A TURD IN THE PUNCHBOWL FOR NATIONAL COMING OUT DAY

Summary: on National Coming Out Day, we may be thankful for our ability to be out in an America where our participation as out people in the American body politic is a lot more possible and a lot less perilous than it used to be, but we’d be fools not to realize that we have enemies, enemies who hate us, think us evil, consider our expressions of love to be infamous crimes against nature, and who would happily compass our vanishing under color of a proscription contained in the 18th chapter of Leviticus. We should remember how well integrated and domesticated Germany’s Jews were in 1933, and how quickly they were marginalized and reduced to pariah status. If it could happen in the country of Beethoven, of Goethe, of Schiller, it can happen here, too. The American right pursues a propaganda of fear against us, because it knows that fear leads to hate, hate leads to the Dark Side, and it is only by appealing to the darkest, most fundamentally warped, aspects of the American mind that the American right can ever hope to capture and retain political power.

Today is National Coming Out Day. It’s a time for those of us who are queer to be forthright about our queerness and to welcome to the ranks of out queer people other queer folk who have finally come round to acknowledging that they aren’t necessarily like the other girls or the other boys in the neighborhood.

It’s a time for honesty, and for having the hardihood to acknowledge a reality that still makes an awful lot of straight people’s heads explode.

But today, at the acknowledged risk of being flamed to a well done crisp by the quick-to-judge and the psychologically needy, I do need to take a bit of a dump in the punch bowl.

First, let’s stipulate that we have come astonishingly far, astonishingly fast.  In my own lifetime, the queer nation has advanced from the status of an unspeakably perverse and presumptively criminal subculture (tinged about with a generous dash of the exotic)) to constituting a “Footnote Four” minority, bourgeois, legal, thoroughly domesticated, and essentially endotic.

To all intents and purposes, we queerfolk have come to occupy a structural position in American society not dissimilar to that of the Jewish community. It is a not infelicitous observation, and one that has been made by a number of queer, and Jewish, commentators over the years.

But let’s get a little more specific about the analogy. It’s not just that we occupy the kind of position that can give rise to screaming diatribes from the likes of anti-Semitic, homophobic louts like Mel Gibson, who tends to echo of not uncommon trope about “Hollywood” ostensibly being controlled by a dangerous group of illuminati composed of Jews and homosexuals. (Full disclosure: I remember several very pleasurable nights spent in the company of a Jewish homosexual intellectual (Horrors!), to whom I am indebted for some of the thinking behind these remarks.)

In fact, we may analogize the position of queerfolk in early 21st century American society to the position of Jews in early 20th century, Wilhelmine Imperial Germany. At the time, Imperial Germany’s Jews were, for the most part, tolerably well integrated and assimilated into German society. Most of the grosser and cruder forms of invidious anti-Semitic discrimination had largely been done away with. While Germany’s Imperial Navy still held out against admitting Jewish officers, the armies of the various German states had largely abrogated such prohibitions.

German Jews could be found in almost every level of society, from such hofjuden (Court Jews) as Albert Ballin, the great impresario of the Hamburg-America shipping line, down to provincial doctors, lawyers, and industrial workers. For the average German Gentile, the presence of Jews in German society was simply not strange.

Yet, anti-Semitism continued to be a powerful subterranean force in German and Austro-Hungarian politics. It still remained perfectly respectable in some quarters for political rabble-rousers to throw their base the red meat of appeals to hatred against “the Jew.” Vienna Mayor Karl Lueger, who has been credited with the transformation of the Austrian capital into a modern city, nonetheless espoused a politics compounded in equal measure of populism and a kind of “gemütlich anti-Semitism.”  Lueger’s anti-Semitism has been credited, if you will, with informing the anti-Semitic views of a sometime Vienna resident who went on to pursue a more profitable political career in Germany, Adolf Hitler.

Nonetheless, anti-Semitism notwithstanding, the Jews of Germany and Austria, integrated as they were, prospered under the Imperial regimes of Hohenzollern and Habsburg. Indeed, in addition to such hofjuden as Albert Ballin, both Germany and Austria produced a bumper crop of Jews whose work has enlarged the frontiers of the human mind and elevated the tone of the human intellect. Names such as Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, along with less well-known personages such as Austro-Hungarian naval architect Siegfried Popper, attest to the vibrancy of Jewish intellectual life in the German-speaking countries at the turn of the 20th century.

