What Barney Frank Could Learn from Oedipus
Back in 1989, shortly after I moved to Washington, D.C., news broke that Barney Frank’s housemate (lover, in some accounts) Stephen Gobie was running a prostitution ring out of the Massachusetts Congressman’s Washington, D.C. home. Not just that, Frank used his congressional privilege to fix Gobie’s parking tickets and intervened on his behalf with Virginia probation officials.
What struck me at the time was the Democrat’s rather cavalier attitude toward his wrongdoing. Newsweek ran a cover study which made it seem the challenges of being a closeted gay Congressman (it was this story which forced Barney out*) caused him to cover for Gobie.
His sexuality made him do it.
At the time, I penned (then quite literally) an essay mocking the mean-spirited man from Massachusetts. I’ll have to track it down in my files. I know I was a little harsher than I needed to be, but do recall comparing Barney’s attitude to that of a mythological figure who, upon learning of his own wrongdoing, admits his error and steps down from his position of political power. The “unfortunate Mr. Rex,” as I then put it, referring to Oedipus as he was understood before Freud, accepted the consequences for his misdeeds.
It is Barney Frank’s inability to admit wrongdoing which has always bothered me about the man. In that sense, he is emblematic of the arrogance of so many politicians who won’t take responsibility for their actions.
And Barney’s behavior twenty years ago has defined his actions over the course of his career, particularly in the past few months as his repeated defenses of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and efforts to thwart reforms of and regulation over these two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) have come to light. Their mismanagement and subsequent failure sparked the current financial crisis.
Instead of taking responsibility, Barney blames Republicans, saying they were in the majority when this mismanagement took place. Only what he doesn’t tell us is that he led the efforts to block Republican reforms of these quasi-public institutions. Kind of like tripping a runner and then mocking him for losing a race.
So, if you want to know what I have taken so much time this week to blog about this unhappy Massachusetts Democrat, it’s simply this: he embodies the worst of American politicians, blaming his adversaries and taking no responsibility for his own errors of judgment.
His self-righteousness is even more disturbing when you realize how bright this guy is. He has the intellectual capacity to be more circumspect, to know better. The wit which he uses so cuttingly against his adversaries, he never turns on himself. He refuses to consider that he too can make mistakes.
He could learn for that unfortunate Mr. Rex. It’s not just one’s political enemies who err and require a reprimand. Sometimes, we ourselves do wrong and need a dressing-down.
It’s too bad that Barney thinks he’s above obloquy, that only others should suffer censure.
*FROM THE COMMENTS: Jimbo disputes me on this, says Barney came out in 1987. I guess because I had just returned from living in Europe at the time of his escapade, I remember him coming out then. Here’s what Jimbo had to say: “I have to correct an error you made. Barney Frank was out of the closet by 1989. He came out on his own in May of 1987.”
If this is so, then he really was trying to say his sexuality (not his closeted status) made him do it.
21 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
so you and barney used to date, yes? bitter break up?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 1:37 pm - March 28, 2009
Aargh, GPW. I feel the same way about Frank & the Gobie scandal. But I have to correct an error you made. Barney Frank was out of the closet by 1989. He came out on his own in May of 1987.
Comment by Jimbo — March 28, 2009 @ 1:51 pm - March 28, 2009
[S]o you and [B]arney used to date, yes? [B]itter break up?
Translation: Because Barney Frank’s corruption and incompetence are indefensible, I’m going to attack those who point them out in the most juvenile manner possible.
Comment by V the K — March 28, 2009 @ 2:07 pm - March 28, 2009
Congresswoman Frank is a vile piece of garbage–no wonder he’s front and center in the Democratic Party.
Can’t we find some scrappy Alderaanean princess that is willing to strangle him with a chain while he’s chillin’ in the cocktail lounge of his sail barge?
Comment by Sean A — March 28, 2009 @ 2:11 pm - March 28, 2009
Can’t we find some scrappy Alderaanean princess that is willing to strangle him with a chain while he’s chillin’ in the cocktail lounge of his sail barge?
Is Zac Ephron, perchance, a scrappy Alderaanean princess?
Comment by V the K — March 28, 2009 @ 2:14 pm - March 28, 2009
Or is Zac a little long in the tooth for Congress’s favorite mincing pederast?
Comment by V the K — March 28, 2009 @ 2:18 pm - March 28, 2009
We wonder where the strong Republicans are – well they aren’t in government.
What you described about Frank happens to many politicians. They may be smart and wise going into politics.
Politics corrupts, the inability to judge oneself in the same way one judges others becomes the norm for most politicians.
Comment by Leah — March 28, 2009 @ 2:20 pm - March 28, 2009
Well, Zac IS a scrappy little princess. However, even with all of that Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac money, I’m not sure Congresswoman Frank can afford him (although it is understood that in any event, Frank will have to PAY for any sort of companionship, regardless of caliber).
Comment by Sean A — March 28, 2009 @ 2:41 pm - March 28, 2009
I’m disappointed. I thought you could be a bigger f**king dick than that. Actually, I know you can.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 28, 2009 @ 4:09 pm - March 28, 2009
I like this post for the general principle of it. I think any leader worth his or her salt has to be able to look at themselves and take responsibility for error. From first hand everyday life experience, I know how difficult that can be to not only recognize but also admit.
And from what little influence I do have I don’t believe for a moment I am fully humble or incapable of further mistakes.
