media runs a circus, those in the religious right are clowns, and all the usual suspects will do all the usual things. The public lost confidence in the media long ago, and everybody outside of the religious right is tired of it.
This is not an issue. What if they tried to whip up our indignation, and we simply shrugged and refused to comply?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
There is nothing objectionable about this appointment.
Not to any objective, rational mind. But since DADT repeal, it has been an article of faith on the right (running from morons like Mike Huckabee to more respected voices like John McCain) that the Obama administration has been “pushing the homosexual agenda within the military” and “using the military as a social experiment”, to the detriment of national defense, and (not surprisingly) it looks like all the same dogs are once again barking this time around.
I’m more interested in the way in which homocons like Richard Genell are joining in this round. I’m fascinated with the reverse judo tactics being deployed to argue that the Obama administration is both weakening the military and weakening the cause of “equal means equal” by “successfully announc[ing] Eric Fanning as the most qualified gay leader for the Army“. The homocon argument is not focused on Fanning’s qualifications (or lack thereof), but instead on the way in which the adminstration handled the appointment. The facts do not support the thesis (there is no evidence that Fanning was touted as “the most qualified gay leader for the Army” by the administration) but that doesn’t seem to have slowed down the attack.
I have no idea what motivates the homocon line of attack, but it is a new twist to an old story in a presidential election cycle and most interesting.
posted by Houndentenor on
This can only back fire on the religious right. Americans more than anything believe in fairness. Even people who are rather homophobic don’t much care for the idea that someone qualified to do a job should not get it because of some non-germane characteristic. If their only objection to him is that he’s gay that is just going to look like bigotry, because that’s all it is. This crap used to work. People were scared of gay people. They had successfully characterized us as scary people lurking in the shadows ready to do something (never specific). And then lots of us came out and it turned out that we are in fact mostly just as boring but likable as the rest of America and most people aren’t scared of us any more.
posted by Mike in Houston on
I agree that the focus of the headlines is problematic — but is somewhat in keeping with the typical storylines that we’ve seen over other appointments (Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Sonia Sotamayor, etc.)… and frankly, it seems a bit like trolling the right-wing noise machine with click-bait.
That said, it is an historic appointment — just as it was when Clinton appointed James Hormel to be ambassador to Luxembourg.
I do take issue with the way Grennell characterized the appointment — the White House never used those words. He did… thereby providing more homocon cover for the Hucksters & others in the (overly large) GOP anti-equality wing.
I can only guess that Grennell’s real beef is that this President looks to hire an extremely qualified person who is gay and unlike Grennell’s previous 1-2 day employers in the GOP (Romney), President Obama is willing to fight for his choice rather than immediately bowing and scraping to the anti-gay base.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I can only guess that Grennell’s real beef is that this President looks to hire an extremely qualified person who is gay and unlike Grennell’s previous 1-2 day employers in the GOP (Romney), President Obama is willing to fight for his choice rather than immediately bowing and scraping to the anti-gay base.
I have no idea what has Grennell and other homocons so stirred up this time around, but yours is as good an explanation as any. If you are right, though, it is hardly news. The current story is a repeat of President Obama’s 2009 appointment of Fanning as Deputy Undersecretary of the Navy and his 2012 appointment of Fanning as Undersecretary of the Air Force in 2012.
But who cares what the homocons think, or why they think it?
We’ve long since passed the point where we have to worry about whether “the press and advocate statements haven’t done Fanning any favors”. The vast majority of Americans don’t buy into the line that gays and lesbians shouldn’t hold responsible jobs in government, and it is beyond clear that conservative Christians will (as Jesus noted about the poor) will always be with us, unchanged and unchanging, rock-headed, unthinking, obtuse and unwilling to change.
Way too many homocons seem to be stuck in the 1990’s, thinking that if we appease the beast, conservative Christians will come around. Maybe it is time for them to rethink.
posted by JohnInCA on
It’s interesting you mention the 90’s, as it wasn’t until Clinton’s 1995 executive order that being gay couldn’t preclude you from getting a security clearance.
That is to say… prior to 1995, being gay *was* a valid basis for being rejected from the post. At least as far as clearances went, anyway.
posted by tom jefferson 3rd on
It seems like it was mostly members of the manipulated media, bloggers and talking heads who viewed his sexual orientation as being relevant.
This seems like (outside of the gay reporters), interest in his sexual orientation was mostly partisan based.
posted by JohnInCA on
Nah, it’s not really “a point worth considering”. It’s a Catch-22. Everytime the Obama admin chooses a gay *anyone* for *anything*, the affirmative action thing comes up. Every single time. So if the outcome is the same regardless of what the admin does, how is it possibly fair to blame them for the outcome? The only way Fanning would *not* have the “second guessing” going on was if the Obama admin *didn’t* nominate him.