What's up with fixating on a person's sexual orientation at the point when you've got a substantive complaint about them?
It seems to have something to do with the way they were presented in the media as a wonderful gay version of the power couple. That was a couple years ago, and it had to do with parties (a big wedding) and real estate (a $5 million SoHo loft) and parties in the real estate (fundraisers for Democratic Party candidates). I guess there was something cool about having it be a gay couple doing these otherwise utterly banal rich-person things.
As long as Hughes hews to the functions he's good for, he's good and in calling him good, good liberals loved to praise him not just as a man but as a gay man. So... when you don't like what he's doing, suddenly, he's not just bad, he's a bad gay.
Kirchick calls him "a deeply insecure man" with "a heavy burden to prove his self, not to mention net, worth." Now, Kirchick is mainly talking about how Hughes just got lucky making all his millions at Facebook, because, you know, he couldn't really code. He handled the "social" side of the business, and the non-coding side of things is... what?... woman's work? Kirchick doesn't come out and say it. He doesn't specifically say that the part of the Facebook business that Hughes handled was effeminate and that the real men knew how to code and the social business is gay. He doesn't say that Hughes is deeply insecure about his manhood, only that Hughes is "a deeply insecure man."
Well, Kirchick, if that's not your insinuation, why talk about his sexual orientation at all?
Kirchick says they wouldn't have been fawned over if they were "heterosexual and conservative": "The prospect of a fresh-faced, conventionally liberal, gay couple hit every media sweet spot." But that's a critique of media. About Hughes (and Eldridge), he says:
They are little more than entitled brats who, like most fabulously wealthy arrivistes who attain their fortunes through sheer luck rather than hard work, are used to getting everything they want, when they want it, and throw temper tantrums when they don’t.Temper tantrums? Is there a whiff of homophobia there? How is Hughes throwing a temper tantrum? The 11 editors who abruptly quit TNR seem more to be throwing a tantrum. Hughes is applying his vision to the magazine operation he bought. How does that count as acting "entitled" and not doing hard work? He used his money to buy something, and ownership IS entitlement. He possesses the title to property that he didn't steal, he bought. He's a brat? Well, I get it that Kirchick thinks he's a brat because he's not dispensing his wealth in the manner expected of a good little liberal, but that complaint has nothing to do with his gayness, unless a higher level of obedience is expected of gay people.
______________________________
* Remember the great old Phil Ochs song "Love Me, I'm a Liberal"? Meade just reminded me that The New Republic is mentioned in that song:
I read New Republic and NationI'll send all the money you ask for.... There's where Chris Hughes went wrong. Well, I hope he busts loose and does interesting things now that the Being Loved gig is over.
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
I vote for the Democratic Party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
Posts
62 comments:
Temper Tantrum indeed!
But by the author of the article.
Why is the demise of TNR such a bad thing, anyway? If the Market can't sustain it, why should it be propped up?
I don't get the Gay angle either. There are plenty of wealthy business owning lefties who do supposedly illiberal things like cutting wages and benefits, sending work overseas, burying smaller competitors in lawsuits, etc. and none of them are called out in this way.
It's understood that they can run their business any way they want as long as the donations to Democrats and liberal causes continue to flow.
Dana Milbank has a weepy column in the Post about the terrible demise of TNR--which he once wrote for.
Milbank claims that, after Hughes bought TNR, he sent him an e-mail saying that "Hughes was doing the Lord's work".
Indeed- and that's true now that Hughes has cratered that nest of gas bag lefty pundits.
And if Hughes is now being criticized by his former supporters as an "effeminate gay", all I can say is You Go Girl!
His homosexuality is mentioned because on the Left your identity as a member of a victim group is the only thing that matters.
Leaving the reservation will not be allowed. Disrupting the meme(s) will not be allowed. Interrupting the flow of power will not be allowed.
Punishment will be swift. Punishment will be applied in a manner most painful (and what is more painful than othering?).
Liberals use racial insults, feminine insults, sexual insults and ethnic insults a LOT. Are you really surprised he's not just a bad magazine owner, he's a bad gay?
what was cheesy about the couple was the carpet bagging attempt to buy a Congressional seat in two different upstate Ny districts and failing badly.
You mean super rich billionaire gay couples can't get no respect these days. Could it be their white privilege is holding them down now.
I am trying to feel sorry for them, really. But it does not work.
"And now the media has finally noticed."
Boy, THERE is a line that is ripe for recycling.
"they wouldn't have been fawned over if they were 'heterosexual and conservative'"
They wouldn't have been "they" at all.
They media are having such a snit over Hughes and TNR.
Hughes sticking it to the whiny Boomers. Good for him.
The Phil Ochs song reminds me of the old NatLamp song "Pull the Tregroes".
