Understanding (or trying to)

NOTE: UPDATE BELOW

Raw Story:

Some critics have accused Republican leaders of orchestrating a witch-hunt against Craig, forcing him out in the knowledge that Idaho's Republican governor can fill his Senate seat temporarily with another party member.

Another Republican, David Vitter, has apologized after his name was found in the phone book of a Washington escort service run by the "DC Madam." But the Louisiana senator has not come under nearly as much pressure to resign.

Louisiana has a Democratic governor, and Vitter's departure would strengthen the Democrats' razor-thin Senate majority over the Republicans of 51-49.

Gillespie denied charges of double-standards levied against the Republicans over their handling of Craig, an ardent opponent of gay marriage and an outspoken critic of sexual improprieties by other politicians.

"The fact is that Senator Craig pled guilty to a crime and, therefore, was convicted of a crime," he said.

"Senator Vitter has not been charged with a crime or let alone convicted of one. So there's a pretty big distinction here."

Also being left conspicuously alone in his circumstance is Ted Stevens. Stevens is in pretty serious trouble over the contractors whom he engaged to do work on his Alaska home:

The project, which more than doubled the size of the dwelling, was overseen by Veco CEO Bill Allen, who two months ago pleaded guilty to bribing state lawmakers and agreed to cooperate with authorities.

Stevens's seat would also not be a shoo in to be held by the GOP if he were forced to step down, but that seems to me to be too convenient an explanation. Call me cynical (because I am), but Vitter's and Stevens's infractions are right in line with time old traditions in politics from further back than when the Republican party was the Republican party: Whoring with FEMALES and dealing with crooked businessmen to save some money. Not quite the same as being caught in a sting (whether it was entrapment or a larger part of a 'witch hunt' is up for debate) soliciting a Male on Male sexual encounter in a public place, given the mindset of the average Republican constituent and the general message that has been espoused by the Party concerning Gay rights and "Family Values', per se.

Speaking this evening on The Monitor, Pokie interviewed author and Gay historian John D’Emilio about the past week that Craig has had, arguably one of the roughest weeks in history for any U. S. politician in any circumstance. Not only was he completely abandoned and thrown to the wolves by his own party, but the GLB community was deafeningly silent.

It got me to thinking about a post I wrote for the 'Tude earlier this week on this subject. As a straight male I don't know how qualified I am to be writing in depth analysis (if this can be qualified as such) on the subject, but I do know that I have a greater than average amount of professional and social contact with gays and lesbians (working in the entertainment business and having and above average number of friends who are or were in the process of figuring out that they are gay in high school and my Unitarian Church youth group) and therefore am more aware of issues that directly impact the community. I opened the comments section of the post up with a question about why it's so hard for one to accept one's sexual orientation and move on from there.

An innocent enough query, but one that is likely to get me pretty severely dressed down (pun intended?) for my ignorance and nerve at asking such a question when I have absolutely no frame of reference.

In order to frame the environment that Craig grew up in, E'Milio spoke of the Idaho witch hunt perpetrated against homosexual men in the 1950's when Craig was a young man. Police in Boise, not a large city to begin with, rounded up 1000 men and questioned them about places they frequented and people they associated with. Men left Idaho, some committed suicide. D'Emilio grew up in New York at the same time, and spoke of it as one of the "Gay Capitals' , but reiterated that even there there was nowhere for him to go and be with people like him. Idaho must have been a thousand times worse.

Craig has been taken to task for scolding Bill Clinton for his conduct during his Presidency, as have hundreds of other politicians, Republican and Democrat. In addition to riding on the coattails of public outrage over the episode (artificially manufactured by the media to a large extent) it seems to me that much of this condemnation came out of the fact that it happened WHERE it happened in contrast to the nature of the event. The fact that Clinton initially lied to the his family, the public and Congress about it didn't help matters much either. But if he had had his encounters with La Monica elsewhere, the prospect of their degree of sensationalism and even newsworthiness probably would have been greatly diminished. Any improper behavior that takes place in the Oval Office seems to take on an additional allure and weight. The Republicans would have jumped just as eagerly and viciously if he had been caught taking a bribe, or anything else, IF IT HAPPENED IN THE OVAL OFFICE. For Craig, the condemnation and the nature of it ("He's a nasty, naughty boy") were specifically designed to fall in line lockstep with the Party dogma concerning infidelity and impropriety. Based on the fact that he probably started denying his own sexual identity at such a young age in Idaho probably made denials and "hypocritical" declarations very easy for him.

