Should right wing politicians be outed?

[jimbob]

I think I'd like to distinguish first between 'social hypocrisy' and 'cruel hypocrisy'. The former is the expression of views which are different to one's secret personal practice: a person might speak disparagingly in public about adultery, while having an affair. I think this is a minor moral fault. Cruel hypocrisy, on the other hand, to me means taking action to harm others who carry out that secret personal practice.

We are very firmly in the latter scenario. The person in question has, among many other anti-LGBT actions that their party explicitly supports, voted to repeal/prevent gay marriage rights from taking effect. The person in question has also regularly and consistently joined party line votes to approve the appointment of officials that advocate policies and legal interpretations that directly target gay people.

Yup. And if some of his base are demotivated by it. After all OutRage took similar actions earlier. Only calling out what are the cruel hypocrites.

[Squeak]

I like Allo's distinction between social and cruel hypocrisy and, with that in mind, I did a bit of googling. I'm less convinced than Dyqik that we're in the latter scenario. Can someone show me where he's been more than usually homophobic for a Republican? He voted against legalising gay marriage but also apparently called on the Republican leadership to drop their campaign platform for a constitutional amendment that would declare marriage to be between a man and a woman. So, in the context of his party, he's at least pushed in vaguely the right direction on one occasion.

Voting against gay marriage seems to me to be pretty standard US right wing and at the lesser end of homophobia within the context of that culture. Perhaps I've missed evidence that this particular person sponsored legislation to make life more difficult for lgbtiq people? (I.e for regression rather than against progression?)

Oh, and the corruption/blackmail evidence seems to be that a vocally anti-trumper turned into a sycophant. While this person's conversion was more overt than most, he's no Robinson Crusoe on that.

The other complexity I found was that the allegation is that he's been hiring male sex workers, which is illegal, so you might argue that is legitimate to out him for that criminal activity. However, I don't think sex work should be illegal, so it would be immoral for me to expose him and, more importantly, the men he allegedly hired, to the US criminal justice system. On the third hand, it seems to be one of the workers who is trying to round up friends to join him in breaking non disclosure agreements, so I guess it's their choice.

I'm still not convinced, even with the nuance gained by outing him to myself, that this is a morally right thing to do.

[Lew Dolby]

Nothing to add to the discussion, except . . .

. . . why restrict this to right-wing politicians. Should be anyone in a position to campaign on something like aspects of people's rights.

for example, if an RC bishop had spent a lifetime sermonising loudly against homosexuality but turned out to have been an active homosexual, I'd see him as fair game to be outed and exposed in his hpocracy.

[Lew Dolby]

sorry hit quote not edit.

[Gentleman Jim]

Oh come on; Some of us aren't on twitter

[Fishnut]

The mental torture my lgbtiq friends have experienced growing up in homophobic cultures has to do some pretty weird things to people's brains. And, within the hard right culture, outing him(?) won't undermine the homophobia (years of sniggering at evangelicals getting caught with young men hasn't managed that) but it will undermine ideals of allowing people to identify their sexuality as they see fit.

Have at him for his policies and corruption but, unless his sexuality is integral to the provable corruption, so you can't report on one without the other, gay shaming him doesn't seem appropriate to me. [my emphasis]

I'm a bit late to this but wanted to say thank you for this comment. I hadn't thought about it that way but it's obvious now you've said it. While it may feel like outing him is a way of highlighting his hypocrisy, your comment makes me think that by celebrating that outing we would be the hypocrites. Allowing people to come out on their own time frame can't just be something afforded to people who align with our views.

[Allo V Psycho]

There is an argument (and I'm being abstract here, having no knowledge of this particular case) that politicians should enact the policies that their constituencies support, even if they don't support them themselves. An obvious example would be a remainer MP voting for Brexit after the referendum. This is partly why we have whips and cabinet collective responsibility. I don't fully endorse this argument, but it does mean hypocrisy may need to be qualified a bit, when a member of a party argues for that party's key popular policies.

It is a potential argument, but not one that applies in the UK, where MPs are representatives, not delegates, according to Edmund Burke and Churchill (and not, as far as I know under serious legal or parliamentary challenge)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_of ... d_Kingdom)
Explicitly, a British MP is not bound to vote for or against Brexit on the basis of the views of a majority of her/his constituents, if s/he believes it is not in the national interest (or indeed in the interests of the same constituents). The remedy for the majority of the constituents in such a case, is to vote them out at the next electoral opportunity.

[Woodchopper]

On the hypocrisy arguments, its worth noting that lots of men who have sex with men don't necessarily identify or think of themselves as being gay.

IMHO its better to let people define their own sexuality rather have others than define it for them.

[Bird on a Fire]

I suppose it is possible that somebody would think it's ok to have with somebody of the same sex, including sex workers, but not to marry them.

I'd be very surprised if the person in question has never supported policies that target homosexual sex in general, though (but I'm not intimately familiar with their career).

