Slog
News & ArtsThursday, October 8, 2009
Politics / Homo A President's Brave—And Meaningful—Ambassadorial Appointment
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 9:22 AM
The president has a troubled relationship with a vocal minority group. To mollify his critics, the president appoints a member of this minority group to an ambassadorship. It's a symbolic gesture, it doesn't require the president to change his policies, but it gets a lot of play in the media and Americans, rightly or wrongly, interpret the move as evidence that the president's heart, at least, is in the right place. Barack Obama in 2009? Nope: Ronald Reagan in 1986:
South Africa was in turmoil during the 1980s. Apartheid was still the law and although whites were just a fraction of the population, they owned 90 percent of the land. The government, led by President P.W. Botha, was on the verge of a bloody civil war with Nelson Mandela's African National Congress. Each day brought news of more violence. Archbishop Desmond Tutu and other black South Africans were asking corporations and governments to pressure the white South African government to end apartheid. In Washington, President Reagan resisted using economic sanctions. His administration preferred a policy called "constructive engagement."
The Reagan White House was at odds with U.S. civil rights leaders over its affirmative action and domestic social policy, and South African's freedom struggle resonated strongly with the American public. In 1986, the Reagan administration made a surprising move. Secretary of State George Schultz called career diplomat Edward Perkins.
"He said, 'There are people around the president who believe that it is time to send a black ambassador,'" recalls Perkins.
Reagan's appointment of Edward Perkins as our ambassador to South Africa—Apartheid-era South Africa, Nelson-Mandela-still-rotting-in-prison South Africa—was gutsy and bold. It made the South Africans—the ruling white South Africans—apoplectic, which was great, but it also made an important statement about American values. At the time blacks in South Africa couldn't vote or own property; they weren't considered citizens. Educational institutions, medical facilities, and public services were all strictly segregated. And America sent 'em a black ambassador. Look at that picture. South African President P.W. Botha had to formally receive Edward Perkins when he arrived in South Africa. Talk about your 1000 words. Reagan's civil rights policies—including his refusal to back sanctions against South Africa—still sucked, but you had to admire Reagan's... what's the word: Oh, right: you had to admire Reagan's audacity. The appointment of Perkins meant something. It couldn't be dismissed as mere tokenism. (And most importantly for Reagan it didn't cost his buddies doing business in South Africa a cent.)
Sending an openly gay ambassador to New Zealand?
Nothing audacious about that. New Zealand will only be too delighted to welcome its first openly-gay ambassador. They'll probably send a case of local lube to the American embassy. George Bush's 2001 appointment of an openly gay man as ambassador to Romania—conservative, backwards Romania—was edgier. If Obama wants to show the same boldness and guts that Reagan did—if he wants to make a point about American values—he should appoint an openly gay man as ambassador to Russia, where anti-gay violence is tolerated/encouraged by the state. Or Saudia Arabia, where gay men are publicly executed. Or Iraq, where death squads hunt gay men.
Okay, those nations may be too large and/or too strategically important. So here's a more realistic suggestion: Obama should appoint an openly-gay man—an openly gay African American man—as ambassador to the most violently homophobic nation in the Western Hemisphere: Jamaica.
That would be audacious.
Appointing a gay ambassador to Jamaica in 2009 would draw attention to the evils of homophobia in the same way that appointing a black ambassador to South Africa in 1986 drew attention to the evils of racism. It would focus worldwide attention on the problem of anti-gay violence in Jamaica and serve as official expression of the United State's disproval. It would make a powerful statement to the world: the United States may not stand for the equality and worth of all gay people—not yet—but this president does.
Sending an openly gay ambassador to Jamaica would be a bold and meaningful move. Sending one to New Zealand is a symbolic sop to disgruntled Democratic interest group. Wouldn't it be great if Obama had Reagan's balls?
1
Barvo! Agreed 100%. (I'm also impressed that you said something nice about Reagan, and showed some modicum of foreign-policy realism. In a SLOG post! Kudos.)
2
so, everyone gets a lesson through the US ambassador? openly atheist ambassadors for muslim countries? an arab-american for israel?
too bad we don't have relations with iran, they need a gay atheist ambassador if you ask me.
too bad we don't have relations with iran, they need a gay atheist ambassador if you ask me.
3
Jamaica would be good, but if he REALLY wants to send a message, I think he should send an openly homosexual person as our ambassador to the Vatican.
5
The Marxist homosexual Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Hussein Mohammed Obama) will enact pro-homosexual policies soon enough. But, like everything else he has done, they will happen through nefarious means. Athough he is an empty suit beta male who needs a teleprompter to tell him when to go to the bathroom, he is smart enough to know that he can't be up front about his vision (which is the vision of the cabal that is propping him up) because the American people - essentially a Christian conservative majority - would not stand for it. So he'll appoint homosexuals and pederasts like Kevin Jennings to begin the conversion of our children to homosexuality. When enough have crossed over, then it won't be as politically costly to overturn don't ask don't tell, or to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, or to sign ENDA.
He campaigned as a moderate, and has tried to act like one, but anyone who is as deeply tied to white hating radicals like Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, or Louis Farrakhan is going to show his true (red) colors soon enough...that is if the hard traditionalist majority doesn't speak up as loudly as they did this summer during the marxist health care town halls.
This man must be stopped, and since the tide is turning against him, I'm getting more and more confident that he will be, and a full scale civil war will be averted.
He campaigned as a moderate, and has tried to act like one, but anyone who is as deeply tied to white hating radicals like Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, or Louis Farrakhan is going to show his true (red) colors soon enough...that is if the hard traditionalist majority doesn't speak up as loudly as they did this summer during the marxist health care town halls.