D'Emilio also pointed out that to people my age and younger, the contrast between the treatment that Gay issues and Gay rights get today is vastly different than twenty or thirty years ago, when he and Craig were just coming into their own agewise, although their sexual identity and orientation were apparent to them years before that. Even twenty five years ago, when Craig was embroiled in a page scandal not unlike the one that brought Mark Foley down last Fall, he had to vehemently deny not only the accusations of the scandal but any hint of a notion that he may have any homosexual inclinations. This was 1982, when AIDS was still just a whisper behind closed doors (not even referred to as AIDS, but as "The Gay Cancer").

De'Emilio was by no means condoning Craig's behavior but rather, making an attempt to shine some light on the terrifying and crushing isolation that this man, like many others like him, has had to endure on a daily basis just to function in the world on a quasi-normal basis. Even as a respected (until now) elected official, loved husband and family man, he was faced with this loneliness that had no outlet for relief (in the form of the fellowship of others like him) because he could reveal it to no one. Certainly a degree of the severity of his circumstances were a result of his own life choices which necessitated various modes and methods of deception and misinformation about who he is as a person, but that couldn't diminish the reality of the isolation.

I recently viewed two films that I had been meaning to see ever since they came out but didn't catch in the theater (not exactly a result of slackerdom: my work necessitates me sitting in a dark room and watching a story unfold in front of me on a stage (usually repeatedly), so I am seldom inclined to pay 8 or 10 dollars to sit in a dark room and watch a story unfold in front of me on a screen) But I digress. The two films in question were A History of Violence and the new Casino Royale. Both good films in their own right, and both concerned in large part with major characters willfully living lives full of contradictions and inaccuracies. Why? There had to be more to it than escape from a past as a mob hit man which almost certainly would have ended in violent death or the maintenance of cover as a 00 agent in Her Majesty's Secret Service, and so must there have had to have been a reason for Larry Craig to live his elaborate life of lies which only now has come crashing down around him. Acceptance in a world that he thought would eliminate his desires? A need to be as close to those that he most admired? This is the aspect of this issue that I'm least familiar with and am most shaky putting forth theories on, so I'll leave it there.

I like women, I'm not insecure about how much of a man I am (because I don't feel the need to project my masculinity on anyone who comes within five feet of me), and I am pretty comfortable with who I am as a Human Being. These three things seem to be hotbed issues that many men feel they have to prove over and over again in today's society, and if they aren't proven daily, then your status as a man is questioned, and therefore your worth as a Human Being is questioned. I'm sure that working in the Arts for as long as I have has colored my views about how easy it is to fit in and be accepted by professional peers, but I certainly don't regret it. If anything, it has given me that chance to be a more well rounded individual since it has exposed me to a variety of personalities. It certainly has gone a long way to giving me the outlook that motivated me to think about what D'Emilio said (and to listen to the show that he was on and the station that it was on, come to think of it) and to spend the time I have to write this post. It's taken me longer than any other post I've written (I usually have an idea and slam some stuff out and publish within a few hours--I'm sure it shows sometimes), but with this one I had to put stuff down and walk away several times. Hopefully it will rub of on future posts and they will benefit from it by being a little more polished, but, who knows? I may go back to the old slam 'em out mode tomorrow.

Larry Craig may have become a politician for the wrong reasons and lived the majority of his life as a huge falsehood. He may still be trying to pitifully maintain the illusion of that falsehood with the help of a few friends and his family, but he is still a human being who has been abandoned by most people he thought he could count on. He has entered a new chapter of the story that is his Hellish life of denial and shame. Deserved or not, I kinda feel sorry for him.

UPDATE 5 Sept 07 09:30:

Many of you are probably wondering what I was smoking when I posted this in light of these recent developments. But it just reinforces my point about the pitiful nature of Craig and the long stretch of meaningless existence he sees his remaining life as being if he is indeed forced to leave the Senate. And it would appear that he (along with one other spineless self annointed fixture in the Capitol) is the only one who thinks he can make a serious attempt to do this...