The bedroom may be a more private place, but when politicos insert themselves in ours, we’re going to be damn sure to set up a camera in theirs. – Queerty

One of the weakest defenses of keeping hypocritical gay politicians closeted was written up by Joshua Alston on Newsweek’s blog The Gaggle.  I expect to see the mainstream media try to maintain the status quo that the only thing the media should not report about is a person’s homosexuality, even when they wield their power to harm the civil rights of fellow LGBT people; however, I did not expect to find one so inarticulate and logically flawed.

Alston starts out reasonable enough in the post by framing Oscar-nominated filmmaker Kirby Dick’s documentary Outrage! in the light the film was intended to be judged:

Of all the confounding behaviors that human beings engage in, perhaps none is more irritating—or more common—than hypocrisy. It’s fascinating when someone condemns behavior while engaging in it himself…
[....]
In the film, director Kirby Dick builds the case that there are politicians who live their lives as gay men, or at least engage in gay sex, yet have voting records that undermine gay rights.

Exactly.  However, Alston’s shoddily thought-out piece switches midstream when he focuses on the argument against outing these people:

[T]he film’s core argument—that closeted gay politicians should be outed—is still at issue. The job of a public official, after all, is to represent his constituency, not to vote in the way that would most benefit him. We live in a democracy, and everyone gets a vote, including bigots and homophobes, and they get to be represented as well. Now, it’s fair to suggest that the voting public has the right to know everything about its elected officials, including their personal lives. But if we knew the details of what everyone was doing and voted accordingly, who would we have to vote for? Political scandals over the years, ones that have nothing to do with homosexuality, have proved that most politicians have skeletons they keep. If a gay man wants to run for governor of a socially conservative state because he has terrific ideas on how to reduce crime, balance the budget, or bring new jobs to his state, should he put his sexuality front and center and risk going down to defeat? There’s a valid argument for both sides of that question, but Outrage pretends there isn’t. If you’re gay, the film suggests, then fighting for gay rights must always be job one, and anything less is an unforgivable betrayal.

The film’s core argument is not that all closeted gay politicians should be outed, but only the ones who are actively hypocritical.  Alston starts off with the correct premise, but when he is forced to justify the last remaining media topic ban on public figures, he changes the argument.

Outrage! does not argue “that the voting public has the right to know everything about its elected officials”; but it does argue that hypocrites should be exposed, and that the media is failing in its duties to inform the public of what boils down to a question of character.  Welcome to that club, Joshua Alston.

One of my readers, Ryan, made these points on an earlier post over this topic:

If a prominent and powerful senator who was secretly Jewish but made a habit of introducing legislation and supporting measures which would limit or take away the rights of other Jews, would it really be unfair, in your opinion, to expose that senator as a Jew? Should other people (including Jewish people) just keep their mouths shut and allow that senator to keep moving ahead with his campaign of anti-semitism simply because the senator “has a right to his privacy?” Perinally I feel that my right to fight for my civil rights is more important than the “right to privacy” of any gay politician who is attempting to limit or take those rights away from me.

Using his flawed change-of-argument, Alston brings up the gay man with “terrific ideas” who won’t be elected in a conservative state because he is forced to declare his homosexuality, lest he be exposed.  Never mind this scenario has nothing to do with Outrage! and its premise; Alston passes over the real glaring deficiency: that someone with terrific ideas would be voted down simply for being gay.

This shows who Alston was pandering to: liberals who don’t feel people should be denied a job, or public service, because they are gay.  Under Alston’s logic, Ted Haggard would still be leading New Life Church and Larry Craig would still be a Senator; the public would be none-the-wiser.  Homophobes and bigots, who previously adored these people, would never be challenged to face the basis of their bigotry.

Alston’s understanding of democracy

It might be Alston’s misunderstanding of how democracy works.  He writes, “The job of a public official, after all, is to represent his constituency, not to vote in the way that would most benefit him.”  No, Joshua, the job of a public official is to vote his or her conscience, and the public puts that person in office not to be controlled by the shifting winds of poll numbers.  This is consistently a point of criticism against politicians.  Conservatives and liberals both make the point.

The public puts politicians in office to become far more educated on the issues than the public is able to be, and to vote accordingly.  Politicians aren’t elected to be puppets of their constituency, although to ignore them is to put their re-election at risk.

Democracy also works when the media does its job.  Alston’s post underscores the ultimate shame that he and others in the mainstream media engage in: not informing the public.  It’s a dereliction of their responsibilities.  People like Alston decide that hypocrisy is not worthwhile to report to voters–including gay ones–so that they can make an informed decision.  If liberal and conservative voters can agree on one thing, it’s that they don’t want to elect an anti-gay closeted politician.

The media decides this information is not worth your knowing, as they report on just about every other facet of a person’s private life.  Again, my reader Ryan:

[S]enators, congressmen and all other elected officials should be held to a certain standard and shouldn’t be exempt from close scrutiny. In fact, close scrutiny of politicians’ personal lives routinely occurs when it comes to heterosexual politicians. Their extr-marital affairs, drug use, domestic violence, drinking problems and all sorts of other “personal” things are fodder for the press already. Do you really want the press [to] treat all gay politicians so differently from the way they treat straight politicians?

Joshua Alston’s post is a defense that doesn’t judge the film Outrage! on its own merits; he judges it on the mainstream media’s double-standard.   That’s the real outrage.

Click here to watch the Outrage! film trailer.

Possibly related posts

• Governor Charlie Crist is gay; will this hurt his Senate run in Florida? (17)
• Outing gay celebrities (11)
• Rupert Everett, it’s not because you’re gay, it’s because you’re a jerk (7)
• Shepard Smith told me he is gay – so why is he a Fox News shill? (65)
• Sir Elton John the Whore (11)