But after the Great War, and during the Weimarzeit, the crazies began to mainstream themselves into the body politic of the Weimar Republic. Tragically, far too many Germans, both Jewish and Gentile, wrote off Hitler and his National Socialist movement as nothing more than a group of fringe whack jobs, composed of the dregs of German society.

The appalling complacency of much of German society, cultured, educated, civilized, Christian in the best sense of that office-maligned word, in the face of the emergent Nazi terror is an historical phenomenon that may never be adequately explained. German society was either swept up or swept away by the Nazis.

“It cannot possibly happen here in Germany,” the so-called good Germans said to themselves. “This is a civilized country, the country of Beethoven, of Goethe, of Schiller. Hitler and his guttersnipes will never prevail against the basic decency of the German people.”

But Hitler and his guttersnipes did prevail.

The country of Beethoven, of Goethe, of Schiller, became the country of Dachau, of Auschwitz-Birkenau, of the Warsaw ghetto and the Totenkopf killing teams. The country of Beethoven, of Goethe, of Schiller, became the country the civilized world had to put down. To borrow the words of a Franquista officer commenting on the bombing of Guernica, “Germany was bombed. We bombed it and bombed it and bombed it, ¿y si por qué no?”

So, you ask, why take time to obsess over the tragic fate of Germany’s Jews? The answer could not be more simple. We queerfolk are in a position so closely analogous to that of Germany’s Jews in 1914 that it deprives this queer man of sleep at night.
What keeps me awake in the darkness is my consideration of the fact that while we are relatively well integrated into society, while we, like our neighbors in the Jewish community, are often seen as exerting an influence on the culture disproportionate to and incommensurate with our numbers, and, while we, like our Jewish neighbors, tend to feel safer here than in other, more retrograde societies, our status in the American body politic is still highly contingent, highly iffy.

I’ll concede that we have come quite a way from being on more or less perpetual probation, as we were just two decades ago. We don’t see our local Gannett newspaper clutching its institutional pearls over the idea of a “drag queen night” at our local minor-league ballpark, the way it did back in 1997, when it openly agonized about whether children should be “exposed to such conduct.” We don’t see an awful lot of people in our Pleasant Desert getting themselves into knicker-knotting swivets over the prospect of Ruth and Naomi or Jonathan and David getting themselves hitched over at the Palm Springs Courthouse.

But while the Coachella Valley, or at least parts of it, may be a queer-friendly oasis, all one needs to do is fire up the Internet to see that the same kind of poisonous hatred which once fueled the wicked mind of Adolf Hitler and his fellow anti-Semites continues to bubble away. While naked and unapologetic anti-Semitism has come to be regarded in this country as unacceptable and un-American, no such constraints exist with respect to the nastiest and most unapologetic homophobia.

When the official position of one of our major political parties is that queerfolk should not enjoy the full panoply of rights and protections that are the natural birthright of every American, when politicians of that party routinely throw anti-queer red meat to their far right base, and when screamers like Brian Brown of the so-called National Organization for Marriage, Matthew Staver of the so-called Alliance Defending Freedom, and outright eliminationists such as Scott Lively (father of the Uganda “Kill the Gays” Bill) and right-wing radio blowhard Brian Fischer of the so-called American Family Association, and when Princes of the Roman church such as Raymond Cardinal Burke describe us as intrinsically disordered and evil, we may justifiably conclude that complacency is not a luxury in which we have any justifiable reason to traffic.

Because as long as it is ever considered respectable or even permissible to traffic in the kind of rhetoric that is routinely deployed against queerfolk by the Republican Party and its fellow travelers, we are in the most exquisite danger. For this is the same kind of rhetoric that was used in Germany to whip up the hatred of the population against “The Jew.”

And in the country of Beethoven, of Goethe, of Schiller, it took less than three years following Hitler’s rise to power in January, 1933 for the Nazi party to put into force the so-called Nuremberg Laws which were designed to eliminate Jews from German society. Our own recent history should tell us that electorates throughout the United States are perfectly capable of adopting their own Nuremberg Laws.

It happened here in California with Proposition 22 and again with Proposition 8. In state after state, right-wing operatives were able to convince electorates to write marriage bans into their state constitutions, all to make sure the uppity queers fled back into the closet or, failing that, were reduced to huddling at the back of the metaphorical bus.

And if it took Germany only three years to reduce an integral component of her population from first-class status to pariahs, can we seriously imagine that it can’t happen here? Of course it can happen here. Sinclair Lewis once famously observed that fascism would come to America wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. Actually, fascism will come to America wrapped in a do-rag and wearing a T-shirt (made in a Chinese or Bangladeshi sweatshop) emblazoned with the American flag and inscribed “Straight Pride.”

