It's getting to be a tradition. Like some ancient Hebrew prophet, Larry Kramer descends from Mt. Sinai, or maybe just Mt. Kramer, and ascends a podium in the harsh, barren deserts of New York City to deliver his latest denunciations and warnings to a world awaiting them with decreasingly bated breath.
These presentations are generally attended by a public of younger gays and characterized by substantial exaggerations of fact, hyperbolic rhetoric, and a certain amount of vulgarity--all of which are apparently how Kramer thinks you communicate with fellow gays. Think of it as performance art.
The burden of Kramer's latest speech was that everybody hates us: politicians, judges, the U.S. government, "they," "them," "America"--they all hate us. "We are still facing the same danger, our extermination, and from the same entity, our own country." Even our so-called friends are not willing to fight for us, he says.
Kramer's view is that the best, the only, response to all this is a newly formulated, hierarchical organized ACT-UP: an Army Corps to Unleash Power.
Kramer points to genuine injustices and the malign neglect of many gay concerns: equal treatment of gay relationships, the ban on immigration of foreign partners, anti-gay violence, the murder of gays abroad. But the gay press writes about these things regularly and the national and state gay organizations work on those as well as other issues such as military access and gay adoption. Kramer is unjust to say that "our movement has confined its feeble demands to marriage." Nor does he acknowledge that marriage would solve some of the problems he lists--e.g., tax equality and partner immigration.
In addition, there are conceptual problems with Kramer's new solution. When ACT-UP was created it had:
• A specific set of goals--the development of effective treatments for AIDS, faster drug trials and access to those drugs and research for a cure.
• A specific set of targets: the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, pharmaceutical firms, and Presidents Reagan and Bush and their administrations.
• An intensely involved constituency of HIV-infected gay men who knew that their lives literally depended on their activism.
But in Kramer's proposed new organization and its vastly expanded agenda, who specifically are the targets, what are the specific goals and where is the intensely concerned constituency? A "Lo here, Lo there" approach to a wide array of gay issues seems at risk of a quick diffusion of focus, exhaustion of energy and rapid demise.
Kramer focuses on politicians. "Much of what I am calling for involves laws, changing them, getting them," he says. And he proposes an omnibus gay rights bill and "hold(ing) every politician's feet to this fire until he or she supports it." Great. How do we do that? By demonstrations? Can you produce personnel regularly? And sometimes demonstrations can be counter-productive by antagonizing politicians and public opinion. Then with votes? But Kramer says "There is not one single candidate running for public office anywhere that deserves our support."
And Kramer forgets that politicians are elected by "the people" so politicians are not going to change until they sense a change in popular sentiment regarding gays. So persuading the American public about gay moral equality has to be a vital part of the project. But how do you do that, especially if the people are our enemy, and if, as Kramer says, "They hate us and want us dead"? Kramer even seems to scorn "our own country's 'democratic process.'"
In short, Kramer's speech does not seem to cohere. Some parts conflict with other parts or depend on supports that Kramer has already yanked away.
Nor does Kramer seem to have thought through what is involved in changing Americans' minds about gays and lesbians so they will stop "hating" us. He seems to want to threaten and bully people into respecting and fearing gays as he claims the original ACT-UP did to drug companies and government agencies. But that probably won't work with a whole nation.
And as always Kramer simply ignores the obvious political progress gays have made in the last 20 years. He exaggerates the number of our opponents, distorts the extent of their power and intensity of their hostility and exaggerates the extent and likelihood of looming homophobia. He airily dismisses the existence of genuine friends and supporters. And he repeatedly distorts facts to support his claims--a column topic in itself. Not a way to build credibilty for a new movement.
13 Comments for “Larry Kramer’s Jeremiad”
posted by James on
Or, instead of Larry Kramer’s way, we could
–form lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships and make them visible
–advise gay kids to not have sex until they are in a long-term, committed partnership
–support the military even as we ask for the overthrow of DADT
–join a gay-friendly church and work to create a worship space for gays and straights together
–offer our help to other oppressed minorities in order to build solidarity and also because it’s the right thing to do
–plant a tree
–OK, forget the tree, but everything else will work.