"Just because I can't be there
doesn't mean that I don't care
So come on brother,
off a pig for me."
Ahhh, another "blue on blue" engagement!
And, uh, no Althouse, there is no "whiff of homophobia" here.
Unless of course you really desire there to be so. It's simply using the "politics of personal destruction" on a couple of apostates who dare challenge the establishment left's "vision" of what TNR is supposed to be.
If Hughes doesn't watch out, pretty soon he'll go from being a "bad gay" to being a "gay imposter".
Such is the "thought" process and tactics of the left.
In fairness, a chunk of the story is about Hughes's attempt to purchase a seat in Congress for Eldridge. That part of the story pisses off the lefties, too, because they think the seat would've been winnable by a Democrat who wasn't Eldridge. I don't see how one can report on/gripe about the NY-19 situation without discussing the fact that Hughes and Eldridge are a couple.
What a pathetic little hit piece. The pettiness of the armchair Freudianizing is matched only by the self-inflicted stupidity about what drives a successful startup (hint: it's not code).
Journalists pigeon-hole everyone they write about. In Hollywood they call it typecasting.
Journalists believe so much that people are one-dimensional characters that they write articles with a surprised tone when people show more than one talent--actors that take regular jobs, singers who also do graphic design, hockey players who sell doughnuts.
Journalists are really among our least competent observers of life.
For some reason, the article calls to mind Ta-Nehishi Coates and Bill Cosby. Coates, of course, didn't write about Cosby and the rape allegations, and then he did.
I wonder what Kirchick was saying about Hughes and Eldridge a couple years ago. (I don't wonder so much that I want to look though ;) )
I follow political news and enjoy following the horserace character. I also follow news of media fact checking and enjoy the truthrace character. I am so glad Al Gore invented the internet so I can read blogs. It is way more fun than daily newspapers were.
Why is the demise of TNR such a bad thing, anyway?
The demise started with Marty Peretz in the early 1970s. It's been a racist, anti-left shitwrap ever since.
They had Sean running for Congress in a few counties upstate. Meaning, they took up residency wherever there nights be a seat opening in a district. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/11/nyregion/Young-Rich-and-Relocating-to-Hudson-Valley-in-Hunt-for-Political-Office.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
I don't live near the district, but jeez Louise, every time I watched a video on the web (which is a lot as I dont have cable) I would have to listen to 3 30 second slots during a 1 hour show. You can not forward through. Even though I couldnt vote for him, that ALONE made me dislike him.
He lost by 24points to a local man who grew up and lives in the district.
They are both extremely entitled. Hey, I have lots of money and I am good looking. Let's run for congress and buy a political magazine. Ok! I think they thought that's what it would take.
Do you really need an explanation for the originators and prognosticators of the hyphenated American?
Oh, come on, you didn't even take a swipe at the low-hanging fruit that is the word "brat" in the title ...
garage: "The demise started with Marty Peretz in the early 1970s. It's been a racist, anti-left shitwrap ever since."
LOL
garage misses the glory years of TNR when they were openly in support of the Soviet Union and other leftist totalitarian regimes who only murdered 100 million plus!
Good times, good times.
Jealousy - professional and otherwise?
James Kirchick
From Wiki:
Awards[edit]
2006 National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association Excellence in Student Journalism[10]
2007 National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association Journalist of the Year[11]
Well, I hope he busts loose and does interesting things now that the Being Loved gig is over.
I'm afraid that just like Obama in '08 your hopes are going to end up dashed on the rocks.
Putting a marker down: within a year Hughes will divest himself of The New Republic.
There are no people anymore. We're all actors with our assigned characters and script. This couple was handed a plum role and departed from the written text. Our elite directors don't like that.
Resumes are now being accepted for the role of America's NEW Best Gay Power Couple.
Include head shots, tax records and voting history.
Maybe this'll cause Hughes to rethink some of the ideas behind LGBT Lefty activism, now that he has a chance to observe the dangers from a different perspective.
Isn't this a similar conversation to the one that San Francisco is having with itself?
The other big one in the Democratic party seems to be the black activist base and the liberal gentry.
Overall though, I'm guessing the kind of radicalism and overall Lefty activism is much further entrenched in our civic, institutional and political life.
The major outlets like the New Yorker, NPR etc will return to the good ol' template.
Subtle change, slight racism etc. Society must be changed, what's hip, what's cool, look at all the inequality, listen to this hipster Putumayo rap fusion etc.
Isn't Kirchick gay?
If he isn't, it would still be hard to say he's anti-LGBT. Remember, the most famous thing he's done is go on RT with rainbow suspenders on and slam Putin and Russia for their anti-gay policies.
Althouse - this writer is not homophobic. This couple were everywhere and their marriage and money had them touted in every publication as the ultimate power couple. Being rich and entitled in NY isn't special so it was the gay angle that was touted as though, between good looks, Sean's political aspirations and TNR made them the gay Bill and Hillary. It is ridiculous.
CJinPA: "Resumes are now being accepted for the role of America's NEW Best Gay Power Couple.
Include head shots, tax records and voting history"........
Snort! Just kidding. We already have your tax records and voting history and google just forwarded your latest pics!
Someone wants to blaze a new trail in online opinion publishing? More power to the engines! Nick Denton, Breitbart, Pajamas Media, BuzzFeed, the more (and the more models) the merrier.
My criticism of Hughes is that if that was his idea all along he was making a very bad business decision to build it out from the foundation of The New Republic. Again, whether you liked the old magazine or not, its value lay in the brand. "Breaking shit" was definitely not part of that brand.
If he'd bought Mother Jones his approach might have worked. (FWIW, I think Mother Jones as it currently exists pretty much is what Hughes has decided he wants.) Trying it with TNR has obviously been a disaster.
If it comes as a shock to all the good liberals that a Harvard-educated gay man could be feckless and stupid, well, consider it a step towards understanding the true nature of human equalities.
Hughes has betrayed the social class of elite, intellectual liberals. He is acting like a rich Republican, not a rich Democrat. In the future they will treat him like they treat the Koch Bros.
So it's fine to mock "America's Worst Gay Power Couple" (although I'd rank the HRC boy-raper below them)... but it's a felony not to bake them a cake?
The failure of The New Republic is not simply a commercial failure, but the product of its failure in the Market of Ideas as well.
If it had had anything to offer to its target readership it would never have needed to be bought out.
lemondog — hey, if you define a group down narrowly enough ANYONE can win a prize.
I mean if there's a statuette out there somewhere for Irish-American Catholic Lapsed Novelist Setting Up A Catnip Farm, I'm definitely in the running...
Hughes behavior is just so unseemly for an Andover man. Didn’t they teach him proper manners? Keep the money in the bank and the boyfriend in the closet. I guess Andover isn’t what it used to be.
Drago — "Head" shots? Did we learn NOTHING from Anthony Weiner...?
Althouse, the answer to your questions "how was he throwing a tantrum" and "why does it matter that he's gay" can be found here:
The same day the article appeared, Hughes lashed out in a group e-mail to staff because senior editor (and former Post reporter) Alec MacGillis had dared to propose writing a piece about Apple avoiding taxes just after Apple’s Tim Cook had come out of the closet. Hughes shot back that “Apple has acted squarely within the law” and that MacGillis’s argument would be “tone deaf.” MacGillis quickly backed off, but Hughes did not, writing twice more to defend Apple’s tax strategy and to call Cook “incredibly heroic” for coming out.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-the-new-republic-is-dead-thanks-to-its-owner/2014/12/08/ae80da42-7ee0-11e4-81fd-8c4814dfa9d7_story.html
The prominence of homosexual individuals, not necessarily couplets, throughout society, is evidence that homophobia is both a projected and displaced psychological condition. This well-meaning but opportunistic condition harms the cause of individuals with a homosexual orientation and couplets with a homosexual expression.
richard mcenroe: "Drago — "Head" shots? Did we learn NOTHING from Anthony Weiner...?"
Good catch.
I shall endeavor to use more precise language.
Imagine what a tempest-in-teacup would have occurred if Hughes was straight and a Republican.
This is one of those articles that an editor has to find a gay journalist to write in order to deflect charges of homophobia. ("We're not homophobic, a fag wrote this!") That's how we roll here in the US of A.
Chris and Sean, two grinning rich sylph-like homersexuals buy liberal institution and do the kind of things that vacuous rich boys would do. Righteous liberals walk out in huffy indignation. Other righteous liberals scream and wail.
This is better than TMZ.
(I'm a bad gay because I'm a libertarian. And I just ate a chunk of Jarlsberg cheese so I have bad breath also.)
>>Temper tantrums? Is there a whiff of homophobia there? How is Hughes throwing a temper tantrum?<<
Is Althouse accusing James Kirchick of homophobia? I'm pretty sure that Kirchick is gay.
"[H]e couldn't really code. He handled the "social" side of the business, and the non-coding side of things is... what?... woman's work?"
Hmmm. Wasn't there a recent brouhaha over a Barbie doll that couldn't code--she was meant to pass that work on to real men. So I guess gays and women are out as coders.
A good example of "acting entitled" is acting like you have a right to say how a company you don't own should be run.
E.g., the journalists criticizing what Hughes is doing with his magazine.
"unless a higher level of obedience is expected of gay people."
