Can Lesbians and Gay Men Survive Scape-Goat Politics?

Twenty-three percent of self-identified Gay people voted to re-elect George W. Bush. Presumably they are happy with the election and confident that their greatest concerns will be protected, defended, and respected in whatever way is required. For many of the 77% of gay people who did not vote for him, however, George W. Bush’s re-election to the presidency is not just disappointing it is deeply frightening. Homosexuals are now the scapegoats of that was not abundantly clear before the election was over.

As dangerous as this blatant use of homophobia is in providing a political scapegoat by the Republican Party, it is not the greatest danger however. The real danger is that because scapegoat politics is effective and very difficult to combat, the Democratic Party may not be able for very long to provide political cover for homosexuals. If “moral values” are effectively defined by conservatives as prohibiting the rights of Gay people, will Democrats continue to resist demonizing homosexuals themselves? Doing so might appear to be anathema to Democrats (at least liberal democrats) but so is losing elections if they are consistently lost on the issue of “moral values.”

Scapegoat politics has given right-wing conservatives a tactical victory–the winning of one particular election–but in doing so it has proved that the strategy of scapegoat politics still works. The scapegoat strategy helped the Republicans leave their long exile in the wilderness after their pro-business policies brought on the Great Depression. During the civil rights movement of the 1960s, the Republicans allied themselves with the southern racists, which eventually destroyed the southern base of the Democratic Party as it became an anathema to racists. Black Americans became the scapegoat.

With white bigots holding their backs in the south, the Republicans were able over the next several years to increase their support nationally by proclaiming the conservative mantra of low taxes, less government, fiscal responsibility, and a subtle form of xenophobia, while at the same time providing enough “states rights” (code for pro-white) sops to maintain the loyalty of the southern racists. The flawed ideology that underpins right-wing conservatism weakens it however when it must depend on reason and empirical evidence. It depends, as does all ideology, upon having enough emotional content to overcome rational contradictions. Their so-called conservative ideals did not have enough emotional content to win them a national majority. Racism does have enough emotional content, but it doesn’t work well enough outside the south to provide a national majority either, particularly as social acceptance of racism slowly erodes.

The answer, of course, is not that the scapegoat strategy does not work. It works just fine. From time to time, however, you have to find a new scapegoat. Ideally the new scapegoat ought to work with the same population base provided by the old scapegoat, but the new goat also has to engender emotion in a new and larger group of people than before. In other words, not enough people in the United States hate blacks, so they need to exploit the cultural distaste for a new group. If the 2004 presidential election shows anything, it shows that homosexuals are the new scape goat of choice, and it was an obvious choice.

The Black American has served as an effective scapegoat in the south and continues to do so, but there are too few racists outside the south to provide enough political support to control the country. Besides, middle-class Blacks make good Republicans if they think (and here emotion plays a part) that their newly acquired affluence will be served by “low taxes, less government, fiscal responsibility, and a subtle form of xenophobia.” White people are not the only ones who are fooled by promises of something for nothing, which is the falsehood that underlies the conservative ideology of government.

Foreigners have always served as scapegoats in American politics: Irish, Asians of all varieties, Hispanics of several varieties, especially Mexicans, and lately anyone who could possibly be from the middle east, even Indians and Pakistanis. For the most part, however, none of these make an effective scapegoat to replace blacks. For one thing, each of the hyphenated sorts of Americans has enough political power in enough places to have political protection. In addition, other than their foreignness (their ‘non-European whiteness’) they do not make a very good scapegoat particularly one that can be made socially acceptable.

Religion once had and still has some value in scapegoat politics. Jews and Catholics especially in the past have provided targets for harnessing the emotional energy of hate for political purposes. Jews, because in some places they are still scapegoats, have not been attracted to scape goat politics for the most part. They remember in particular the hideous experience of being scapegoats in Nazi Germany. They also have been political scapegoats in the United States, in western society in general, and in the middle east in particular. Being scapegoats themselves, they resist, for the most part, being taken in by scapegoat politics.

Unfortunately the same thing can not be said for the Roman Catholic hierarchy. The great irony in the actions of the Roman Catholic Church is that it has fulfilled the worse fears warned about them when they themselves were a scapegoat: direct interference in politics by telling elected officials (under threat of excommunication) how to vote and telling Roman Catholics who to vote for and who to vote against. They can afford to forget their scapegoat past now because they have enough political power to protect their own interests and to ignore the plight of the scapegoats who have taken their place. They are also institutionally immune to being hurt because their institutional power is not located in the United States or answerable within it. This is the case because lay Roman Catholics have very little power over the hierarchy. This was made perfectly evident in the on-going attempts among lay Roman Catholics to hold the hierarchy accountable for their shameful handing of child molestation charges against members of their priesthood. This is particularly offensive in the light of their postures of righteousness about homosexuality, and women’s issues, particularly abortion.

The Criminal Element of Society also makes a convenient scapegoat. “Law and Order,” issues, particularly drug related crime (murder, robbery, and other violent crimes), are closely related to poverty, poor education, and lack of vocational skills. These conditions are usually associated with racism since blacks are more likely to live under these conditions. Criminals make effective scapegoats because they have almost no political power, especially if they are poor criminals. Criminals are not reliable scapegoats however when crime rates fall and the general public grows weary of an ongoing, non-effective “war on drugs.” There is also a growing opinion that the war on drugs is as futile as Prohibition and is doing as much social harm as Prohibition did.

Unpopular political positions are sometimes a convenient scapegoat. The latest was the vilification of anti-war sentiment during the Viet Nam era, which enjoyed a revival in 1992 and 1996 against Bill Clinton’s antiwar activity and again in 2004 in the attacks on John Kerry’s war record as well as his post-war activity exposing the underlying disgrace of the war. It is a tribute to Republican manipulation of the public in that they could invent and sustain the artificial image of George W. Bush as a patriotic leader in wartime and that this image could be sustained in the face of the vague records of his service during the time of the Viet Nam War.

Diseases have provided convenient scapegoats as well. Tuberculosis, cancer, bubonic plague, small pox and typhoid fever are examples that resulting in creating scapegoats out of victims of disease. The most recent scapegoat disease showed up during the AIDS crisis when those infected and the community in which the early infections occurred provided a convenient scapegoat. HIV disease as an effective scapegoat faded somewhat as the disease spread into other populations, but in passing into and out of the Gay male population, it left a very attractive taint for making scapegoats of Gay men–and ironically of Lesbians, who were a population least effected by the virus.

With so many candidates for scapegoat, why are Gay men and women the obvious choice? For the most part their numbers would suggest some degree of political power. Gay people and their friends managed very well to sway public opinion and mobilize a resistant government in dealing with the AIDS crisis. One advantage they had in that struggle was that they were virtually united without the incredible 23% defection of their numbers as in the 2004 election.

In some areas of the country where the general public is liberal on social issues Gay people do have political cover and even some elected representation from among their numbers. These areas are those where the political majority are Democrats who have historically been less susceptible to the allure of scapegoat politics at least with the traditional scapegoats. Unfortunately the number of liberal regions in the country is declining and at the same time moving away from a liberal attitude toward some issues, characterized as “moral values” such as legal abortion and the acceptance of homosexuals in society.

Another problem with homosexuals exercising political power commensurate with their numbers is the matter of visibility. AIDS, for all its tragedy among Gay people, their friends and families, made homosexuals visible in a way never before seen in modern times. Gay men who died from HIV disease or became sick from it, were forced to acknowledge their own sexual orientation. Friends, and particularly families, had to acknowledge homosexuals among their own friends and relatives where previously they had been able to ignore their existence. Now that AIDS is no longer “outing” Gay men, however, they are free to go back into the closet or never leave it (other than for the occasional venture out on the Internet or through “phone sex,” public restrooms, and anonymous bar crawling–often out of town.)

Even some Gay men and Lesbians who have publically acknowledged their orientation feel safe from the consequences of being made scapegoats because somehow it will not effect them personally. Dick Cheney’s daughter Mary is a good example of a Lesbian who appears to consider herself and her partner immune from the consequences of being part of a scapegoat group. Her father will not always be in power, however, and in a country sufficiently swayed by the emotion generated by homophobia they may not always be safe. One day, there will be a time when scapegoat politicians do not remember Dick Cheney. The closest historical parallel is of course Jews who felt safe from Nazis because of their wealth, social position, or public stature. Unfortunately many wealthy public figures ended their lives in a gas chamber.

