October 16, 2004
Post-Debate Thread
The third debate was hard to digest. In a sense, it was just like the others. Bush presenting a version of himself highly inconsistent with the marketed image of himself (and, inconsistent with the other two debates as well), and Kerry, highly competent and consistent as always.After a few days, though, it's clear to me that Bush won the third debate. And it's just because of that blasted lesbian comment.
I thought what Kerry said about Mary Cheney was inappropriate. I also winced. But I didn't wince because of how it was inappropriate.
Let me back up. What was inappropriate about it was that he used the daughter of his opponent for his own purposes. That's the only thing that was inappropriate about it. But I thought it was a bit thuggish; kind of bizarre given Kerry's general style. He's normally so much more artful. There's something about using the daughter of your opponent for your own purposes - even if she is a campaign official - that is a bit out of bounds.
Now, those are my standards. Not Republican standards. Republicans would do that in a second. There are so many areas of hypocrisy there that I'm not going to try and list them.
Why did I wince, though? Because it came across as incredibly obvious to me. Something akin to a pander, except that it wasn't playing to any base in particular. We Democrats aren't huge fans of Mary Cheney. And diehard Republicans weren't going to respond by thinking that Kerry was a good guy for saying it. It was nothing more than Kerry's attempt to subtly slip a knife in, except that he was using a hammer. And the other reason I winced is because I knew, I just knew, that these asshole hypocrites could make a major case out of it - that they could take advantage of it, that they could go full-out cross-eyed crazy with indignance about it. These guys do false outrage and blustery indignance better than anyone, and they will stop at nothing to do it - two years ago they dishonored the death of Senator Wellstone to make their political point. Could there be any doubt about them using the Vice President's own daughter to pander to bigotry?
So that's what they did. Kerry gracelessly set out the wedge - saying to the GOP, "well, do you like gays or not?" A great question, but he did it in a political "dirty tricks" manner that makes most political outsiders uncomfortable. Kerry, who up until then had been extremely good at not even giving the GOP an avenue to attack, served up a fat softball for them to hit out of the park.
So what do we have? We have an army of scared, desperate right-wingers that are in charge of the media. Some are pandering to the family-values crowd; how dare he invade privacy? Some to the conservative propriety crowd; how could he be so rude? Some to the love-the-sinner, hate-the-sin crowd; how dare he call her a LESBIAN? And all of them are milking it for every drop they can. Those are their panders. But their motivations are entirely different.
It doesn't matter that it doesn't make sense. VP Cheney having a gay daughter is a huge source of "cognitive dissonance" to his supporters. And remember that cognitive dissonance is what a rationalization fixes. There are legions of Republican supporters that have coped with this reality in any way they could - by pretending it wasn't there. Some would deny her very existence, some would pretend she wasn't acting on it, some would simply see it as a necessary evil that Cheney had to put up with because it was his daughter, and family is about accepting each other's sins.
But then there is Kerry calling her a lesbian - the word that in many conservatives' ears, isn't just an indication of private sexual nature, but of advertisement, behavior, and choice. It's salacious to them. It ripped away the curtain from everything they are trying to hide from themselves. It said that they can pretend they are tolerant all they want, but that they are still bigoted. The Republicans are vulnerable on this point, and many of them that are still trying to feel good about themselves feel guilty and ashamed of their bigotry - and there was Senator Kerry, exposing their vulnerabilities to the world. No wonder they felt like it was a cheap shot.
Lynne Cheney called it "cheap" and "tawdry". Not "inappropriate" or "rude". I think it was salon who nailed it here - these are the words of sexual shame. Disapproval of a sexual behavior. How dare Kerry say my daughter is a lesbian?
Elizabeth Edwards called her words for what they were; an indication of shame about her daughter. She was right. They are right. And it's not that Lynne is ashamed of her daughter. She's ashamed of herself, about her daughter. But this is the point - the Democrats don't yet have the leadership to be able to make that case. The public's point of view is malleable on this because it's very complicated, but the Democrats do not have the oxygen. Not unless all of the nation is willing to consider this deeply enough.
It isn't that Kerry's point was inappropriate. It wasn't. But his approach was clumsy, and it was provocative, when it was not a good idea to provoke them. And it was inappropriate enough in the Republicans' eyes that they're going to lead - bully - their way into making everyone think it was inappropriate. How DARE Kerry mention Cheney's daughter - no no, no need to consider your feelings about her being gay, that's irrelevant - how DARE Kerry say her name? That's a PRIVATE matter between the CHENEYS. For THEM to deal with PRIVATELY, within their FAMILY.
And then we're back to where we were. The Republicans artfully protecting their ambiguity, where a gay family member is treated like a respected community member going off to rehab. A private nod of understanding about how strong families are able to deal with the strain. And as a bonus, John Kerry put in his place for transgressing on their private shame.
You know, it's good if this sparks some discussion, discussion that is long overdue. But not at the cost of the election. We could have waited three weeks.