Patterico has a compelling and blunt post about the extortionist Mike Rogers, who "outs" gay Congressmen who don't vote the gay agenda. The post comes on the heels of this WaPo piece lauding Rogers for blackmailing Congressmen.
Is blackmail too strong a word? Not really. As Patterico points out, he uses the same techniques as any thug.
It should be utterly uncontroversial that Rogers is nothing more than a political shakedown artist. He makes this quite clear in the Post article, eschewing the usual indirectness of the professional blackmailer for the shockingly direct threat:“I write about closeted people whose records are anti-gay,” he says. “If you’re a closeted Democrat or Republican and you don’t bash gays or vote against gay rights to gain political points, I won’t out you.”
Of course, to Rogers, any vote against gay rights is cast “to gain political points” — because he can’t conceive of such a vote being cast on principle.
And so, Rogers’s message to politicians is simple and straightforward: if he doesn’t like the way you vote, he will expose embarrassing information about you. If you toe the line, however, he will protect you.
That is the classic position of the extortionist.
I've discussed this bizarre view of "gay bashing" with others before. The logic seems to go this way: If you think gay marriage should be legal and a gay man votes against it, then he's gay bashing.
I don't really accept that view, although I can understand the reasoning behind it. It's the same sort of thing that allows the trashing of black conservatives or sneering at anti-feminists.
The fact is, we all get to hold our own opinions, regardless of our sex, race, or sexual orientation. If I happen to think various feminist-backed legislation is wrong for the country (including women), I'm not a "hypocrite" for doing so. And neither is a gay man who votes the way his constituents (you know, the little people that elected him) desire. Here's government lesson number 1,238,459 for the moonbats: It's a representative government. It's not about a Congressman's personal opinion. So trying to humiliate gay Congressmen for not towing the line is despicable on multiple fronts.
But let's face it. This wasn't about "hypocrisy," an over-used word that has become virtually meaningless. This is about forcing Congressmen to vote the way one wants regardless of what their constituents want. I'm all for voting for people who support your views. But I don't have the right to tell people in San Francisco who to vote for, nor do I have the right to try to extort their politicians (if that's possible) to vote the way I want. But this won't stop the dirty Left from continuing these tactics. At least, until it starts biting them instead.
UPDATE: Aphrael makes a very valid point in the comments about the benefits closeted gay Republicans have over other homosexuals.
closeted gay Republicans benefit from a special circumstance in which everyone turns a blind eye to their homosexuality as long as they vote the way the party wants them to ... but a lot of people don't have that privilige, and are discriminated against on the job, or in housing, and what not, because of their homosexuality, and how is it fair for these people to benefit from a tolerance which is basically only extended to them as long as they vote for policies which make it easier for other gay people to suffer?
I think this may be a difficult viewpoint for some of us to accept, but it makes more sense to me than simply "outing" someone for spite.
|