There are many things one could say about the scandal involving disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Florida). It is foremost a tale of an individual's misuse of power and trust, a willingness to disregard the vulnerable position and psychology of eager-to-please youths.
It is a tale of self-abasement, a 50-something male trying desperately to sound cool and hip to the 16- and 17-year-olds he's attracted to. The puerile internet messages allegedly sent by Foley to the pages are painful to read. They make you cringe in embarrassment for the man.
It is a tale of a political party hoist on its own petard of anti-homosexual moralism and opportunism. However, celebration of this irony among gay-rights advocates is misplaced. In the short-term Republicans will lose a seat, Foley's own. But in Foley's Republican-leaning district the likely long-term effect is the loss of a pretty reliable pro-gay vote. Foley consistently scored well with gay political groups, almost certainly higher than his eventual (post-2008) Republican successor will. In a larger sense, revving up anti-gay sentiment, as the Foley scandal has done, is not likely to benefit Democrats, who are rightly seen as more favorable to gays.
It is a tale of closets, of Foley's and of many of the gay Republicans who work in Washington, and of the terrible costs that maintaining these closets can exact on everyone, straight and gay. This is not to say that Foley-who was really more openly closeted than closeted-was led to his behavior simply by his shame and fear. But Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) is right that the closet makes these episodes more likely.
It is a tale of what NGLTF's Matt Foreman called "blood libels" reaffirmed for those inclined to believe them-of gays as alcoholics, as damaged and twisted sexual abuse victims, and as child molesters themselves.
Any of those story lines could make a column, but I am interested here in something else. The Foley mess reaffirms some things we have long known about the nature and characteristics of anti-gay prejudice.
William Eskridge, a Yale law professor, has written that anti-gay prejudice has been marked historically by three characteristics. These are: (1) "hysterical demonization of gay people as dirty sexualized subhumans"; (2) "obsessional fears of gay people as conspiratorial and sexually predatory"; and (3) "narcissistic desires to reinforce stable heterosexual identity . . . by bashing gay people." The primary historical traits of homophobia are thus hysteria, obsession, and narcissism.
We can see the first of these characteristics, hysteria, in some of the reactions to the Foley scandal. "While pro-homosexual activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two," declared Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council.
There is no good evidence of a link between homosexual orientation and pedophilia. Professional anti-homosexuals, like Perkins, often cite junk science to support their hysterical views of dangerous and hypersexualized homosexuals.
Ken Lucas, a Democrat running for Congress from Kentucky, said that Republican leaders should have closely monitored Foley simply because he's gay. There was no more reason to watch over Foley because he's gay than there was to supervise the other 530 or so members of Congress because they're straight, but hysteria sees no inconsistency.
The second characteristic of anti-gay prejudice, obsession, has been on full display. Some Republicans in Congress and religious conservatives told reporters that they suspect a "gay subculture" has infiltrated the party. This "Velvet Mafia"-as some have called it-allegedly consists of a number of gay Republican congressional staffers and other personnel. A conservative website asserted that the gay conspiracy includes nine chiefs of staff, two press secretaries, and two directors of communications for prominent congressional Republicans.
The conspirators, the story went, included several gay Republican staff members who personally handled the Foley case. An especially irresponsible report by CBS News's Gloria Borger recounted how the scandal had "caused a firestorm among GOP conservatives." Without any rebuttal or fact-checking, Borger reported that conservatives "charge that a group of high-level gay Republican staffers were protecting a gay Republican congressman." There is no evidence for this charge, and some pretty good evidence against it, but anti-gay websites quickly praised Borger for breaking the "PC barrier."
This baseless fear of a gay mafia wielding enormous power undetected has a certain obsessional quality. It is deeply conspiratorial, fed by fantasies of gays as sexual predators.
Others-including Perkins, Newt Gingrich, Patrick Buchanan, and even the Wall Street Journal editorial page-suggested that Republican leaders were paralyzed from acting against Foley early on by fear of a pro-gay backlash. To believe this of GOP leaders-who have opposed every measure for gay equality-requires obsessional and conspiratorial delusion about the power and influence of the gay civil rights movement in America.
Finally, the Foley mess has demonstrated the third characteristic of anti-gay prejudice, narcissism. If the GOP loses one or both houses of Congress in November, one supposed lesson will be that the party was too lenient on homosexuals-turning off the party's base of religious conservatives. Some thus see the scandal as a chance to cleanse the GOP of the impurity of homosexuality, to reassert the party's stable, pro-family heterosexual identity.
Chances are that most Americans, including most Republicans, will reject the hysteria, obsession, and narcissism of anti-gay prejudice this mess has loosed upon us. Most GOP leaders have been careful to avoid drawing any of the "larger lessons" about gay people that professional anti-homosexuals would like us to learn.
The Foley scandal doesn't say anything very important about America's gays. But it says a lot about America's anti-gays.
12 Comments for “Foley and the Homophobic Mind”
posted by Antaeus on
I hope that the lesson learned from a much-deserved loss of both houses is this: that success breeds hubris. In only 10 years of holding Congress and 6 of locking up all three branches of government, the Republicans will have alienated the country as much as the Democrats did after 32 years (1958-1980).