Lesbians and Gay men provide an ideal scapegoat however. They appeal to the same population that embraces racism because most racists are also religious conservatives and religious conservatives are easy sells for homophobia because of their literal interpretation of the Bible. Like Islamic arch-conservatives they have managed to pervert religion to the service of hate. In its heart Christianity is a religion of love, acceptance, and tolerance. It is a religion that cares deeply about the underprivileged, the sick, hungry, homeless, and outcast. Nothing in the religion supports scapegoat politics and it is only though the most disgraceful misreading of scripture and the most callous definition of “morality” that a large segment of Christianity has been taken captive by political manipulation.

The lure of homophobia goes well beyond the southern racist population however. Religious conservatives are not always racists, but they are almost entirely homophobic. Homosexuals as scapegoats, therefore extends the appeal well beyond the deep south into the very heartland of America, even into the suburbs as well. Homophobia also extends well beyond the traditional “conservative” white populations. It appeals to many blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and other ethnic groups that are usually socially conservative and resist any suggestion that they include gay friends and relatives themselves. For this reason, most of the gay people in these cultures are deeply closeted and are in denial about their security.

Homosexuals as scapegoats also provide a perfect target. First to a great degree they are an invisible minority and too often a silent minority that depends on a few brave vocal and visible leaders who carry the struggle for too many who will not stand up for themselves–or are deluded into thinking they do not need defending. A history of ignorance and misinformation about homosexuality makes breaking though that history of ignorance particularly difficult. It is difficult to dispel the long-standing religious objections that are still promulgated as true, sometimes in ignorance and sometimes with a will to misrepresent the truth.

Homosexuals themselves provide much of the ammunition used against them. Gay Pride parades and the infamous “Southern Decadence” festival held annually in New Orleans provide a wealth of opportunities to characterize Gay men as degenerate, immoral, sex-crazed and disgusting particularly to mid-America. Although much of mid-America is represented in the revels of Gay Pride parades, and Southern Decadence they are still “shocked and disturbed” by the assumption that Gay Pride excesses accurately reflect the lives and values of Lesbians and Gay men as a whole. One suspects that with an intent to do so, one might gather enough evidence of depravity and immorality at NasCar rallies, Rodeos, and even the goings-on after hours of many who attend conventions of religious conservatives. Even a short residence in New Orleans reveals a very hypocritical underbelly of most conservatives of any ilk.

Sodomy laws were only recently declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the aura of illegality still shadows the very act through which homosexuality expresses itself existentially. The very court decision that legalized private homosexual practice has in itself fueled the homophobic engine that makes them effective scapegoats. Scapegoat politicians make good use of an innate distaste towards homosexual acts by generating fears that decriminalizing homosexuality threatens society endangering the traditional family, the moral level of society and finally invoking God’s anger. In the midst of the national tragedy of 9/11 a prominent evangelical Christian leader suggested that the attack was a consequence of God’s abandoning the United States because of leniency towards Lesbians and Gay men.

This article opened with the statement that as dangerous as this blatant use of homophobia is in providing a political scapegoat by the Republican Party, it is not the greatest danger however. The real danger is that because scapegoat politics is effective and very difficult to combat, the Democratic Party may not be able for very long to provide political cover for homosexuals. The Republican route of the Democratic party in the 2004 election shows how successfuly they have used scapegoat politics.

How long can any politician afford to ignore such a dynamic and hope to be elected? This does not augur well for the future of Gay rights and should be a source of real concern among Gay people. The fact that 23% of gay voters chose to support the party that has made them scapegoats is deeply disturbing and indicates that Gay people have a real task before them in looking to their own welfare. The time is past when they can look for protection from the kindness of straight Democrats. In particular they need to realize that they can not look for protection from Republicans with the false hope that they are rich enough, socially secure enough, or such prominent public figures that their welfare is secure.