While working on a piece expanding on this post for Pajamas, I chanced upon Charles Kaiser’s response to a raft of e-mails faulting him for failing to talk to a single gay Republican in his Out magazine article, “Washington’s Gay War.”
Introducing the response, Out editor Aaron Hicklin notes that the article “generated far more than the average grab bag of angry letters from readers,” citing Log Cabin’s call to action specifically. This correspondence, Hicklin believes, “seemed to warrant a response from the author.”
Major kudos to Log Cabin for getting at least one gay media outlet to take notice of the concerns of the oft-misrepresented gay Republicans. It’s unfortunate though that Kaiser’s response only further demonstrates his ignorance of gay Republicans.
Despite our contention that he didn’t talk to any gay Republicans, Kaiser claims he did. He just didn’t see fit to quote them.
He further defends himself by saying that the article was “about gay political wars in Washington” and not gay Republicans. Well, shouldn’t a journalist covering a war strive to cover both sides? Kaiser only covers the Republican side from the perspective of Democrats.
He also contends that none of his correspondents challenged “the facts†in his piece.
Not privy to the correspondence, I can’t vouch for the accuracy of that statement. In the article itself, Kaiser lets others do most of the talking. And maybe no one challenged the various quotations in the article. But, they make claims which they fail to prove, notably that of Washington Post reporter Vargas, “If you come out on the Hill and you’re a Republican, you lose power.â€
His article doesn’t reference a single Republican who lost power when he came out.
The issue wasn’t so much the accuracy of the quotations, but whom Kaiser chose to quote. And he himself acknowledged that he didn’t quote the gay Republicans with whom he talked.
I could go on, wondering how he comes to the conclusion that the current Republican Administration creates a climate which produces a “lack of self-esteem” and kind of “self-loathing,” but to address that would be to enter the world of liberal jargon. Simply put, that’s a ludicrous claim which he can only back up by resorting to the latest theories taught on university campuses.
I do want to address one point which gets to the heart of Kaiser’s misunderstanding of Republican ideas. He seems quite bothered that all the Republican presidential candidates opposed the federal Employment non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and concludes by finding it “baffling” that presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain emplys “openly gay people in senior positions in his Senate office” while opposing that legislation.
Perhaps, had he taken a moment to understand conservative ideas, he might realize that someone might find it wrong to discriminate against gay people, yet find it’s not the federal government’s role to regulate such matters. One can treat gay people with dignity and oppose ENDA.
He might not find that so baffling if he understood the basic political philosophy undergirding American conservatism for the past forty years. If you’re covering gay political wars in DC, it kind of helps to have that understanding.
If Charles Kaiser were genuinely interested in covering those wars, he would try to understand why gay people espouse conservative ideas. While Kaiser claims to have talked to gay Republicans, he doesn’t reference such conversations in his first piece while the bafflement he expresses in his second shows an unfamiliarity with their ideas.
And this is the guy Out magazine tapped for an article on gay politics in our nation’s capital.
This Knoweldge from Ignorance that Kaiser displays (meaning , he acts as if he’s well informed on his topic but in reality knows nothing) is the same exact pattern you find in many Leftists when they attempt to describe Jihadists.
Hey Vince – is that you who sometimes posts on neo-neocon? I love that blog (but it’s not as great as Gay Patriot, of course!! 😉 )
“Out” and Charles Kaiser would seem to come from the New Republic school of reporting the “findings” being sought while not committing an act of honest journalism.
I understand the republican philosopy is limited federal powers and so they may disagree with ENDA, yet I find it ironic that the republican party platform is against ENDA because it would be a federal piece of legislation yet they endorse the federal Defense of Marriage Act and want to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage.
DOMA was in response to the imposition of a new definition of marriage by unelected, unrepresentative, and unelected courts. Therefore, DOMA is a law that restrains government from acting without consent of the governed.
Quuerunity, fair criticism. But, there are some Republicans, John McCain notably, but also New Hampshire’s John Sununu who are consistent on this point.
Dan: Good post. Typical hatchet job ‘reporting’ by leftwing nutjobs.
VK: You mean like Loving v. Virginia? If all DOMA did was say one state didn’t have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in another, I wouldn’t like it but would at least see an element of Federalism there (ignoring the Full Faith & Credit Clause of course). Yet DOMA intruded into what has been a State affair and gave a Federal definition of marriage as well, which is not in keeping with Federalism IMO.
I certainly think there are republicans who remain consistent on this point and that is admirable. I am glad to see that atleast you guys are consistent in wanting to follow the true principles of the party.
qu: I back up V the K’s explanation. Those are precisely the reasons I oppose Federal ENDA and support Federal DOMA.
I think States and Cities are the proper venue for ENDA, marriage type laws.
#2: Lesbian Neo Con:
Yes, that’s me over there.. How do I do?
Kaiser can’t do that; it would mean violating the principle belief of all left-wingers everywhere: They are God’s greatest gift to the universe in history, and anyone who disagrees with them in the slightest is either stupid, evil, or both.
Sounds like Kaiser went to the Dan Rather School of Journalism — “Fake, but Accurate”
#10 ***#2: Lesbian Neo Con:
Yes, that’s me over there.. How do I do?***
Stellar!! Just like you do here, my friend! 🙂
#9
Third!
I disagree about ENDA, but I am curious about your views concerning DOMA: since same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, IYO should the Federal government have to recognize it just like it does for all other marriages?
There’s a magazine called “Out”?
15: I would say the Federal govt is not compelled to recognize marriages that do not meet its definition of marriage.
Vince: That’s just it, marriage is a State issue and not a Federal one. DOMA Federalizes the issue which I strongly disagree with as this is antithetical to federalism, something conservatism is supposed to hold dear. You can’t have it both ways, is this something for the States to decide or the Feds? If it is the former, than the Feds have no business opposiing a valid marriage certificate, or even a divorce decree, from any of the States. This goes for all marriages, not just same-sex ones.
I can have it both ways because reality is something everyone has to acknoweldge and deal with.
I was dealing with the world as it is, not an ideal world.
It’s not pie-in-the-sky stuff but about changing the realities that exist now. Attitudes like this only gives fuel to leftist nutjobs in seeking to achieve their goals through any means necessary. Being partial to Federalism myself, I’d prefer to work through the States which means the Feds should butt out and remain neutral – honoring whatever legal marriage or divorce papers are handed to them.
I should have said I did consider the other view but then you would have the situation where the lowest common denominator would have to be recognized.. and I know this would lead to outrage by the majority of people in the country, so i didnt’ consider it to be a realistic option.
Nor did I view the total elimination of Federally recongized marriage as being likely.
Aaron Hicklin and all those mediaheads are typical left wing trust fund brats who can relate more to Fidel Castro than the average American. What do expect from pathological narcisists who comprise our media?