Or you can do the ACT-UP thing. Which do think will be more effective?
posted by raot on
‘–advise gay kids to not have sex until they are in a long-term, committed partnership’
Give us a break. The kids will look at you as though you’re from Mars or something.
posted by larry kramer on
i guess you are not a fan.
when we formed act up originally we did not know what we wanted to do. we put it together day by day until the drug issue came into focus, which would still be a year or so away after our first meetings. i point all this out in my recent 20th anniv. speech. i laid out a number of things that are bad for us, which you do appear to agree with, and i said, in essence, let’s discuss all of them and see how we can work out a structure, a modus operandi, how to deal with them. act up worked because different issues appealed to different folk. drugs, insurance, housing, political figures, etc. but we didn’t know what these issues would be and who/how we would deal with them until we had a lot of meetings and unknotted, as best and as fast as we could, the knots. it is very difficult to rouse our gay population to do much activism, as you must know well, and i have discovered over many years of doing this stuff, that my form of “rhetoric” if you will, makes people listen more than trying to explain things patiently, which puts people to sleep. it is very easy to throw stones at me and what i say, as you and others do. but the fact remains that my speech went all over the world, that hundreds turn out to hear me and we are having great turn outs at our new meetings, so far. i have no idea if any of this will work again. one can only try. but thank you for airing your opinions so boldly. everything helps. larry kramer
posted by Audrey B on
Dear Mr. Kramer, please use capitol letters next time you post here. Because, while intelligent, level-headed discussion may, in your words “put people to sleep”, so dose poor punctuation.
posted by James on
I think that it would help if the gay community dropped its Harry Potter-esque mythology that being gay is a secret power you discover on or around your 12th birthday which makes you special and part of a secret society. Once you discover you are gay, you are shipped off to Prideworld/Hogwarts or whatever to be trained as a first-level gay, etc. etc.
The point is, gay doesn’t make you that much different, and it’s time we stopped asking for “special things for special people” and just joined the rest of the human race–get married, have kids, stay at your jobs, don’t do meth, and all those things that go with being adults. Being gay should be no more important than being Lutheran–it’s just one aspect of who you are, and it doesn’t need special rules or rallies or clubs or anything.
posted by TJ on
Kramer is a puritan, always has, always will be. He has no business telling consenting adults what to do.
Personally, he is a vindictive person, a disloyal friend and a mediocre writer who is jealous of other gays’ success.
posted by Al on
Instead of highlighting petty and vindictive points which attempt to pass as critique, why not truly look into, and examine what Mr. Kramer is saying. I have followed Larry Kramer’s work and twenty five year chronicle of what is still a national health disaster, and one thing is quite clear; his historical accuracy cannot be challenged.
It seems by some of the messages here, as well as much of the current sentiment of the day, many people would rather garner rights, power and change by nipping at the heals of the dominant culture, constantly making the point that we’re “just like them”, and therefore deserving of rights. Assimilation with the end goal of an earned acceptance, serves to be a divisive factor in any progressive movement. It presumes the want of acceptance is based upon a valid and legitimate societal denial of that acceptance. Without directly challenging the legitimacy of the denial, it effectively says that gays need to “prove their worth”.
My suggestion would be to honestly look at the state of our so called “rights” and current level of “acceptance” in a 2007 America, and then critique Larry Kramer all you want. Hopefully reality would prevail, and his suggestions as to a new approach would be given serious consideration. As I indicated above, his historical record speaks for itself. Some may not enjoy the “tactics”, but I have no doubt many have benefited from the successes of ACT-UP.
posted by Patrick Lehman on
Larry Kramer brought the fire and anger to what became both GMHC (the first aids service organization) and ACT-UP. He has achieved two great accomplishments. He can also be a toxic, vindictive person, who revealed city council candidate Tom Duane’s HIV status to the press in an attempt to get friend and neighbor Liz Abzug elected to city council. He should be applauded for this new comeback, because this is What Larry Does Best. He is a polemicist who articulates an agenda that he ultimately finds not up to his bossy standards, but which nonetheless does a great deal of good for the world. Rather than attacking him, I’m going to keep my trap shut and hope he is successful. Can you honestly say the HRC has a better idea? Can you think of any gay PAC that does? He’s an arsenic cookie, but he has made a transformation to the world and I totally support him.
posted by Brian Miller on
Mr. Kramer seems stuck in a 1980s perspective — “us versus them” and “us as the ‘others.'”
