By Andrew Birnbaum
Alberto Gonzales’ Log Cabin
Some on the far right now accuse the left of bigotry when we question the President’s nomination of minority group members for key governmental positions. What is most interesting about these charges is that the right has picked up on a sense of angst that some of us on the left feel - we are opposing the appointment of women and persons of color, despite our genuine desire to see women and persons of color (and thus ourselves) elevated to key positions.
I myself admit to becoming more concerned when I see a black, latino, and/or gay conservative, than when I see a (presumably) straight white male conservative. But shouldn’t everyone have the same right to hold beliefs with which I disagree? Am I not discriminating when I expect a black woman to hold more progressive views, while giving a white man a “free pass” for his conservative beliefs? And just what is it about gay “Log Cabin” republicans that really troubles me? Sure they are helping a party that is overwhelmingly unfavorable to people like themselves (and me). But gay republicans claim to be fighting to make their party more hospitable for gays and lesbians, and I take them at their word.
My view of the world is of course impacted by where I work - a law firm that represents labor unions. My coworkers include several straight white men who are completely committed to social justice. I have little doubt that if any of them had been born gay, or black, or poor, they would still be committed to social justice. They live in a world set up to benefit people like them, and they still help others.
And so it hit me.
The real concern for me is that, if gay republicans know what it is like to grow up gay and still choose a party that demonizes them, I can only wonder what they would believe and fight for had they been born straight. Free from the shackles of knowing what it is like to be oppressed, they might have been our worst oppressors.
And this concern is obviously not limited to gay people. When Ann Coulter writes glowingly in “Call Her Mrs.” about Phyllis Schlafly, there is a biting irony to the fact that Coulter, a 40-something, unmarried, “career girl” has benefited tremendously not from the women who embraced the “Mrs.” label, but rather from the women who bravely rejected it. And I do not mean women who declined to marry, but rather women who refused to be defined solely by whether they were married. The “old maid” label was a cruel moniker that might this very day be applied to Coulter had women like Gloria Steinem not stepped in and reminded people that in a truly free society, women have choices.
Which brings me to Alberto Gonzales, the President‘s nominee for Attorney General. Mr. Gonzales is a highly accomplished Latino man with an impressive resume.
However, as White House counsel, he argued against the applicability of anti-torture laws, arguments which many believe helped pave the way for the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Rewarding such a man with the attorney general position, instead of demanding his immediate resignation, sends a message of non-repentance to the World. It also signals to Americans at home that unsavory “law enforcement” practices may not just be for innocent Iraqis anymore. For these reasons, a defender of torture such as Gonzales is a uniquely poor choice for Attorney General. I can only imagine what types of sadomasochistic dysfunction he would defend if he came from a world of unmitigated privilege. The world of straight, white, rich men.
George Bush’s world.
I’d rather stay in mine and fight.
Andrew Birnbaum @ shenluk.blogspot.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment