Writes Masha Gessen in "The Queer Opposition to Pete Buttigieg, Explained" (in The New Yorker).
He chose to wait [to come out] until after he graduated from college, after he had served in the military, after he had been elected mayor.... until after attitudes toward homosexuality had changed...MEANWHILE: "Did anybody catch a screenshot or see what [Washington Post writer Dave] Weigel tweeted? Supposedly he tweeted something from a movie that was clearly homophobic (towards Pete?), sparked some Twitter fury and took it down. Does anyone know what he did?" (Reddit).
One kind of queer politics is rooted in ideas of liberation, revolutionary change, and solidarity. The vision of this politics is a society that is radically changed by many kinds of people fighting many kinds of injustice, a society in which economic, social, political, and sexual relationships have been transformed....
The other, more mainstream, and often more visible kind of L.G.B.T. politics aims to erase difference. Its message to straight people is “We are just like you, and all we want is the right to have what you have: marriage, children, a house with a picket fence, and the right to serve in the military.”....
Buttigieg embodies the second kind of gay experience and the second kind of gay politics.... Buttigieg is the ultimate candidate of the country’s post-2016 trauma. He is not a woman. He is not a socialist. He is decidedly not a revolutionary. He does not make big, sweeping promises...
Posts
241 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 241 of 241Also, Howard, a liberal who attempts to consume me for lunch will find me rather indigestible.
Since Buttigieg's impressive finish in New Hampshire, I've watched a few videos of and about him. Most of these were made in the spring of 2019, when the campaign was just getting underway.
He is affable, well-spoken, and has a pretty good presence. He appears quite confident in himself without being arrogant. He is very intelligent and talented.
Some have said he is the "gay Obama", and I can see that. He is clean and articulate (tm). People project their wishes onto him, so his politics matter most to those who don't care for them.
I think he'd be grossly ineffective as a president. Like Obama, he is made to dazzle and soothe instead of lead.
Howard said...
Dark helmet has forgotten The rapid evolutionary history of the Holocene. stay conservative all you want you're just going to end up as some liberals lunch down the road.
You get liberal and progressive mixed up too much.
Trump and the Trumpist movement is he liberal movement.
The GOPe/Democrat coalition of progressivism is seeking answers in the past.
I find it very interesting that the tech industry is fighting this war out in the open but doing it via corporate warfare.
There are constant disruptors and upstarts and Google and Facebook keep trying to smash them down.
Not surprisingly these two companies have teamed up with the political force that also wishes to end societal evolution and go back to the tribal spoils system.
Amazon and Microsoft have taken the other side and are much more supportive of disruptive innovation.
European civilization is a unified, common thing because so much of it - all of it really- was created by Rome. Even those peoples that conquered Rome. Even the Hungarians, never under Roman rule, adopted Latin as their "high" tongue for hundreds of years. That's why all royal Swedes styled their names in their Latin forms. That cultural glue made Europe Europe. And then there is religion.
It's how the Jurchen/Manchus and even the later Mongols became Han. Europe was never as uniform as China, but it's still pretty uniform compared with global variety.
And then Europe conquered the world.
stay conservative all you want you're just going to end up as some liberals lunch down the road.
You're barely competent at elementary school level English composition. I wouldn't work up too healthy of an appetite.
This is why buwaya and Farmer are wrong about the future of the United States.
They're right about the demographic shifts due to immigration. They right about the underlying diminishment of traditional Anglo-Protestant value systems. And I think they're generally correct in their assessments of what all that will mean in terms of voting patterns and what sorts of policies that voting will eventually lead to.
It's kind of difficult to argue against the facts that the general attitudes in this country seem to have lead to more tolerance and acceptance for certain ideas that were considered pretty extreme just a few years ago. And it seems to me that we've been moving towards a greater centralization of power and away from individual rights. More and more people want assurances, they want government to be more involved in their lives. They want garaunteed healthcare and welfare and in greater and greater numbers. And whats worse, it seems like they're willing to believe almost any huckster who promises the moon if they just vote for them.
Of course it's not terribly difficult to imagine where all this is going with some basic extrapolation.
But as they say, nothing's certain except death and taxes. I've lived long enough to understand that the future rarely ends up playing out how the popular viewpoints of the moment imagine that it will. Or hope it will. Or fear it will. Events have a habit of playing out in ways that are unforeseeable even by people who engage in the most careful examination of all the facts and with all the benefits of history.
Howard said...
Well Achilles would I'm sure we are all anxiously awaiting the great conservative enlightenment that is about to take over the world by storm and revolutionize humanity for the better. What better way to kick it off then with a carnival Barker clown.
Uh, that already happened. About 250 years ago. Burke, Locke, Jefferson, Adam Smith, etc. The Marxists have been trying to undo the Anglo-Scottish Enlightenment for the last 150 years. Lenin gave it his best shot. So did Hitler and Mao. Luminaries such as Castro, Pol Pot, Khomeni, Danny Ortega and Hugo Chavez have also tried. Jeremy Corbyn just gave it a go. Looks like it's Bernie's turn at the moment.
But most people don't want to be poor, enslaved drones. So far.
Bay Area Guy said...
Mayor Pete's problem is not that he's gay. His problem is that he's a leftist proposing bad ideas.
To these woke gay activists, his problem is that he doesn't act gay enough? Oy vey, are they dumb.
--------------
He's got a problem with the decorative sprinkles.
"Enlightenments" dont.
This idea is an intellectual framing device, to categorize some fashion.
Intellectuals love categories, sorting and pinning them to corkboards like lepidopterists.
That is all greatly satisfying maybe, but it explains nothing.
The real stuff that matters is along the lines of blacksmiths steadily and humbly improving skills and techniques, without people writing books about it. And this stuff constantly crosses categories.
"Not so long ago, it was common for gay men to marry a women and live as heterosexuals."
So, biologist-commentators, if gayness is a biological thing, and biological things are passed on through genes, and fewer gay men bother with reproduction, would that lead to a gradual reduction in the prevalence of gayness?
So, biologist-commentators, if gayness is a biological thing, and biological things are passed on through genes, and fewer gay men bother with reproduction, would that lead to a gradual reduction in the prevalence of gayness?
Certain outlier behavoirs can persist in populations provided they're not significantly deterimental to the population as a whole. Homosexual individuals can and do still often have offspring, and even the ones that don't (the non-reproductives) can assist in child rearing, resource gathering, preparation, and protection.
Nonapod said...
This is why buwaya and Farmer are wrong about the future of the United States.
They're right about the demographic shifts due to immigration. They right about the underlying diminishment of traditional Anglo-Protestant value systems. And I think they're generally correct in their assessments of what all that will mean in terms of voting patterns and what sorts of policies that voting will eventually lead to.
It's kind of difficult to argue against the facts that the general attitudes in this country seem to have lead to more tolerance and acceptance for certain ideas that were considered pretty extreme just a few years ago. And it seems to me that we've been moving towards a greater centralization of power and away from individual rights. More and more people want assurances, they want government to be more involved in their lives. They want garaunteed healthcare and welfare and in greater and greater numbers. And whats worse, it seems like they're willing to believe almost any huckster who promises the moon if they just vote for them.
Humans since we started gathering in cities have been doing this. Most humans want this.
The Aristocracy/Technocrat/Welfare coalition has been the standard tribal spoils pattern of all societies in history.
Societal Evolution favors this model just like the evolution of species follows this model.
But since the founding of the United States we have kept the chains off our 1%. This is what made the US what it is today and it has let the cat out of the bag in an evolutionary sense so to speak.
At this point a society that lets it's 1% be free and innovate will just beat the progressive blue model.
That is why everyone is leaving New York and California for Texas.
The real stuff that matters is along the lines of blacksmiths steadily and humbly improving skills and techniques
I know you were speaking metaphorically, buwaya, but one reason I always loved to watch Forged in Fire was because it was a fascinating display of true craftsmanship. Pride in one's craft has pretty much been replaced by technology now and so it's refreshing to see it revived, even if only in a reality TV show.
DarkHelmet said...
But most people don't want to be poor, enslaved drones. So far.
I think that is an open question.
I think most humans would actually prefer society to be comfortable and secure rather than constantly changing and innovating.
But damn these cell phones are really kinda cool...
It is actually a very tough choice at the biological evolutionary level.
The very things that provide convenience and security also enslave us. I'm glad at least some of my ancestors weren't too comfortable in New England to venture westward.
At this point a society that lets it's 1% be free and innovate will just beat the progressive blue model.
Except the 1%, by and large, are progressives. They support things like mass immigration and “free” trade. Opposition to these things is 2/3 of the Trumpist platform.
@Achilles: I like your optimism and your genuine love and belief in this country. But I'm not entirely convinced in your argument here.
I agree that the battle of the collectivists versus the individualists is as old as human civilization. And I agree that the United States has undoubtedly created an environment that has encouraged innovation. All one need do is to look at all the important inventions and innovations of the past 200 years or so to see that the bulk of them were either entirely developed or largely developed in the US.
But I believe that the very things that allowed the US to be so great for so long are in danger of being undermined by demographics and general the foolishness with the excessive debt.
The United State of America was the result of a mass exodus of innovators and risk takers from other places with their fetid, decadent centralized power structures of their feudal systems. If the USA itself become a fetid, decadent centralized power, there's nowhere for the innovators and risk takers to run to.
@Rick:
The point is that when they come back with a law excised of the obvious tells we should still understand it as an effort to control our lives rather than an effort to combat climate change.
Those two things aren’t mutually exclusive. You could just as easily say anti-drug laws aren’t about stopping drugs but about controlling our lives.
@Nonapod:
If the USA itself become a fetid, decadent centralized power, there's nowhere for the innovators and risk takers to run to.
I try not to make a habit of quarreling with someone who agrees with me, but what do you mean if it becomes? What do you think it is now?
Nonapod said...
But I believe that the very things that allowed the US to be so great for so long are in danger of being undermined by demographics and general the foolishness with the excessive debt.
There are 3 very different things in that statement.
The things that allowed the US to innovate were principles.
Demographics are about culture.
Excessive debt is an easily dispatched boogieman.
The United State of America was the result of a mass exodus of innovators and risk takers from other places with their fetid, decadent centralized power structures of their feudal systems. If the USA itself become a fetid, decadent centralized power, there's nowhere for the innovators and risk takers to run to.
There was less opportunity for us to go before the US was formed than there is now.
If any of the current democrats or Michelle/Buttigieg are elected I guarantee secession in all but name if not just open revolt of multiple States.
And the innovators will move to those States to be free.
And the bureaucratic tribal mediocrities will rage and lose.
If we don't just burn DC down from the get go.
Also the regime in China will fall sooner than anyone is ready for.
Oh. Cool. A leftist changing the meaning of words to forward their ideology.
How...unexpected.
Demographics are about culture.
What will “American culture” even mean once we’re a majority minority country.
I try not to make a habit of quarreling with someone who agrees with me, but what do you mean if it becomes? What do you think it is now?
In my opinion while it's pretty bad, the US government currently isn't quite as monolithically centralized as it may become. We ain't the Soviet Union just yet. We still have a fair amount of individual freedom. We still have a fair amount of freedom of speech (despite all the non-governmental attempts to suppress wrong-think) We still have a 2nd amendment (despite it being constantly assailed). We still have a mostly free market based economy, even if it's regulated and taxed like crazy.
As for the government itself, it can still be subject to a great deal of internal turmoil. Just look at what has happened with Trump over the past few years. Forces within the government trying and failing to oust him. In fact, I'd argue that the very election of a character like Trump actually demostrates the that the will of the people still has a lot of meaning in this country. We're not yet a people entirely ruled by unelected bureaucrats.
J. Farmer said...
Demographics are about culture.
What will “American culture” even mean once we’re a majority minority country.
I keep forgetting you think skin color outweighs everything else.
The belief in Individual Freedom will never die.
As long as that belief and support for it remains our culture will facilitate the "American Dream."
And oh yeah... the people believe in Individual Freedom buy an inordinate number of guns. I believe private citizens in the US own about half the guns in the world.
"Nearly every Democrat politician in America supports abortion up to the moment of birth. Some are okay with retroactive abortion. You want evidence?"
Yes. Please name every Democrat politician who has specifically said they support abortion up to the moment of birth.
"Some people just won't admit reality into their worldview."
This is certainly true.
Robert Cook said...
"Nearly every Democrat politician in America supports abortion up to the moment of birth. Some are okay with retroactive abortion. You want evidence?"
Yes. Please name every Democrat politician who has specifically said they support abortion up to the moment of birth.
When the bill passed, video shows the assembly chamber erupting into cheers, with politicians and audience members applauding the bill as if it were a victorious symbol of strength.
"That night, One World Trade Center lit up in the color pink to honor the passage of the bill. Imagine, a beacon of capitalism, shining not to showcase freedom and prosperity but the “liberty” marking the path toward infanticide."
"Two of the most heinous parts of the bill describe the new parameters of abortion: if “the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy” and second, and this is the worst qualifier, “or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.” The wording of that second phrase is so comprehensive, even in legal lingo, protecting the patient’s health could mean almost anything."
Robert Cook said...
"Nearly every Democrat politician in America supports abortion up to the moment of birth. Some are okay with retroactive abortion. You want evidence?"
Yes. Please name every Democrat politician who has specifically said they support abortion up to the moment of birth.
Bernie Sanders.
Pete Buttigieg.
Amy Klobuchar.
Joe Biden.
Elizabeth Warren.
@Achilles:
I keep forgetting you think skin color outweighs everything else.
No. Skin color is merely an (imperfect) proxy for what does matter: ancestry. What do you think explain the global north-south divide in terms of human development? If culture is the explanation, then what explains the differences in culture?
The belief in Individual Freedom will never die.
Do Latin Americans believe in individual freedom? If so, what explains the development gap between Latin America and the US/Canada? If not, then why would they adopt that belief simply by changing zip codes?
I believe private citizens in the US own about half the guns in the world.
And how does that compare to the destructive resources the state is able to wield?
Would someone PLEASE tell me, a straight white male, when I can safely use the word, "queer"?
Would someone PLEASE tell me, a straight white male, when I can safely use the word, "queer"?
Never. It’s like fag and nigger. Fags and niggers can call fags and niggers fag and nigger, but non-fags and non-niggers can’t call fags and niggers fag and nigger. And before you start screaming hypocrisy, consider this: I can talk shit about my family, but you can’t.
Masha Gessen is the gay writer who said that she really did essentially want to ruin marriage for everybody else. I oversimplify some, but here's what she said.
I agree that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. . . . Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist.
Is Buttigieg "profoundly, essentially conservative"? That could just be a way of saying he's not wild, flamboyant, campy. Which he isn't. Politically, it's something you could say of Clement Attlee, a politician who radically transformed Britain, but was very cautious and traditional in his private life, manners and style, unlike the wild, flamboyant, campy Churchill. Pete is hardly as gray and conventional as Attlee, but then society has changed a lot since the 1940s.
that it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist
That's been the professed goal of radical second-wave feminism for decades.
I don’t like him and my gay friends don’t. Too vanilla Midwest. Boring.
So much this!:
"2/14/20, 6:55 AM
Blogger jeremyabrams said...
The article generalizes from his manners to his intended policies, when, under his father's guidance, his manners were formed to deflect people from his intended policies.
2/14/20, 6:55 AM"
Never. It’s like fag and nigger. Fags and niggers can call fags and niggers fag and nigger, but non-fags and non-niggers can’t call fags and niggers fag and nigger. And before you start screaming hypocrisy, consider this: I can talk shit about my family, but you can’t.
Nail on the head, Farmer!
Yeah, Buttigieg is NOT a conservative. He just happens to be a young white guy. I guess that's what passes for conservatism in lib-land.
"Yes. Please name every Democrat politician who has specifically said they support abortion up to the moment of birth."
Bernie Sanders.
Pete Buttigieg.
Amy Klobuchar.
Joe Biden.
Elizabeth Warren.
Do you have citations? If not, you're just throwing out any names you can think of. That's now how documenting claims works.
"It is that he is profoundly, essentially conservative . . ."
His dad must be extremely disappointed in Red Diaper Petey.
Reminds me of the time, back in the Cold War, when NATIONAL REVIEW quoted the New York Times about censorship in the USSR. The NYT reported how "conservatives" in the Kremlin had banned books by Barry Goldwater. "Hey," NR joked, "we're conservative, but not THAT conservative!"
"It is that he is profoundly, essentially conservative."
Red Diaper Petey's dad must be extremely disappointed. "I was okay with the Gay stuff--but THIS??"
Reminds me of the time, back in the Cold War, when the New York Times reported that "conservatives" in the Kremlin had banned books by Barry Goldwater. "Hey!" jokingly protested NATIONAL REVIEW: "We're conservative, but not THAT conservative!"
Post a Comment