He’s right that “allies” don’t fight for us, but that’s more due to LGBT slavish devotion to Democrats (which is undeserved). And his calls for “universal health care” and “government housing for all” are, ironically enough, one of the primary reasons that gay folks have such unreliable allies. As long as LGBT people are foot soldiers for socialism (and its accompanying mediocrity and lack of ambition), we’re going to be permanently mediocre as well — the useful idiots of the left.
What we need is indeed a gay revolution — but one where we assert ourselves as the crucial parts of the economy and society that we ARE, rather than one where we hide and act as though the end is nigh. Powerful, confident gay people who stand on their own are a force to be reckoned with — timid, fearful gay people terrified of what “they” will do to us, and demanding government handouts, are a laughing stock.
posted by Drew on
Paul, I think your over-reacting to Larry’s dramatic exposition. The problem with GLBT is we keep expecting straights to carry the water for us instead of fighting for our rights. Ask GLBT people how many ever thought of running for office or making effective change for gays in their work place. There are very few.
posted by Clyde on
I believe that emotionalism and hyperbole, from Larry Kramer or anyone else, generally are not effective. I would like to see more rational, informed arguments.
posted by Herb Spencer on
James, thanks for your two truly bold and different – I refuse to use the other “D-word” – posts. We do indeed need to “get over ourselves,” if we ever really expect to get over the barriers that hold us back.
Larry K., I congratulate you on your own courage in what you’ve done over the years – and more recently right here in this thread. But, consider how much more of an impression your very valid thoughts and concerns might make if you tempered your arguments with more reason and less rhetoric. Think “The Fable of the Sun and the North Wind,” and you’ll get it.
posted by Brian Kevin Beck on
Well heck why DO they hate us after all then? To know this might help fight it? Kramer alerts to the phobia-and-disgust, maybe exaggerates maybe not; let us then know exactly why. But to know that, needs deep inquiry into Human Motivations. I tried and found it too complex to uncover (like an archaeological dig). Below, what I found. Others can probably do better.
Why do non-gays ?hate? or are disgusted by gays?and do not change their opinion where it would be appropriate? E.g., on Same Sex Marriage for an instance? Possibilities are:
(1) Traditional religion? (2) Sociocultural norms mores folkways. Includes (3) ?gender-role identity.? (4) Psychological conservatism (involving unsavory hierarchies, ingroups-outgroups, status and elitism, etc.). (5) ?Authoritarian Personality Type.? (6) Honest misconceptions (as about pedophilia, also ?we choose orientation and change is possible,? etc.) (7) Incomplete comprehension of what marriage is: traditional heterosexuality but also a religious ceremony but also a political-governmental right-status, plus personal bond, plus community recognition. (8) Simple unawareness of the extent of gay oppressions, discriminations. (9) Belief in Natural Law: one right way if you mess with it everything collapses. (10) Fear of major change especially today. (11) Magical Thinking: gays as ?threat to society? (exactly how, please?) (12) Status of minorities including gays as ?Lesser Outside Folk? or Incomplete Partial People?(?shallow, unworthy, second-rate?) not deserving Full Civic Personhood. (13) For some men, sexual power status, fear of being overwhelmed by some half-man?
This got further than most analyses, but is imperfect, yet a start. How boring to soberly analyze causes. How potentially-empowering?
P.S.?Kramer is reported as acerbic personally but I can separate the person from his work. His novel Faggots, IMHO, surpasses that cult favorite Dancer From The Dance. Faggots told things like they are?DFTD waltzed off into an escapist, evasive whirl quite distant from valid attachments of all kinds (and was probably loved for that fact?)