Memory is the custodian of all our horrors, and we queerfolk need to remember the horrors of 20th century German history a lot more than we have done. Because if it happened in the country of Beethoven, of Goethe, of Schiller, it sure as hell can happen in the country of Jefferson, of Lincoln, of the Roosevelts and Harry Truman, of the Kennedys, and even of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Our straight neighbors have demonstrated how easily they can be bamboozled, and how easily their unease about we who love differently can be turned into ravening hatred. We should never fool ourselves that there is not a dark side of the American mind that can easily be led to enthusiastic adoption of all the eliminationist horrors we have seen in the Old World.

It may seem trite to quote a Jedi Master who exists only as pixels, but Yoda was right: fear leads to hate, and hate leads to the Dark Side.

Queerfolk, “be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour. 1 Peter 5:8.

Happy National Coming Out Day.

A DEALBREAKER ANSWER AND A BROWN ACT VIOLATION: NOT YOUR TYPICAL CANDIDATE FORUM.

Summary: last night’s Cathedral City candidates’ forum provided two interesting spectacles.  First, candidate Theresa Hooks, the designated heiress of outgoing lame-duck Mayor Kathleen Joan DeRosa, managed to disqualify herself by one simple response to a question posed to her.  Second, the media moderator and media panelists, who clearly had not done their due diligence, managed to lead every single candidate into a violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act, California’s 65-year-old open meeting law.  While many low information residents and voters may not have noticed, a number of us who were in the audience were clearly aware of what happened.

Candidate fora tend to be much of a muchness, often stupefyingly boring repetitions of platitudes, pablum, and canned talking points.  Few, if any, truly undecided voters actually have their minds made up by what they see or hear at a candidate forum.  To that extent, candidate fora are largely exercises in marketing the message to the base and providing useful soundbites that can be quoted in the local media.  It’s rare under such circumstances that a candidate disqualifies herself by giving an answer that turns out to be a complete dealbreaker, but sometimes it happens.  It happened last night with Theresa Hooks. 

As rare as it is for a candidate to disqualify herself with one single response, it’s also rare for a moderator and the media panel to manage to lead the candidates into a fairly serious violation of California’s open meeting law, but both such events occurred at last night’s Cathedral City candidates’ forum.

Candidate Theresa Hooks managed to disqualify herself by her dealbreaker response to a question to all the candidates whether a candidate’s or councilmember’s private financial affairs were a legitimate subject of public scrutiny and comment.  Candidates Fausto Ascencio, Mark Carnevale, Sergio Espericueta, Shelley Kaplan, and Gordon McGinnis all said “no.”  Hooks said “yes.”

 Hooks’s response was exactly the sort of response one should expect from a mentor and essential political clone of outgoing lame-duck Mayor Kathleen Joan DeRosa.  DeRosa has a reputation for prying into the private financial affairs of her political rivals and then spoon feeding that information to credulous reporters at the Desert Sun with a generous dose of spin intended to harm whichever political rival has been targeted.

In the spring of 2013, DeRosa spoonfed sometime Desert Sun reporter Tamara Sone a whole series of private financial tidbits about councilmember Greg Pettis.  With DeRosa’s assistance, Sone (who had some significant financial skeletons in her own closet, skeletons which later led to the reporter’s swift and unceremonious departure from the employ of the Desert Sun.) produced a breathless hatchet piece essentially accusing the long-serving councilmember of all manner of financial improprieties.   

Yet, no evidence has ever emerged to corroborate many of the more outlandish inferences and assumptions contained in that article.  Moreover, by failing to follow the traditional two-source rule, and by failing to vet some of the more obvious lies told to her by DeRosa and by former Councilman Charles “Bud” England, Sone managed to produce an article that was tainted by, to use the Supreme Court’s language from its New York Times v. Sullivan opinion, “actual malice” and “reckless disregard for the truth.”

By suggesting that a candidate’s or councilmember’s private financials are a legitimate subject of public scrutiny, Hooks also implies that a candidate’s or councilmember’s financials should also be available to such a person’s political rivals.  Clearly, Hooks is playing from Kathleen DeRosa’s playbook, looking for an opportunity to try to dig up some dirt on potential council rivals and use it against them.

