On Political "Outing"


While browsing gay blogland recently, I ran across of poll in which readers were asked to vote and comment on whether various hypothetical examples of closeted political figures should be “outed,” or have their homosexuality publicly exposed. The results of this poll, which was most likely inspired by the revelation that the avowedly homophobic Republican Party is riddled with powerful gays, were overwhelmingly in favor of “outing” gay political figures who support anti gay policies and legislation. I can’t go along with this. In fact, I find this attitude somewhat disturbing.

Make no mistake about it. My gut reaction would be to buy billboards, television time, and even a skywriting plane to expose their hypocrisy. But there are some important principles involved that we can’t allow ourselves to compromise, no matter how sweet the vengeance or great the immediate political gain.

“Outing” denies the individual’s right to a private life. Everyone, including political figures, has a right to a private life as long as that private life does not involve any illegal or seriously unethical behavior. Denying public figures a right to this privacy is a tactic that seems to have been invented by the radical right; of course, the most spectacular case was the Republicans’ exploitation of Clinton’s private life in the Monica Lewinsky affair. Aside from the ethical and philosophical issues involved, has America really benefited by bringing the details of people’s personal lives into politics?

Gay Republicans supporting anti gay measures are, of course, hypocrites. But regardless of any hypocrisies that may be involved, what should matter to the public is the person’s public record. Turning the political tables, we can ask ourselves what difference it makes if a congressman hasn’t any gay friends if he strongly supports gay rights legislation? Are we really going to try to destroy politically a tireless fighter for ecology if we find out that his windows aren’t double- glazed. If we want to protect the right to privacy for people whose positions we agree with, we have to do the same for those whose positions we abhor.

Equally important, any victory we would attain by “outing” would probably be short lived, since we would be attacking and destroying only the carrier, and not the disease. What is important is to convince the electorate of the wrongness of homophobia, not just of the hypocrisy of the homophobes. We may politically kill off a few homophobes, but the disease they carry will continue to plague us until we defeat the idea itself.

Moreover, trying to defeat an idea by attacking the personal qualities of its proponents is, of course, intellectually very dangerous. It sets precedents, or continues practices that we really would not want to live with. Ad hominem arguments are intellectually impossibly shabby. We have perfectly sound grounds with which to attack homophobia; we don’t need to debase ourselves with ad hominem arguments.

I can, of course, understand those who say that we have to fight fire with fire; the Republicans began the practice of dredging up aspects of political opponents’ sex lives. It might be emotionally gratifying to give them some of their own medicine. But do we really want to develop a political culture that operates on that level? It’s not just a question of rejecting the idea of the end’s justifying the means; it’s a question of debasing the whole level of political discourse. You can’t build a just society using such shoddy bricks.

In another post I said that we all, and every gay rights organization worth its salt, should apply as much pressure as possible to gay Republicans to get them to leave the party or at least publicly renounce the party’s homophobic stance. But legitimate pressure is one thing; blackmail is quite a different matter.