homophobitik

Music: Gillian Welch: Time (The Revelator) (2001)

Reading the paper today and watching the news this evening, I am reminded of the fact that my place of employment insulates me from a lot of real world ugliness. As an academic, I'm confronted with "diversity" on a daily basis (that somewhat odious term for "folks who are different than me"). I am surrounded by the straight, folks of different genders, and even a republican or two---all of whom are supportive of one another. I do confront students regularly whose views and values are different from my own, however, the "atmosphere" of the academy---the sanctuary of school---creates a place where it is safe to disagree. I don't mean to idealize the academy or the university setting---there are problems, to be sure. I just mean to point out that I'm often befuddled by U.S. politics because, comparatively speaking, where I work on a daily basis is much more . . . rational. Things seem more sane at work. And then, I turn on the television. I found myself screaming at the television tonight.

Why? Today the Senate Armed Services Committee held hearings to discuss the Pentagon's study on repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy (basically, a ban on queers serving in the military), which was released on Tuesday. The report---ordered by the White House and researched for months---concluded a repeal of the policy would have relatively "low impact" on the U.S. armed forces. The gist is simply that when folks are in war, they really don't care about the sexual orientation of the person next to them firing a weapon.

Today at the hearings top military brass pleaded with senators to act now and repeal the policy. Importantly, however, arguments from the Pentagon were strategic. Although I applaud Robert Gates and Join Chiefs PooBah Mike Mullen for calling for an end to the policy, they did not hammer home the lessons of history (viz., that this is a civil rights issue). While you and I know very well this has to do with civil rights and identity, the argument Gates and Mullen pushed forward was rather shrewd: we need to repeal DADT through congress, as this will allow the armed forces to plan and prepare for the cultural shift. If congress does not act, then the courts will. And if the courts continue to rule the way they have, the policy change will be abrupt. They argued, basically, that abrupt is bad. The argument today ultimately came down to the fact that gays are gonna serve, in the end, and it's a pragmatic matter of having congress repeal the policy and build-in time to make an adjustment (create training, etc.), or have the military abruptly have culture change over night.

I do appreciate this strategy, and no matter where a politician stands on the issue, you have to admire the technical savvy of the appeal. And by "technical savvy," I don't mean to suggest disingenuousness either: I honestly think our military leaders are worried about the transition and believe it's in the best interest of the military to transition at their own pace. Makes sense to me.

But a number of GOP senators are holding out. Today McCain made the biggest sound bites for questioning the legitimacy of the study (only 28% of those polled responded) and even questioned Mullen's legitimacy (seriously), as he did not personally talk to troops about their feelings. Although not part of the hearings today, representatives Buck McKeon (CA) and Joe "You Lie" Wilson (SC) issued a joint statement on Wednesday arguing that congress needs sufficient time to vet the Pentagon report to study its findings. They argue that ramming through the repeal during a "lame duck" session is "irresponsible."

So, the Pentagon spends almost a year studying the issue, concludes they prefer the DADT law should be lifted (and for pragmatic reasons, not identitarian ones), and certain republican politicians are making this an issue? Our top military folks were basically pleading with congress to get this over with, but McCain, McKeon, and Wilson want to draw it out?

Why?

McCain never answers the question; presumably, he is concerned that openly queer soldiers will cause undue harm to the military. And why? This is where my academic environment gets in the way; I just don't "get it"---I don't understand how certain politicians are able to make the "no brainer" into a brainer. And for what?

For what I term "spectacle politics." Often political issues are quite complicated, however, this one is not. Those GOP folks who oppose lifting the ban are signaling to certain constituencies "we oppose fags in the military." From a formal perspective, we all know this is no different than "we oppose nig**rs in the military." Who you admire or love is about as important as your skin color when bullets are flying. I'm pleased to know those most qualified to understand military operations agree with me. And I'm just flummoxed that McCain and his ilk can get away with hate politics, however indirect.