IGF CultureWatch

First published on January 19, 2006, in Bay Windows.

In a January 9th e-mail to members of the International Advisory Committee (IAC) of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC), IGLHRC Executive Director Paula Ettelbrick and her board liaison for IAC, Adrian Coman, asked for input on whether IGLHRC should join the LGBT World Pride celebration scheduled this summer in Jerusalem. They stated that the consensus of their staff and their board's program committee was not to participate.

They explained, "While IGLHRC sees as its mandate the promotion of human rights everywhere, and would typically wish to support local organizations and activists, and participate in any world conference where the discussions and goals included LGBT rights, as a human rights organization, we do not feel it is appropriate to participate in a 'world pride' event in the middle of an occupation and in a location were our colleagues from the region could not travel to Israel to participate."

Helpfully, the e-mail, which was forwarded to me, includes a couple of Internet links for further information. One of them is to www.boycottworldpride.org, which reveals that the boycott effort is spearheaded by a group called QUIT, for Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism.

Given IGLHRC's stated commitment to promoting human rights everywhere, you might suppose that they have also boycotted notoriously oppressive countries like China and Cuba. You would be wrong. In 1995 in Beijing, IGLHRC was represented by Julie Dorf and Rachel Rosenbloom at the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women. And in 1998 in Havana, IGLHRC's coordinator for Latin America and the Caribbean, Alejandra Sardá presented a paper at the Third International Women's Solidarity Meeting.

So totalitarian capitals like Havana and Beijing are fine, but the sole democracy in the Middle East, which happens to be the place to which gay Arabs in the region flee, is the target of a "queer" boycott effort, essentially because it has dared to defend itself from neighbors bent on wiping it off the map and driving its Jewish inhabitants into the sea. As Barrett Brick, the former executive director of the World Congress of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Jews, observes, "I am most amused by the comment about Israel being a location to which regional colleagues could not travel. It is the Muslim countries that ban entry by Israelis and people with Israeli stamps in their passports."

Contrary to leftist propaganda, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank was not the result of expansionist greed by Zionist imperialists, but a response to an attack against Israel. The occupation is therefore entirely justified. The same cannot be said of Israeli settlements in the occupied territory, but on the other hand several democratically elected Israeli governments have sought in vain to trade land for peace with neighboring tyrants. If more Arab leaders emulated Anwar Sadat of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan in choosing peace, the region could be the focus of rebuilding instead of destruction. But as Israeli diplomat Abba Eban said after Geneva peace talks with Arab countries in December 1973, "The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

The foolishness of the queer left's boycott of Jerusalem World Pride 2006 is nothing new. In May 2002, QUIT participated in a pro-Palestinian rally at UC Berkeley. A Palestinian objected, saying, "Gay people have no place in society, whether in Palestine or in the U.S." When someone took issue with him, he replied, "You are a cultural imperialist." How's that for solidarity?

This is the left's idea of gay pride: demonizing Israel, which protects gay rights, while romanticizing a homophobic Palestinian culture that teaches its children no greater aspiration than to murder people by blowing themselves up.

The justifications for various boycotts aside, I generally oppose them because they tend to hurt the wrong people, and I believe that engagement works better than disengagement. When singer Paul Simon broke the ANC cultural boycott of South Africa with his Graceland tour in the 1980s, he was widely denounced. Yet his collaboration with South Africa's Ladysmith Black Mambazo inspired millions and catapulted Ladysmith to international acclaim and success.

With the voices of Ladysmith director Joseph Shabalala and his colleagues gracing numerous television commercials, members of QUIT would no doubt say this only proves that Ladysmith has sold out to the global forces of capitalist oppression. But if you prefer the misdirected radicalism of spoiled American leftists to the enchantment of Ladysmith, you are more than tone deaf.

My own partner is a refugee from another part of Africa, and our travel budget for this year may not take us to Israel for World Pride. But I know where my heart will be, regardless of what decision the folks at IGLHRC make.

I'm going to Graceland.

