April 5, 2019--Plenty Gay

In a must-read opinion piece in the New York Times, openly gay columnist Frank Bruni writes about how some gay activists are asking if openly gay presidential candidate Pete Guttigieg is gay enough to garner support among homosexual voters to win the Democratic nomination.

The concept of "gay enough," Bruni pushes back, is anathema to gay people of his generation who spent their formative years fighting the homophobic perception that gay people display stereotypical mannerisms that mark them, stigmatize them as something abnormal. 

Bruni writes--

"I’m worried because there was an actual mini-debate on the left recently over whether Pete Buttigieg is gay enough. Do his whiteness, upper-middle-class background and Harvard and Oxford degrees nullify his experience as a minority and undercut his status as a trailblazer? This question is out there, in both senses of that phrase."

He continues--

"It’s nonnegotiable that Democrats hold their presidential aspirants to high standards on issues of racial justice, gender equality and more. It’s crucial that the party nominate someone who can credibly represent its proudly diverse ranks. But it’s also important that the party not demand a degree of purity that nobody attains." [My italics]

Bruni chides those on the left who consider Guttigieg, just "another white man" because it is alleged "he doesn’t come across as particularly gay, meaning . . . what? That he lacks stereotypical mannerisms? That his voice isn’t high-pitched? I’m kind of floored, because I and other gay people around my age (54) or older spent most of our lives educating people about the bigotry and inaccuracy of those very stereotypes and trumpeting the message--the truth!--that gay people can be every bit as buttoned-down and strait-laced as, well, Pete Buttigieg! Now his divergence from those stereotypes is deemed remarkable and in need of dissection?"

He continues--

"Democrats should reclaim the word 'freedom' from Republicans, who have tried to reserve it for their brand."

In an interview, Guttigieg told Bruni--

“You’re not free if you have crushing medical debt. You’re not free if you’re being treated differently because of who you are. What has really affected my personal freedom more: the fact that I don’t have the freedom to pollute a certain river, or the fact that for part of my adult life, I didn’t have the freedom to marry somebody I was in love with? We’re talking about deep, personal freedom.”

Bruni concludes--

"He sounds sufficiently gay to me. His powers of empathy seem plenty informed by his sexual orientation. And we need to stop making assumptions about how well someone can understand and address what minorities go through based on his or her looks or vocal inflections or anything of the sort. That’s the quintessence of prejudice. And it’s the antithesis of enlightenment."

Then, the question is, viewed from 30,000 feet, how do Democrats properly vet their presidential aspirants without cannibalizing them? 

Absolutist Dems are afflicted by a propensity to consume those with whom they disagree. Especially this election cycle, that is a ruinous strategy. If we can't figure out how to avoid this intraparty self-sabotage, get ready for four more years of Trump.