As for Congressman Frank, I actually got to meet him at an FMA marriage hearing when he, Marilyn Musgrave, Judge Bork and Jay Sekulow testified in front of a house committee on the subject. If you dig up the CSPAN footage I am the guy in the green jacket right behind him on the front row. Anyway, I was shocked at how cavalierly he and his assistants treated the other panelists. It wasn’t a major spectacle but it was sort of “bullying.” I think you mentioned that he was a kind of bully on here before. If not I must have read it somewhere else.
Anyway, thanks again for a nother thought provoking post.
Comment by Randy — March 28, 2009 @ 5:09 pm - March 28, 2009
Randy, I like the way your comment adds perspective and insight to the post. Little Letter People, take note.
Comment by V the K — March 28, 2009 @ 5:31 pm - March 28, 2009
Stephen Gobie actually called Rush Limbaugh’s show to give his side of the story, and when Rush tried to contact Bawney Fwank for his response, he never got an answer.
Typical liberal reaction.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 28, 2009 @ 8:18 pm - March 28, 2009
This will probably be old news to the die-hards out there, but I thought Congressman Frank’s smackdown on The Factor last fall was Must See TV.
‘Be a man!’ Indeed.
Comment by MFS — March 28, 2009 @ 11:34 pm - March 28, 2009
Thanks V the K.
Comment by Randy — March 28, 2009 @ 11:45 pm - March 28, 2009
#12
I was thinking the same thing earlier. It’s about time for his pansy ass to get stomped again. The sad part is that O’Reilly’s the only one who will hold him accountable.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 29, 2009 @ 3:55 am - March 29, 2009
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=20762
Some further confirmation on the timeline of franks homosexuality.
also, in the original post, you were suggesting that newsweek editorialised that it was franks homosexuality that made him do it. then in the update you say it was frank himself. Just wondering which one is more accurate.
Also, re: straight equivalencies, such as the DC madame scandal, i recall sean hannity defending the idea of people using such services in order to tamp down criticism of people related to the case.
“There are lonely people in the world that literally will call just to have company…”
Is that reflective of a disturbing cavalier attitude towards potential wrongdoing, not based on sexuality, but party? If the list of clients was wholly democrat, I’m not going to give Hannity the benefit of the doubt that he would have approached the issue in the same way.
Comment by Scottland — March 29, 2009 @ 7:32 am - March 29, 2009
Wow. I’m new to this site and thrilled with the quality of the comments.
Scottland raises to my mind a thoughtful point: separating the politics from the scandal – would right-thinking people still condemn Frank (and lefties still look nervous and try to change to the subject) if the Congressman was – say – a conservative lawmaker from Idaho? I think the answer is self-evident, but would be curious to hear what others think.
But to Scottland’s (#15) example: I don’t know the context of the Hannity quotes (Vitter, perhaps?) and wouldn’t vote Sean spokesman for Planet Conservative anyway. But, is Hannity’s point really just posturing?
Taking gay/straight out of the equation, can we agree that there are degrees of moral turpitude here? OK, loaded term, perhaps. What about just the public ramifications? I see it the spectrum like this:
1. Citizen John enjoys questionable quickies. (Bad for his family, public image)
2. Lawmaker or law enforcer John enjoys quickies. (Bad for family, his image, strong risk for blackmail)
3. Citizen John tacitly runs a brothel. (Bad behavior now expands to a criminal enterprise)
4. Lawmaker or law enforcer John tacitly runs a brothel. (Full criminal enterprise with the trappings of legality PLUS the strong risk for blackmail.)
Perhaps, a Frank defender could quibble about whether he should be more in the second category than the fourth. But to my mind, it’s much harder to deny that public officials must be held to a higher standard.
Look, I’m thrilled that Frank is Out and thrilled that he’s popular in his district, but time and again when given the chance to act contrite he just pivots and attacks. Right or left, this is a sure sign of weak character. As a gay man, I feel no need to defend him.
Comment by MFS — March 29, 2009 @ 10:57 am - March 29, 2009
I think most people — straight and gay — would agree that it doesn’t matter who you share your bunk with, as long as your public life is one of honor and decency.
The problem is, that “as long as they don’t do it in the street” attitude isn’t enough for certain busy-bodies on both sides. And it’s the busy-bodies who say, “we want educational programs, employment laws, and hate crimes statutes that give you additional based on who you share your bunk with. And if our public behavior is not decent, well, it’s because of the trauma you inflicted on us, so you have to excuse it. Also, we do want the right to do it in the street… Folsom Street.”
Comment by V the K — March 29, 2009 @ 12:26 pm - March 29, 2009
If Barney’s mentor Sen. Kennedy is still elected for years after being complicit in the death of a certain young woman, and his other mentor, Mr. Kerry kept getting elected after if not actively seeking the overthrow of our gov’t in his twenties, then at the least selling out our national security to our country’s enemies during that time period (and even while in office), then why should Barney resign merely for having a ‘wayward boyfriend’, or his sleeping with the head of a Freddie Mac department he was regulating, or defending the GSEs from all accountability in order to protect the bonuses and salaries of his democrat friends employed there, or resigning for his contributing mightily to the current financial crisis? I mean it’s not like Barney has an R after his name. He is a gay democrat and thus immune from all standards of integrity and correct political and personal conduct.
Comment by eaglewingz08 — March 30, 2009 @ 10:42 am - March 30, 2009
EagleWingz… considering the way they continually return Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry to the congress… is it fair to ask why the people of Massachusetts hate the rest of the United States?
Comment by V the K — March 30, 2009 @ 12:49 pm - March 30, 2009
If Bawney Fwank were really compared to Oedipus, I’d gladly provide the means for him to do what Oedipus did at the end of the play.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 30, 2009 @ 3:42 pm - March 30, 2009