Mediocre Fred's Mediocre Blog (Ret.)

Kicking People Out of the Closet

Today's Musical Selection: "In the Navy" by the Village People

Hi there, everyone! Today I wanted to talk about this disgraceful Ed Shrock business. Even you political junkies might not have noticed this, having been distracted by the convention, but it deserves some attention. Shrock's story gathered little national notice, but it could very well presage the latest ugly chapter in political gamesmanship. And any activists who think this is a good way to get attention or create pressure for a cause should be ashamed of themselves.

Let's begin at the beginning. Ed Shrock is a Republican Congressman from the southeastern corner of Virginia. Shrock was a loyal and highly-regarded (if fairly obscure) Republican who did good things for his district, and was cruising toward re-election to a third term in Washington. All that changed when a Web log dedicated to outing anti-gay-rights politicians had a taped conversation of someone, allegedly Shrock, soliciting sex from other men. That's it. There was no testimony from anyone claiming to be Shrock's lover, no correspondence, nothing other than that one conversation. And no one came along to back up the accusation. But that was enough for Shrock. He announced this week that he was ending his re-election campaign, saying that he didn't want to drag his family through the mess (Shrock is married with children), and that he didn't want to deal with a campaign centered around the accusation.

Why did this blogger do it? The man behind the blog, a fellow named Michael Rogers, believes that it's the height of hypocrisy for politicians who engage in clandestine homosexual behavior to endorse anti-gay legislation. This hypocrisy, per Rogers, is grounds enough for outing these politicians, and damn the cost to their lives and livelihoods. After all, they deserve it, right? (I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm starting to get more than a little sick of this modern school of thought suggesting that the only real sin in life is hypocrisy. I'm no moral absolutist, but relativism has to have its limits. Doesn't it?)

Now, Shrock has not admitted homosexuality, and no conclusive proof has emerged. Significant circumstantial evidence, perhaps (what Congressmen would abandon re-election under such faint pressure if it weren't true?), but nothing conclusive. And frankly, I don't care whether Shrock is straight, gay, or bisexual. I'm sorry that I have to bring his name up in connection with his story. I'd be happy if Shrock led the rest of his life in peace and no one ever brought him up in public again.

But the particulars of Shrock's case are a lot less important than the precendent it sets. If anyone out there is naive enough to think that Shrock was merely an isolated case, they haven't been paying attention.

Periodically, Washington goes through these little spasms of revelation where a number of similar scandals are brought to light at the same time. These charges catch on like wildfire, as the expose of one scandal seems to trigger others, like moths flying toward a light. Some of you might remember the string of sex scandals in the mid-'70s (Wilbur Mills, Wayne Hays, &c.), or at least remember the stripper jumping into the Tidal Basin. Others may recall the set of ethics scandals in the late '80s and the early '90s (Jim Wright, the Keating Five, and so forth). Although I doubt many of you remember that, because then everyone might remember that the sainted John McCain was one of the ones caught with his hand in the cookie jar during the S&L scandal. Oops. And I'm sure you remember the wave of infidelity revelations in the wake of the Clinton impeachment hearings (Henry Hyde, Robert Livingston, Newt Gingrich and on and on).

Does this mean that Congress was experience greater venality and corruption during those periods? Of course not. It's just that one high-profile case tends to send enterprising reporters and partisans scrambling for evidence of similar cases elsewhere. One high-profile sex scandal brings a hundred mistresses and call girls out of the woodwork, looking for headlines, fame and money. In truth, corruption and infidelity happens all the time. It's just that we care about it more sometimes, under the guise of high-minded moral outrage. Really, though, we just love a juicy story.

So Shrock isn't going to be the end of this. There will be others. More outings of closeted Congressmen are sure to follow. So are we happy with ourselves? Are we? Personally, I'm sick.

Now, some activists may defend the outing of Shrock as fitting punishment for his hypocrisy, as I suggested. If they're feeling particularly righteous, they might add that they personally don't have any problem with homosexuality, and it's only the closeted politicians' embarrassment that makes it a problem. If they'd just out themselves, this wouldn't be an issue. It sounds like a principled stand, but in truth it's just hogwash.

If (and I stress"if") Ed Shrock is homosexual or bisexual, that doesn't make him a bad person. And if Shrock is homosexual and in the closet and nonetheless supports anti-gay legislation, that doesn't make him a moral monster either. I simply feel sad for him if he feels forced by social pressure or his upbringing or whatever to feel ashamed of himself for having natural human inclinations. It's always unfortunate when people feel compelled to deny and condemn who they are.

None of this justifies outing him, especially not with a sneer of perfect righteousness. Ed Shrock is just as entitled to a private life as you or I. Shrock's choice in sexual partner is a matter of discussion for him, his family, and his God. That's it. The public doesn't factor into it anywhere. It's not our business. And Shrock's policy positions don't make it our business. No dice.

And no, comparisons to the Jim McGreevey situation aren't valid. For one thing, McGreevey outed himself (under pressure or not, who can say). For another, McGreevey had plenty of other problems that contributed to his resignation, whether or not he chose to admit it. And most importantly, McGreevey stood accused of elevating his lover to a post for which he was unqualified. Thus, his relationship directly compromised his governing, and his private life was no longer purely private. Only in such a case do politicians' private shenanigans become a matter of legitimate interest in the public sphere. Shrock's relations (if he had any) did not affect his governing at all.

And while I didn't particularly enjoy the parade of infidelity revelations around the time of the Clinton trial, those had more public validity than this. In those cases, the exposed Republicans had been arguing that Clinton deserved to be removed from office because of his extramarital affair. (And yes, Republicans, that's what the argument was. You can admit it now.) If you take a stand that infidelity makes you unfit for office, then your own infidelity is fair game.

How is that different from Shrock's case? He never said that being gay makes you unfit for public office. If he had, then the outing would have been justified. But this doesn't rise to the level of tit-for-tat; this is just political blackmail.

There's only one case I can think of that's similar to Shrock's is Strom Thurmond and his bi-racial daughter. Like Shrock, Thurmond practiced privately what he denounced publicly. Like Shrock, Thurmond was a hypocrite. Should his daughter have become a public issue while he was in office?

I think it's good that she didn't. As with Shrock, I think it's just sad and pathetic that Thurmond felt it necessary to make a public issue of something he himself practiced. It's especially sad because it kept Strom from being as good a father as he might have been. I feel sorry for his daughter. But I think that it was a matter for them, not for us.

The Washington Post ran an editorial this morning that was right on the mark. Here's what it had to say about Shrock's anti-gay stance:

Not only is [Shrock] a co-sponsor of the federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, he also opposed President Bill Clinton's far-too-modest relaxation of the ban on gays and lesbians serving in the military, the same military in which he served for many years. "You're in the showers with them, you're in the bunk room with them, you're in staterooms with them," he told the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot in 2000. "You just hope no harm would come by folks who are of that persuasion. It's a discipline thing."

Our view is that such comments are repugnant regardless of Mr. Schrock's private life or "persuasion." Whatever the truth of the allegations, Mr. Schrock has been part of the problem -- that is, a political leader who used his position to retard the acceptance of gays and lesbians in American life.

And that's just it. Shrock is wrong on gay rights. No question about it. But it's his stances and anti-gay remarks are what deserve public scorn, not whatever he chooses to do privately. Gay-rights activists would be far better served encouraging the public to reject Shrock for remarks like that, rather than examining his bedsheets. Using the threat of exposure as an offensive weapon only serves to further the public perception that homosexuality is something that deserves to be stigmatized.

That's all for today. Until tomorrow!

Posted by Fred at September 2, 2004 04:36 PM