As noted before, Hooks’s position is disqualifying.  It is disqualifying because it is exactly the position taken by one of the most unethical and divisive mayors in Cathedral City’s history, Kathleen Joan DeRosa.  DeRosa has a long history of trying to dig in to the private lives of those who she considers enemies, and to spoon feed whatever unflattering information she can find to overly credulous and inexperienced reporters for our local Gannett newspaper, which has always been unseemly eager to carry her water. 

We cannot afford to have a councilmember following in Kathleen Joan DeRosa’s unethical footsteps.  

We cannot afford to have a councilmember who believes that it’s okay to use private information to try to blackmail her political rivals or embarrass them with a view to diminishing their effectiveness in local or regional public service. 

We cannot afford to have a councilmember who will predictably hold others to much higher standards than she holds herself.

Moreover, Hooks’s willingness to play a rather cynical gender card, proclaiming that inasmuch as she is the only woman in the race, voters should select her XX chromosome rather than selecting a more qualified holder of XY chromosomes, is clearly designed to appeal to two kinds of voters.  First, it is intended to seal the deal with the right wing Christian base which she has inherited from DeRosa.  Second, it is clearly intended to play to the white liberal guilt of otherwise progressive voters who may not be well informed about Theresa Hooks’s unfortunate record of bigotry and homophobia. 

Indeed, Ms. Hooks’s position with respect to Cathedral City’s substantial queer community is rather clear.  She does not much care for us, and would doubtless prefer to see us vanish.  Indeed, in a breathless letter to the editor of the Desert Sun dated September 23, 2006, Hooks came eagerly to the defense of Focus on the Family, an anti-gay hate group, quoting the Genesis “male and female” creation narrative to justify discrimination against LGBT people.

Someone who is willing to be guided by Kathleen DeRosa’s political playbook to the extent of being willing to use financial information to harm her political rivals, and who is as obviously unfriendly to queerfolk as Theresa Hooks, is simply not the right choice for our city Council.

But if Theresa Hooks is the wrong choice for our Council and showed it last night, we may also fault the moderator and media panel at last night’s debate for creating a serious and obvious Brown Act violation.
California’s open meeting law, the Ralph M. Brown Act of 1949, forbids members of an elected body from reaching prior or advance consensus as to action outside of the context of duly noticed public meetings.  A quorum or majority of a council or of a governing board may not get together, either directly, through intermediaries, or through communications such as telephone calls or emails, to arrive at what amounts to a pre-consensus before a formal public meeting is held and a decision is taken in the open where the public can see it and hold its representatives accountable.  The Brown Act also applies to candidates.  Liability under the Act attaches to both declared and qualified candidates.

Thus, last night, when one of the panel asked the candidates how each candidate intended to proceed when filling the Council seat Stan Henry will vacate when he becomes mayor, and each candidate expressed his or her intention, a potential quorum of the new council effectively had a meeting to decide a course of action well outside of what the Brown Act defines as permissible.  Each candidate, by participating, violated the Act, and the media panelists and moderator Brooke Beare (from the local CBS affiliate,) made themselves accessories the violation.  Now, it may be the candidates were legitimately unaware of the provisions of the Act, not having been educated as to its provisions and requirements. 

I do not know whether, on the unbelievably lackluster watch of the current mayor, Cathedral City has abandoned its former practice of providing some basic orientation to Council candidates about the responsibilities under California’s political ethics laws, but I do remember that during my own victorious council campaign in 2002, I received just such an orientation.  Had I been a candidate at a forum at which such a question was asked, I would have respectfully declined to answer on the grounds that the Brown Act was being violated.

Of course, when I brought the issue up to the panelists and the moderator after the forum, I was pooh-poohed.  Nobody likes to have their egregious errors pointed out to them, even by somebody who does so politely.  Perhaps my next step may well be to bring this matter to the attention of the District Attorney.  After all, the Brown Act has been with us since 1949, and after 65 years, there is simply no good reason why debate moderators or panelists should not be aware of the rather stringent requirements of the Act and conform their conduct to it. 

The rule of law suffers when it is ignored, as it has been too often in Cathedral City of late.  I don’t think Theresa Hooks has the first idea of what the rule of law is, or she would not be so eager to go digging into the private lives of her political rivals, trying to find the same kind of dirt on them that her political mentor, Kathleen Joan DeRosa, has been trying to find on the numerous people in Cathedral City she considers enemies.

I know whom I will support in this election, I also know whom I will not, and Theresa Hooks is at the top of my “do not support” list.