[dyqik]

I genuinely don't know where I fall on this. The invasion of privacy argument is a very strong one. However, you can argue that it seems to be the case that this would not be much of a surprise to those close to the person, has been widely discussed without evidence on Twitter, and that the secrecy about it is more to do with protecting a political career than with personal privacy in private life. So that I'm not certain that any particular harm would come from the outing aside from the ending of a long political career. But as someone who hasn't had to deal with issues of coming out, I'm not convinced that that argument is valid, and certainly not that it's sufficient.

[tom p]

Ok I know who it is now.

It sounds like they don't keep it a secret from people in their personal lives, but have tried to suppress the information from being public. Normally I would be charitable in my assumptions as to why somebody should do this, but given that this person has spent their career attacking gay people it seems to be more of a political decision to enable them to harm people. Definite cruel hypocrisy.

The use of NDAs to prevent people from talking about their experiences with him is also a bit suspect, especially as these often turn out not to be legally enforceable but are instead a way for privileged people to bamboozle sex workers into silence.

Using the nickname reacted does seem to have at least slightly homophobic overtones, IMHO, implying that homosexuality is feminine. I know the nickname originated with the male escorts breaking the story, but it's different in their mouths than coming from heterosexual commentators.

Oh, I'd assumed it was Moscow Mitch, not his sidekick (googling redacted give the identity, by the way, so you've outed him here birdy).
He's a vicious lying hateful sh.t-faced prick & any means to remove him from office are valid.
As to the principle, I'm with those who point out that public hypocrisy is different from private hypocrisy. If a politician were to stand down, then their private life should be respected, but as long as they continue to try and forward an agenda, then any hypocritical actions should be highlighted. If Jeremy Corbyn were hiding his wealth via an offshore tax haven, then he should be outed for that, even if it's perfectly legal. The same applies here.

[kerrya1]

The so-called risk of blackmail was the excuse used to fire gay men for decades. The Soviets were recruiting half the civil service that way according to the fear mongering of the time.

Fredrick Forsyth has an obsession with it, always including it in his books. The wretched buggers couldn't keep their flies buttoned up and always betrayed their country. The KGB had like amazing gaydar and the best honeytraps.

But at the same time, it is a genuine risk. Epstein appeared to exploit wealthy investors by trapping them with underage massages; Putin and his puppets would always be interested in a politician they could pressure.

I was thinking back to the cold war when I was writing. It's important to note that being homosexual doesn't makes you blackmail material, it's having a secret that you are ashamed about and would do anything not to have made public. I seem to remember hearing that people being considered for intelligence agency roles are asked about all the shady stuff they've done, not as a way of deciding whether or not to hire them, but so that it can't be used as blackmail against them.

Many years ago now I had high level security clearance, in order to get that clearance one of the things I had to do was an interview with a man who had the appearance and manner of a geography teacher, right down to the tweed jacket with elbow patches. It started easily enough with discussion of finances, did I gamble, etc but then moved on to a detailed discussion of my sexuality and any possible kinks - a number of which he had to expplain to me!. I still very clearly remember him saying "we don't care what you do as long as it's legal but we need to know if there is any blackmail risk and that if you are put under pressure you'll feel able to report it to your security officer to be dealt with."

[Martin_B]

Many years ago now I had high level security clearance, in order to get that clearance one of the things I had to do was an interview with a man who had the appearance and manner of a geography teacher, right down to the tweed jacket with elbow patches. It started easily enough with discussion of finances, did I gamble, etc but then moved on to a detailed discussion of my sexuality and any possible kinks - a number of which he had to expplain to me!. I still very clearly remember him saying "we don't care what you do as long as it's legal but we need to know if there is any blackmail risk and that if you are put under pressure you'll feel able to report it to your security officer to be dealt with."

Glad I'm not the only one; and I wasn't even a particularly high security clearance. Being asked questions where I had to ask the questioner what he was talking about - I think I gave the same answer three or four times in a row of "I'm afraid I don't know what that is".

[bagpuss]

Many years ago now I had high level security clearance, in order to get that clearance one of the things I had to do was an interview with a man who had the appearance and manner of a geography teacher, right down to the tweed jacket with elbow patches. It started easily enough with discussion of finances, did I gamble, etc but then moved on to a detailed discussion of my sexuality and any possible kinks - a number of which he had to expplain to me!. I still very clearly remember him saying "we don't care what you do as long as it's legal but we need to know if there is any blackmail risk and that if you are put under pressure you'll feel able to report it to your security officer to be dealt with."

Glad I'm not the only one; and I wasn't even a particularly high security clearance. Being asked questions where I had to ask the questioner what he was talking about - I think I gave the same answer three or four times in a row of "I'm afraid I don't know what that is".

Wow. I never had such an interview but even for a lowly position in the Civil Service, I had to make a number of declarations on the security form to the effect that I hadn't done anything that would make me blackmailable. I did wonder whether one was likely to declare it on such a form if it was so sensitive one might be blackmailed about it.

[plebian]

On the hypocrisy arguments, its worth noting that lots of men who have sex with men don't necessarily identify or think of themselves as being gay.

IMHO its better to let people define their own sexuality rather have others than define it for them.

This is a point many ignore or are ignorant of. If I hear another person respond "Hur hur they're gay then ain't they" I will convert myself to pure energy and apotheosize.

[plebian]

The certititde of some of their righteous zeal is abhorrent to me and a f.cking disgrace.

You wanna hurt him cos he hurt people, you vengeful twit. You do as much hurt to gay people by outing people and associating homosexuality with shame and immorality.

Please f.ck off.

[dyqik]

On the hypocrisy arguments, its worth noting that lots of men who have sex with men don't necessarily identify or think of themselves as being gay.

IMHO its better to let people define their own sexuality rather have others than define it for them.

This is a point many ignore or are ignorant of. If I hear another person respond "Hur hur they're gay then ain't they" I will convert myself to pure energy and apotheosize.

I would think that people here who were on the old place for a while are at least aware that bisexuality is a thing, even if that's not exactly what you mean here. What with at least one poster repeatedly saying that they were. Whether they remember that in this context is a different matter.

[plebian]

I'm saying stop deciding other people's identities.

I don't care if people think guys f.cking guys is gay or bi. It's not. It's a homosexual act by parties about whose identities I should not assume a god damn thing.

Discussing the sexuality of a person as a political tool to beat them with REGARDLESS of their politics is sh.tty and gross and anyone advocating it is a c.nt supreme.

[Gfamily]

I'm saying stop deciding other people's identities.

I don't care if people think guys f.cking guys is gay or bi. It's not. It's a homosexual act by parties about whose identities I should not assume a god damn thing.

Discussing the sexuality of a person as a political tool to beat them with REGARDLESS of their politics is sh.tty and gross and anyone advocating it is a c.nt supreme.

I've no idea who is specifically being referenced here, but as far as I can see it, It is their politics in respect of sexuality that makes their own sexuality an issue.
So, what is argued is the rights and wrongs of discussing the sexuality of a person as a political tool to beat them with BECAUSE of their politics (or their politics in terms of sexuality anyway).

[tom p]

I'm saying stop deciding other people's identities.

I don't care if people think guys f.cking guys is gay or bi. It's not. It's a homosexual act by parties about whose identities I should not assume a god damn thing.

Discussing the sexuality of a person as a political tool to beat them with REGARDLESS of their politics is sh.tty and gross and anyone advocating it is a c.nt supreme.

I've no idea who is specifically being referenced here, but as far as I can see it, It is their politics in respect of sexuality that makes their own sexuality an issue.
So, what is argued is the rights and wrongs of discussing the sexuality of a person as a political tool to beat them with BECAUSE of their politics (or their politics in terms of sexuality anyway).

Exactly. As soon as you legislate over what I can do in my bedroom, then what goes on in your bedroom is relevant to your politics and your constituents.
Or, more pithily, if you make sex political, then sex is political.

[plebian]

I'm saying stop deciding other people's identities.

I don't care if people think guys f.cking guys is gay or bi. It's not. It's a homosexual act by parties about whose identities I should not assume a god damn thing.

Discussing the sexuality of a person as a political tool to beat them with REGARDLESS of their politics is sh.tty and gross and anyone advocating it is a c.nt supreme.

I've no idea who is specifically being referenced here, but as far as I can see it, It is their politics in respect of sexuality that makes their own sexuality an issue.
So, what is argued is the rights and wrongs of discussing the sexuality of a person as a political tool to beat them with BECAUSE of their politics (or their politics in terms of sexuality anyway).

Oh they're using their sexuality as a political tool? Otherwise f.ck off.

[plebian]

I'm saying stop deciding other people's identities.

I don't care if people think guys f.cking guys is gay or bi. It's not. It's a homosexual act by parties about whose identities I should not assume a god damn thing.

Discussing the sexuality of a person as a political tool to beat them with REGARDLESS of their politics is sh.tty and gross and anyone advocating it is a c.nt supreme.

I've no idea who is specifically being referenced here, but as far as I can see it, It is their politics in respect of sexuality that makes their own sexuality an issue.
So, what is argued is the rights and wrongs of discussing the sexuality of a person as a political tool to beat them with BECAUSE of their politics (or their politics in terms of sexuality anyway).

Exactly. As soon as you legislate over what I can do in my bedroom, then what goes on in your bedroom is relevant to your politics and your constituents.
Or, more pithily, if you make sex political, then sex is political.

No. f.ck off.

[Opti]

Sorry everyone, I'm with tom p on this.

I now know (I wish I'd left it alone) who this is about. This isn't about teh gay, this is about being the worst kind of repressed and repressive piece of sh.t.
Something about him is, errrr, uncomfortable. It's nothing to do with him being right wing.
It's all about honesty and integrity if you hold public office. Don't be a cruel hypocrite.

[plebian]

Cool. Glad that you're all sticking up for the rights of some gay people at the expense of others.

Bravo. Much Ethical.

[Bird on a Fire]

I think people should listen carefully to what plebian and Squeak are saying, and be certain that they understand it, before posting their disagreement.

I think I might be about to change my mind.