Finally, my long-promised review of The Attack Queers, by Richard Goldstein.
It seems indisputable to me that many minority and underrepresented goups - in particular African-Americans, women, and homosexuals - are disproportionately represented in the media by conservative members of those groups. The conservative Independent Women's Forum is frequently given more than equal time to present their anti-feminist viewpoint against a counterpart from NOW. Prominent Conservative/Libertarian (or Libertarian/Conservative?) African-American pundits such as Stanley Crouch, Robert George, Walter Williams, Deroy Murdock, Alan Keyes, and others, are ubquitous, while their liberal counterparts, such as Clarence Page, Cynthia Tucker, and even Julianne Malveaux, are likely "to the Right" of median political orientation within the African-American community. Tavis Smiley, a more representative voice, was let go from BET after it was purchased by Time Warner.
Over the past 10-20 years, prominent gay and lesbian voices in the media have been limited to Camille Paglia, Andrew Sullivan, and more recently Norah Vincent. There are other gays in "straight journalism", and there are plenty of excellent liberal gay voices in the alternative and gay press, but as the results of my recent challenge to my readers supports, there are effectively no liberal gay voices in the mainstream media opinion-shaping echo chamber. This is subjective determination, but the pundit who most closely met the standards I set, requiring some mainstream prominence and occasionally writing specifically on gay and lesbian issue, was syndicated columnist Deb Price, who this media junkie had never heard of before.
As a straight white male, my own interest in this and gay/lesbian issues more broadly stems partially from my belief that the current state of gay/lesbian civil rights can be something of the "canary in the coal mine" warning for the successful ascent of the religious right and their theocratic assaults on individual liberties. 'At first they came for the queers, and then they came for me...', so to speak. This is not my only reason, of course.
There are various theories for the gross imbalance in media representation of opinions in the political spectrum. For those like myself who find it laughable that the media, taken as a whole, even approaches "liberal," it is tempting to put the blame on the increasing corporate media consolidation. I have no doubt that this is part of the story. In a recent column in the Nation, Eric Alterman argues it is because it provides an affirmative action two-fer -- that is, editors and publishers wishing to appease critics on the Left looking for minority representation and those whiners on the Right demanding even more conservative voices get to satisfy both with a single hire. I don't really buy this story, as I argued in this post here, but it might play some small role.
Richard Goldstein submits a third theory, which is also likely a partial explanation, but one which anyone who considers themselves to be even somewhat left-of-center should consider seriously.
The subtitle of Goldstein's book is Liberal Society and the Gay Right . Despite the fact that his analyses center around libertarian/conservatives Sullivan, Vincent, and Paglia (don't bother writing to tell me that Paglia is a Democrat), the real thrust of his book is directed at the self-described liberals who enable and support them.
In Goldstein's view, the bizarre spectacle of these individuals is not (entirely) a conservative corporate plot, an unintended consequence of newsroom affirmative action, or tendency to automatically bestow legitimacy onto contrarian opinion, no matter how ridiculous, but rather a consequence of straight white liberal paternalism.
One doesn't have to be overly perceptive to notice how non-minority liberals are eager to define what the political concerns of minority groups should be, and to offer opinions on what is or isn't racism or homophobia or misogyny. Salon's Joan Walsh is an example of this type of "liberal" in that her articles frequently try and dictate what should or shouldn't be the gay liberal agenda.
While being a member of minority group X does not automatically elevate one's opinions to the level of Truth, I find it quite absurd that often it is less rather than more weight that is given to minority viewpoints on minority issues. In Goldstein's view, Sullivan, Vincent, Paglia, and others, each with their own variation on their desire for "normalcy," their tendencies to blame the gay community for their exclusion, are given voice because of their ability to confirm and exploit liberal, rather than conservative, conceit and bias. That they may help promote a conservative agenda is consequence, not cause.
The book really is not so much an indictment of the homocons, but rather of the liberals who enable them. The response of those like Matt Welch (who admittedly is responding to the less well written (and poorly titled) Nation article), supports Goldstein's contention.
Goldstein's book is too short. I wish he had written a more comprehensive discussion of this broader issue - I think there is still much more to be written. And, I admittedly let too much time pass between reading the book and writing this review. But, it is still highly recommended reading. And, for those straight white male liberals like myself, I suggest you do read it with the open minds that we all like to think we have. You may disagree with Goldstein's assessments, but don't make the additional mistake of dismissing him.
UPDATE: I just noticed my intended link to Matt Welch's site didn't go through and now I can't get to his site for some reason. Will fix link when I can.
Also, what I wrote doesn't bother to praise any of the delicious prose in Goldstein's book -- worth a read just for that.