That, and that it does not pay to promulgate High Morality when your behavior is not superior to that of your opponents.
Oh, and the War Street Journal has long ceased to have reasonable editorials.
posted by Craig2 on
Down here, our local fundies are keeping rather quiet about the Foley debacle, as one of their own, former fundamentalist Christian Heritage Party leader, Graham Capill, was convicted last year for sexually abusing three female children.
He is currently serving a nine year term of imprisonment for serial paedophilia.
The details are in his Wikipedia entry.
Craig2
Wellington, New Zealand
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
The exciting thing is that the Republicans will get smacked down for their homophobia. The sad thing is that their replacement will be Democratic kinder, gentler homophobes.
posted by inahandbasket on
Northeast Libertarian | October 15, 2006, 10:23am | #
“The exciting thing is that the Republicans will get smacked down for their homophobia. The sad thing is that their replacement will be Democratic kinder, gentler homophobes.”
Totally agree with you, NE. That’s why I will be voting for the Progressive party candidate, Lydia Lewis, for Senator over Jim Talent or Claire McCaskill here in Missouri. Talent, of course, consistently votes against anything remotely resembling gay friendly and McCaskill is hardly an improvement. I don’t care about the shrill cries, “You’re throwing your vote away by voting for a candidate who hasn’t a chance in hell of winning!!!” So what. Missouri (Misery) will always be in the last bunch of states to do anything progressive.
I’ve paid my dues working for LGBT causes and am an everyday activist out lesbian mom (2 teenagers) w/ partner in a very conservative suburb of St. Louis. Once our girls are out of high school, we’re outta Missouri and moving someplace else where it isn’t an ongoing battle just justifying our right to peacefully exist.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
While your and my views probably differ on a number of items, inahandbasket, I applaud your commitment to pursuing an agenda which is compatible with your personal beliefs and not allowing the old “dumb and dumber” monopoly to demand your vote. I wish more people in our community were like you — we’d get a lot more done!
posted by Bobby on
“Once our girls are out of high school, we’re outta Missouri and moving someplace else where it isn’t an ongoing battle just justifying our right to peacefully exist.”
—Dude, your family structure is different, different people always face an ongoing battle no matter where they go. My entire life is an ongoing battle with many different enemies, get used to it. I fight with liberals, conservatives, gays, straights, christians, atheists, health nazis, family members… I’ve given up on finding my own kind. It does not exist.
posted by F. Rottles on
There is no gay lobby in D.C., nope. And there is no marked tendency of Gay men lusting after teenaged men in D.C., nope. No Gay solidarity that crosses party lines, nope.
It is all a figment of the imagination of “conservatives and the religious right”. Yeh, that’s the ticket.
Foley’s resignation was due to the higher moral standard applied to Republicans by Republicans.
Thusfar, it appears he has done nothing illegal. The investigation will tells us more, one way or the other. So this scandal really is about morality.
It is pathetic that Carpenter writes this article without any mention of Studds and the lower standard to which he held himself as a much-supported Gay pioneer in D.C. — and esteemed member of the Democratic party.
No comparison of how Gay solidarity rallied around Studds who flaunted his sexualized relaitonship with a 17-year-old page? He took the kid on trips overseas. He held them up as exemplary of Gay identity — for young people. Studds is praised for NOT resigning, even today.
Also, the list that Carpenter mentioned actually originated with a Dem-friendly gay activist and his inside sources. That contradicts a good deal of what Carpenter has tried to deny in this piece.
Foley was a pretty reliable pro-gay vote and he scored high by HRC’s standards. Did they not know of his supposedly open interest in teenaged men? Right.
The Democrats “are rightly seen as more favorable to gays.”
It is wise that Carpenter emphasized pedophilia rather than the marked, and not so hidden, aspect of Gay identity in D.C. where Gay men engage teenagers. He wouldn’t deny that, would he? Reliable votes and Gay solidarity do not go untended.
Carpenter should look in the mirror because it is there that he’ll find the three characteristics in Eskridge’s theory about prejudice. The irony is that the pro-gay prejudice depends on declaring disagreement as hateful, fearful, and bigoted.
Tolerance is not good enough, acceptance is not good enough, only approval is enough. Disapproval, or disagreement, is intolerable. Those who disagree are morally inferior, of course, yeap.
Carpenter once had my respect for his thoughfulness. No more.
That’s probably no loss to him because he would herd sheep rather than face the deep flaws in Gay identity politics.
posted by inahandbasket on
Bobby | October 18, 2006, 12:15am | #
“Once our girls are out of high school, we’re outta Missouri and moving someplace else where it isn’t an ongoing battle just justifying our right to peacefully exist.”
