One of my favorite things about politics is that it mirrors the fashion world: One political season, reducing national tariffs was all the rage, and now that concept is as dead as overalls.
Trends constantly change, and political parties undergo major makeovers in order to be en vogue and proclaim the latest “that’s hot” tagline on the issues they are going to adopt for the upcoming election season.
This year, “gay” is the new “black” for the Republican Party. But wait before you start going for your last-season defense-of-marriage picket signs ““ this is a whole new gay.
Where in the past the party of the right has been adamant about opposing gay rights or even addressing gay-related issues, they have surprised everyone this political year. The latest craze sweeping the Grand Old Party these days is being gay.
That’s right. In a bold move right before the 2006 midterm elections, Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) strutted down the political catwalk with 16-year-old pages in tow. This shocked the nation, causing undecided voters to run to the Democrats like a sale at Barneys. Not to be outdone, Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) recently made headlines of his own for allegedly soliciting a police officer for sex in a men’s public restroom a la George Michael.
In fact, a series of Republicans from Edward L. Schrock to Ken Mehlman have been outed over the years, causing many to speculate when being vehemently anti-gay in the public eye and then being exposed for picking up military escorts from the Internet became cool in the conservative party.
Well, it’s not, and yet it is. It’s kind of like polka dots: No one should wear them, but people do. People are gay, and that means statistically there are going to be gay members within the Republican party that don’t align themselves specifically with the Log Cabin Republicans.
There is an important issue buried beneath these fiascos, and that issue is the aftermath of such outings.
Craig was pressured to ““ and subsequently did ““ resign from his post.
I realize there are liberals reading this who are basking in the hypocrisy of this man being forced out of the closet. I can also picture a whole bunch of conservative readers breathing a sigh of relief that this guy is hightailing it out of Washington and from their party.
If you thought of either of those things, shame on you.
How can you determine whether a man who may be cheating on his wife with random men in a restroom actually compromises his ability to be a senator, much less anything?
The problem with forcing Craig out of Washington is that it equates his moral life with his professional life, and worse yet, it specifically states that what he is doing in his personal life is inherently wrong.
The last time I checked, people do all sorts of freaky things, and those things should not be used to judge a person’s capability. Is it right to judge a person by the skeletons hidden in his closet?
Think of your friends, parents and the rest of the world around you. I bet a bunch of those people have some pretty risque stories that they could tell, but just because your professor partook in an orgy in college, does that make him any less fit to teach you about the classification system of invertebrate fish?
What I am trying to say is that it is sad we have reduced Craig to his actions. I have no idea how he served the state of Idaho in D.C., but I have to think he did a pretty decent job considering he was reelected to the position twice.
Being gay or being gay and having surreptitious sex in a restroom is not any indication of one’s ability to effectively perform one’s job.
By cheering the removal of this man from office, you are effectively saying that a person is no longer to be judged by the merits of his performance but by the social, moral fabric that binds our country.
Nadler is a fourth-year world arts and cultures student.