The analysis of Supreme Court confirmation hearings has become the post-Cold War equivalent of Kremlinology, the study of Soviet behavior relying on exquisitely subtle clues to draw grand conclusions about the future. Is that Chernenko standing next to Brezhnev at the May Day parade? Is Andropov wearing a fedora?

So in the confirmation hearings of Judge Sam Alito, commentators carefully parsed the phrase "unitary executive" that he used in a single speech five years ago. They alighted when Alito described the "one-person/one-vote" principle as "settled law" but described Roe v. Wade as a "precedent entitled to respect." Did this signal he would vote to overrule Roe?

Did Gorbachev wink when that SS-25 ICBM passed by? Or was it just something in his eye?

All this speculation arises because nominees have learned that the way to get on the Supreme Court is to say nothing and to say it in as moderate and monotone a manner as possible.

Over more than two days of testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Alito said almost nothing. When asked about this or that precedent, his stock response was to describe the holding of the Court, say it was entitled to respect, and then say he could say no more because the issue might come before him.

This convention of obscurantism in the Supreme Court nomination process puzzles me. I don't see why a nominee can't express a general view about a precedent or doctrine (without promising how to vote) when it's perfectly acceptable for a sitting justice to announce in one opinion that he supports (or opposes) a precedent and then to decide future cases related to the same precedent.

Notwithstanding the deliberate opacity of the confirmation process, is there anything about Alito that should give gay Americans concern?

The national gay groups all oppose Alito, and did so even before his confirmation hearings. But they have pretty much taken themselves out of any serious debate about President Bush's judicial nominees. Their position is basically this: "We have a specific pro-gay agenda, which we understand to include the right to abortion without restrictions. We want to advance this agenda, to the extent possible, through the courts. We oppose any nominee for whom there is no affirmative evidence that he fully supports our agenda and is willing to advance it judicially."

Since no Republican judicial nominee is going to meet this test, national gay groups might as well announce that they will oppose any and all judicial nominees for the remainder of the Bush presidency and be done with the matter. Their opposition will be ineffectual, as it has been on all of Bush's nominees. But at least we could dispense with the charade that they actually care about, and have "analyzed," an individual nominee's record.

The best that the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund could do to muster a case against Alito was to point out that he is a conservative, that he thinks there were excesses of judicial activism in the 1960s on matters like criminal defendants' rights, that he opposed Roe in 1985, that he has a "strong allegiance to 'free enterprise' " (quel horreur!), that he interprets certain employment-discrimination laws more narrowly than Lambda would, and that he would not always remove the displays of menorahs and creches from public land.

Where was the gay-rights issue in that litany?

I see nothing either very promising or very threatening in Alito's record when it comes to gay issues. That's not to say he couldn't turn out to be an imitation of Justice Antonin Scalia on gay rights. That would be terrible: Scalia has been actively hostile and even disparaging on the subject. But Alito could also turn out to be surprisingly receptive to certain gay-rights claims, as Reagan-appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy has been.

At his hearing, Alito announced that he supports the constitutional right to privacy that is the underpinning for the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas striking down anti-gay sodomy laws. He further suggested that he believes this right extends to unmarried people. He was not asked to comment beyond that.

While he supports federalism and "limited government"-more right-wing ideas Lambda finds troubling-Alito told the Senate that he could not think of any reason why Congress could not pass a law protecting gays from employment discrimination.

There's more. Alito appears to be very strong on free speech, which has been critical to the gay-rights cause. As a federal appellate judge, he supported the transfer of a gay student to another school to escape harassment. After the hearing, even NGLTF observed that Alito "registered immediate, palpable and sincere horror and disgust" at the anti-gay statements attributed to an alumni group of which he had once been a member.

Alito is not going to bring us gay marriage, but neither is anybody else on this Court. He will probably not vote to strike down the military's exclusion of homosexuals-also probably a strong majority view on the current Court. He will defer to Congress and to the states, to a very large extent, on what public policy toward gays ought to be.

That is, reading between the lines of his testimony and making predictions about his future conduct as compared to what his predecessor's might have been on specifically gay issues likely to come before the Court, Alito's appointment probably leaves us about where we were before.

First published in the Chicago Free Press., January 18, 2006

One of the most widely noted political phenomena of the last decade is the polarization of political opinion-usually along liberal versus conservative lines-so that there seems to be decreasing room for moderation, compromise or "just getting along."

Everyone listens to people on their own side, tunes into media and accesses weblogs that they agree with, and the notion that the other side might have a good point fades from the political universe. Fading even more is the possibility that the other side might not only have a good point but might actually be right about some issue.

Vanishing almost entirely from the polarized mentality is the possibility that both sides are utterly wrong and there could be some third position that is closer to the truth. Yet it seems unlikely that there could be just two plausible positions on any given issue.

I find this political polarization personally troubling because I have come to conservative positions on some issues and liberal positions on others. And I have concluded that there are yet other issues where neither side is right. In each case, I believe I can offer fairly good reasons for what I think.

Let me give some examples, not to argue for them here but to demonstrate what I mean. I know there are plausible-sounding arguments against all of these, but in each case I believe I have good counter-arguments.

First, nine "liberal" conclusions:

1. I am for legalizing gay civil marriage (or civil unions).
2. I support allowing gays to serve openly in the military.
3. I support legalized assisted suicide: It's my own life.
4. I think recreational drug use should be decriminalized: What I put in my body is my business.
5. I oppose government subsidies to farmers and corporations: Let them earn their money the way the rest of us do.
6. Commercial sex (prostitution) should be decriminalized: It's my body.
7. I oppose the death penalty.
8. Abortion at any time should be legal: A fetus is not a person.
9. Pornography should be legal to make and sell.

Now here are eight "conservative" conclusions:

1. I oppose government seizure of people's private property through eminent domain.
2. I support tax cuts for anyone anytime-rich, poor or middle-class.
3. I oppose government subsidies to arts organization: They should earn their money by pleasing customers.
4. I support school choice and home schooling.
5. I support absolute free trade: Tariffs and quotas are subsidies for inefficient businesses.
6. I oppose zoning restrictions by officious "city planners."
7. I support more welfare cuts: The last ones had salutary effects.
8. People should have the right to own guns to protect themselves: The police cannot be everywhere.

To all appearances these two sets of views belong on opposite sides of the political spectrum. So I have trouble describing my political position for people. I suppose I could call myself "a small government liberal." Or maybe "an ACLU conservative." But these terms would not mean much to people with deep commitments on one side or the other. They would just look at me strangely, as if I described some object as a round square.

Usually, people end up thinking I am whatever they are not. Conservatives think of me as liberal and liberals think of me as conservative. Both sides insist on 85 to 90 percent conformity with their views to qualify as "one of us." Apparently that is one way that political ideologues inhibit "deviationism"-otherwise known as thinking for yourself. You are supposed to buy the whole package.

Interestingly enough-interesting to me, anyway-I have come to some liberal positions on the basis of "conservative" arguments. For instance, I oppose the death penalty not because it is inhumane but because I do not trust governments to impose an irreversible sentence: Courts can make mistakes.

Similarly, I have come to some conservative positions for "liberal" reasons. For instance, I think Supreme Court justices should interpret the Constitution strictly because I think a strict reading must include deference to the Ninth Amendment, which recognizes a number of previously ignored "liberty rights" for individuals.

For that matter, I support privatization of Social Security so gays and other singles can pass on their investment to their partners when they die rather than having the government keep their money. Is that liberal because it benefits gays or conservative because it eliminates a government program?

Is there some coherent view that unites most if not all of these diverse positions? I think so and I think I can explain roughly what it is. But the point I hope to make is that whether or not they represent a coherent outlook, they are meant to show that a person might find good reasons to diverge from the liberal or conservative party line on several issues, if not these then others.

Back in the 1960s when the world was young there was a button that read, "Question Authority." I used to have one. It may still be around somewhere. Maybe I should start wearing it again.