Bobby | October 18, 2006, 12:15am | #
<<---Dude, your family structure is different, different people always face an ongoing battle no matter where they go. My entire life is an ongoing battle with many different enemies, get used to it. I fight with liberals, conservatives, gays, straights, christians, atheists, health nazis, family members... I've given up on finding my own kind. It does not exist. >>
I am not a “dude.” I am a woman. I’ve read many of your comments, Bobby. The word ‘curmudgeon’ best describes your outlook: “an irritable and complaining person.” Your own words: “My entire life is an ongoing battle with many different enemies,” is a sad statement of your outlook on life. Do you wake up every morning anticipating the ‘battle of the day?’ Can you keep a regular job, coexist with a partner, with that attitude?
I am not happy living in Missouri. But I love my partner and children above all else. Our childrens’ father is a good man and also resides nearby. We all have an agreement to stay put here until the children are finished with high school and situated in college. I can live with that – it’s good for the kids to have stability.
I am not from here. I’m originally from upstate NY. I’ve traveled widely and know that there are many places other than Missouri that me and my family will be legally recognized. And when the time comes for us to move (in about six or seven years) the legal landscape may have increased to include more legally affirming states and countries. I am very optimistic on that front.
posted by Bobby on
“I am not happy living in Missouri.”
—I can understand that, I was just trying to give you some perspective. I live in a luxurious building in South Beach, people would think I have a life to be envied, in a building full of models, great looking people, and 4 blocks away rom Lincoln Road, 15 blocks from the ocean, but I don’t see it that way. I see it as a living hell.
My point is, be careful what you wish for.
The “nice” gay friendly places are full of people, traffic, high prices and with the exception of Florida, high city and state taxes.
How much is a nice house in Missouri? Here you’re lucky to find something decent for $200,000. Be prepared to spend $350,000 to $1,000,000.
You’re right, I’m a bit of a curmudgeon, granted. But after living in Dallas and Detroit (not counting 20 years in Venezuela), I’ve got some geographical perspective.
posted by brandon on
Minor point of language-usage here, and elsewhere… Am I the only person to think that “pedophilia” correctly used, means “erotic attraction to a child,” and “child” is defined as a human being from birth to the onset of puberty”? Which is younger than these tempting teenagers being referred to–at 16 and 17 years of age. The better term for the Foley follies is thus “ephebephile,” “ephebephilia”? And therefore everyone is misusing “pedophile” in the Foley discussions?
==> Well, BUT even if so, does it all MATTER? Yeah perhaps–becuse this [consistent, continuous] {mis-}use of terms may reinforce the very, very dubious stereotype that homosexuals and pedophiles–CHILD-“lovers”–are identical. Thus, people are confusing age of puberty, and age of legal consent. May add to the “sex panic” atmosphere thus.
Okay, am I saying ephebilia or attraction to torrid, tempting teens is therefore okay? Well of course, as admiration–but NOT acting on same! Still, seeing another sexually-matured human being as attractive, seems less unnatural than feeling adult-CHILD sexuality. To see Lolita the flirty hoyden (or Ganymede, her twin brother the cup-bearer which the Greek god Jupiter abducted for palace-service) as attractive, seems less abnormal than to see the eight-year-old CHILD as such…
Thus the mini-rant of (among other things) a retired English teacher [“oh well then, that explain’s it, wouldnt you know, they’re always like that, korrekting ou’r grammer”…]
posted by inahandbasket on
I am not happy living in Missouri.
“I can understand that, I was just trying to give you some perspective. I live in a luxurious building in South Beach, people would think I have a life to be envied, in a building full of models, great looking people, and 4 blocks away rom Lincoln Road, 15 blocks from the ocean, but I don’t see it that way. I see it as a living hell.”
What’s keeping you there!? I’ve been to SoBe – nice place to visit, would never want to live there.
“My point is, be careful what you wish for. The “nice” gay friendly places are full of people, traffic, high prices and with the exception of Florida, high city and state taxes.”
There’s enough stupid traffic in St. Louis – and I’ve driven in NYC, Boston, ATL, LA… Had a playful ‘duel’ once w/ a Boston cabbie – he rolled down his window and said, “You could drive a cab here – good job!”
How much is a nice house in Missouri? Here you’re lucky to find something decent for $200,000. Be prepared to spend $350,000 to $1,000,000.”
We have a nice house that’s about $250,000.
We’re not looking to relocate to LA, SoBe, NYC, San Fran, any of the city ‘gay ghettos’. Probably Vermont or western Massachusetts or possibly upstate NY especially if Spitzer follows through w/ the marriage equality promise (and I’m not holding my breath on that one.) We’re looking for a small college town atmosphere. Maybe Bloomington, IN – unfortunately, it’s in Indiana….
“You’re right, I’m a bit of a curmudgeon, granted. But after living in Dallas and Detroit (not counting 20 years in Venezuela), I’ve got some geographical perspective.”
Yep – that’s true. But if you hate where you live, it’s a free country (so far)… why not move?
posted by Bobby on
Can’t move that easily. When you work in advertising, you don’t get much choice when it comes to location. If tomorrow I move to Houston, I work there for a year, and then I decide to leave. I’ll probably have to live Houston.
But I appreciate your letter, very insightful. Vermont seems like a beautiful place to live.