First appeared on September 8, 1999, in the Chicago Free Press.
AFTER I FINISHED a recent commentary about the slight shift toward gay inclusiveness by some GOP presidential candidates, it occurred to me that the language they use to describe their positions is as interesting as the moves themselves.
The language candidates Elizabeth Dole, George W. Bush, Steve Forbes, John McCain use to try to appear more tolerant, accepting or inclusive is intentionally evasive or ambiguous. It is designed to suggest as much as possible to voters on all sides of the issue while actually saying as little as possible.
Keep in mind, though, that obvious efforts at evasion are sometimes significant when there are strong pressures, say from the religious right, not to be evasive about issues such as homosexuality.
Perhaps the chief way Republican candidates try to show they are not anti-gay is their willingness to appoint a gay person to their administration. For instance, Bush said earlier this year that he would hire a homosexual "if someone can do a job and a job that he's qualified for."
This sounds positive enough, and we know that Bush has openly gay advisors. But notice the ambiguity. Bush leaves himself an out by saying that a person has to be qualified for the job. When it comes to political appointments, though, qualifications have a strong subjective component. That is, qualifications are partly a function of the person's acceptability to the constituency he will be working with or speaking for.
Is a Baptist "qualified" to be U.S. ambassador to the Vatican? How about an atheist? Not very likely. Is a union-busting corporate attorney "qualified" to be Secretary of Labor? Probably not. Is a gay man "qualified" to be Secretary of Defense, where he would have to deal with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the military's anti-gay policy? What about a gay man as a senior official in the Department of Education, where he might influence policy for teaching our impressionable, vulnerable school children? What about ambassador to Luxembourg, where he would represent the U.S. government? Many Republican senators apparently think not. What about ambassador to Saudi Arabia, where gay sex is illegal?
In other words if there is sufficient objection to an appointment, that in itself means the person is not "qualified." So Bush's willingness to hire "qualified" gays seems considerably weaker and more flexible than it first appears. Maybe he would hire gays only when no one objected. Maybe the only "qualified" homosexuals are those no one knows about. Is this what Bush means? His answer tells us nothing, as it was designed to do.
Forbes' spokesman Bill Dal Col said his candidate too would be willing to appoint a homosexual "if the person is qualified for the job," but quickly added, "as long as it is not a statement on a lifestyle or promoting a lifestyle." That second part is even more evasive, and it is expressed in the language of the religious right with its overtones about choice and recruitment.
But we need to ask what Dal Col means. When is an appointment a statement about a lifestyle or promoting a lifestyle? Whenever a gay person is the first gay appointee to anything? If so, then no gay person can be appointed to anything higher than current gay appointment levels. In fact, almost any appointment of an openly gay person can be considered a statement about his or her lifestyle -- if only the minimal statement that such a "lifestyle" is neutral or irrelevant. In the current social climate, that is itself a statement about homosexuality to the extent that it rejects condemnation.
So the question remains: Would Forbes hire an openly gay person for anything, or is the concept of an appointment that "is not a statement about a lifestyle" an empty category, a concept with no possible examples? Dal Col's answer was meant to leave that question entirely open so as to commit Forbes to absolutely nothing.
Bush and Forbes also oppose "special rights." According to the New York Times Forbes frequently says he wants "equal rights for all, special rights for none." Bush spokeswoman Karen Hughes told the Times that Bush "doesn't believe in granting legal rights based on sexual orientation." Presumably both are thinking of gay non-discrimination laws or hate crimes laws.
But of course Bush does believe in granting legal rights based on sexual orientation. In Texas, heterosexuals have a legal right to marry the person they love; gays do not. Texas' sodomy law, specifically endorsed by Bush as a statement of "our social values," lets heterosexuals have sex legally, while gays may not. Forbes too opposes the equality of gay marriage and both oppose the right of gays to serve openly in the military, although they approve of open heterosexuals serving.
Which rights then are called "special rights" and which are not? It seems that when heterosexuals have a right that gays lack, and the candidate approves, it is not a "special right." So the "special rights" language does not refer to a real political category; it is merely a rhetorical term, designed to include whatever the candidate wants it to. Whether something is described as a special right or not depends entirely on whether the candidate is for it or against it. If and when Bush or Forbes or anyone else decides to endorse something for gays, he will cease to refer to it as a special right.
So what do these candidates really believe? They believe they would like to be president.
They believe they do not want to alienate voters on either side of a contentious and divisive issue such as homosexuality. They believe any specific position will lose them votes. And they believe they can formulate language that will appeal equally to both sides, allowing each to think the candidate is on their side.