It's not expected, it's demanded. And the same is true of women and of black people especially. Woe be to anyone who does not toe the party line to the letter. Those groups "owe" so much that the trade-off is they're not allowed to have individual thoughts about anything.
brio: "Hmmm. Wasn't there a recent brouhaha over a Barbie doll that couldn't code--she was meant to pass that work on to real men. So I guess gays and women are out as coders"
Not according to slow Joe Biden!
Why some of these gals/gays MIGHT even be as good as heterosexual males at coding!!
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/12/08/joe-being-joe-bidens-sexist-gaffe-latest-artless-comment-wont-hear-about/
Just another item that will fail to be "noticed" by our on-the-warpath-stalinist feminist contingent.
I believe the left hates gays. But, like anti war protestors, they have their uses to beat the right over the head.
"Is Althouse accusing James Kirchick of homophobia? I'm pretty sure that Kirchick is gay."
And your point is?
My problem with the article was Kirchick talked about Hughes' "ill-gotten" fortune - as if he'd stolen it or something. Sure, he was in the right place at the right time - which allowed him to become fabulously wealthy, marry out of his league, and spend large chunks of money financing his husband's quixotic political campaigns - that doesn't mean his wealth was ill-gotten. He probably worked less for that $700 million than anyone in history who's made $700 million (as opposed to inheriting it) but that doesn't add up to "ill-gotten."
It's so hard to be a good Progressive when actual life is so complicated, and people don't always stay is the little boxes you have put them in.
"Is Althouse accusing James Kirchick of homophobia? I'm pretty sure that Kirchick is gay."
You do not have to be heterosexual to recognize that homosexuality is widely viewed as suboptimal, or to use that perception to wound.
Kirchick calls him "a deeply insecure man" with "a heavy burden to prove his self, not to mention net, worth."
All that means is that Hughes is like an awful lot of thirty-one year old men...gay, straight, or anything else.
Kirchick is mainly talking about how Hughes just got lucky making all his millions at Facebook, because, you know, he couldn't really code. He handled the "social" side of the business
While coding was necessary to building Facebook, it wasn't sufficient. In any case, coders are not the rarest of commodities. Like it or not, what made Facebook a success is, well, "the 'social' side of the business."
I understand Zuckerberg is now looking for a new BFF. Current H1B visa mandatory...
JAORE wrote: Liberals use racial insults, feminine insults, sexual insults and ethnic insults a LOT.
That has been my experience, too. In addition, I've noticed a difference in motivation between liberals and conservatives:
My roots are very blue collar, and I grew up in a pretty diverse area. My blue collar friends and acquaintances (including all races, genders, and ethnicities) are significantly more conservative than my university-associated acquaintances.
When the conservative, blue collar folks are exchanging insults, it almost always is intended as good natured banter. That's not to say that it is never offensive or problematic, but that its conscious intent usually is, at worst, benign, and, to the uninitiated, surprisingly inclusive.
In contrast, when my liberal associates employ such techniques, I believe that they are much more likely to be wielded with malice, i.e. intended to demean and ostracize.
I am impressed Meade. The song is on my iPod. In my leftist days, I loved Phil Ochs for lambasting liberals. They were more the enemy than conservatives because the media told us that conservatives were all crazy.
Phil Ochs! I thought you were younger, dude.
Sean "thirty percent" Eldridge
Both unfortunately and entertainingly, this is a stereotypical gay cat fight, with a big helping of self-hatred thrown in for good measure.
I am somewhere between neutral and bemused by the whole thing. I side with neither the buzzword-spouting, grating techie gay power couple, or the wildly pompous, self-aggrandizing radical conservative (and now unemployed) magazine staff.
But Kirchik? I'm afraid that if anyone is "deeply insecure," he need only stroll over to the nearest mirror and have a look. He fumes and sputters, and eventually he's left calling his antagonists a pair of silly faggots without using the words.
Now, the average richy-rich vanity publisher is nothing if not lampoonable, but there was a certain edge in Kirchik's attack. Could it be the same sort of rage that led him to once complain that he couldn't get a date because he's gay and conservative?
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2007/08/05/left_out/
James, did it ever occur to you back then that you couldn't get hooked up for the same reasons that prevent so many Cambridge types from finding steady comfort, if not love? You know, boring, bad breath, and barely socialized?
And gay. Ooooh, ain't that the worst?
"America's Worst Gay Power Couple" contains the assumption that they were a "power couple." I don't see any evidence of that. Where was the power--from where did power originate?
Chris Hughes wealth is akin to winning the lottery. He tried to buy a Congressional seat for his gay partner--twice. Not much evidence of power there.
So they're really "America's Worst Gay Rich Couple." Kind of a snore of a story.
Post a Comment