This man must be stopped, and since the tide is turning against him, I'm getting more and more confident that he will be, and a full scale civil war will be averted.
6
@ 3 Let's keep in mind that foreign countries are under no obligation to accept the credentials of our diplomats, including ambassadors. I doubt that Jamaica would have the balls to reject an openly gay ambassador but the Vatican certainly would.
Good post though, I didn't know that about the Reagan Administration, it seems that we used to send messages through diplomatic postings all the time during the 20th century and it would be nice to see it start happening again.
Good post though, I didn't know that about the Reagan Administration, it seems that we used to send messages through diplomatic postings all the time during the 20th century and it would be nice to see it start happening again.
7
@5, According to the prophecy, will Obama be stopped before or after the children are all converted to homosexuality?
8
Speaking of Reagan's balls-
You do realize that Reagan was responsible for tens of thousands of homosexual men getting AIDS back in the 1980s, don't you.
Don't you, Dan?
You may not be aware of the tragic story since you spent the 80's being duressed into heterosex by bully high school girls (it was a tough decade for teh gays all over...) but here is the story:
Reagan Personally assraped and pumped the AIDS virus up the bloodied rectums of TENS of THOUSANDS of homosexual men.
Reagan's Balls, indeed.
He was an insatiable monster-
prowling the bathrooms of Studio 54,
lurking in the waters of Castro District bathhouses,
hanging out backstage at Village Voice shows-
it was terrible.
Of course, you may know this already.
Perhaps when you wish that our handsome young black President had Reagan's balls you know exactly what you are wishing for...
You do realize that Reagan was responsible for tens of thousands of homosexual men getting AIDS back in the 1980s, don't you.
Don't you, Dan?
You may not be aware of the tragic story since you spent the 80's being duressed into heterosex by bully high school girls (it was a tough decade for teh gays all over...) but here is the story:
Reagan Personally assraped and pumped the AIDS virus up the bloodied rectums of TENS of THOUSANDS of homosexual men.
Reagan's Balls, indeed.
He was an insatiable monster-
prowling the bathrooms of Studio 54,
lurking in the waters of Castro District bathhouses,
hanging out backstage at Village Voice shows-
it was terrible.
Of course, you may know this already.
Perhaps when you wish that our handsome young black President had Reagan's balls you know exactly what you are wishing for...
10
No, I prefer my symbolic sops uncamouflaged by boldness and meaning. It usually turns out icky when presidents get too comfortable using foreign policy to deflect voter discontent over domestic policy.
Don't get me wrong, it would be supercool to have Obama appoint an openly gay or lesbian African-American as ambassador to a country that persecutes its own. But to the extent that would also serve as a Reagan- (or Bush-) style misdirection--one that, as your example hints at, Reagan used with great success to quiet domestic critics whose worries proved not at all unjustified--then I much prefer Obama keep employing his own balls, honestly sluggish though they are, thank you.
Don't get me wrong, it would be supercool to have Obama appoint an openly gay or lesbian African-American as ambassador to a country that persecutes its own. But to the extent that would also serve as a Reagan- (or Bush-) style misdirection--one that, as your example hints at, Reagan used with great success to quiet domestic critics whose worries proved not at all unjustified--then I much prefer Obama keep employing his own balls, honestly sluggish though they are, thank you.
12
can you imagine how shitty it would be, an unwelcome black ambassador to a country that deems you subhuman. I'm glad reagan was able to show south africa that he indeed had a black friend and they could too but don't mistake this as some sign of his altruistic nature.
Dan Savage is dumb.
Dan Savage is dumb.
13
To make use of an appropriate yiddish term, it takes a lot of bad chutzpah to compare South African apartheid to gays not being able to marry. How can any human arrive at such an absurd conclusion is beyond me but Savage has. On top to incite the meddling into Jamaican societal values is no different than what a small white minority did in South Africa by forcing their world view unto the African majority. Savage epitomizes what the new neo colonist mindset is all about.
14
This ambassadorship is a GREAT step forward for equal rights for rich gay white men. For the rest of us, it doesn't mean shit. Here's your crumbs. Enjoy.
15
Seattle LGBT Equality Weekend October 10 – 11, 2009
Seattle OUTProtest has brought together a grassroots coalition of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered and straight people and organizations to organize a series of solidarity events to coincide with the National March for Equality this October.
March and Rally
Forty years after the Stonewall Rebellion, we march in solidarity with our brothers and sisters and allies in Washington, DC to demand equal protection in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states and to show our public support for the Approval of Referendum 71 here in Washington state.
Sunday, October 11
2:00 pm: Volunteer Park, 10th Ave E & E Prospect
5:00 pm: Rally, Federal Courthouse, 7th & Stewart
Thinking Queerly: Community Workshops on LGBT Issues
Community organizers and activists will present a series of workshops on a range of issues affecting the lgbt community including Stonewall and lgbt movement history, homelessness, hate crimes and self defense, lgbt health, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, lgbt legal issues, Gay-Straight Alliances, marriage equality, and more.
Saturday, October 10
9:30 am to 5 pm
Piggot Auditorium, Seattle University
HIV/AIDS Vigil
As the AIDS pandemic nears its fourth decade, we gather to educate and raise awareness about the continued struggles of people living with HIV/AIDS and their families, friends, and support networks as well as to demand all resources and all funding necessary for prevention, treatment, and a cure.
Saturday, October 10
Starting at 6 pm
Seattle Central Community College South Plaza, Broadway & E Pine
Generation Q Mega Mixer
Come mingle and mix with seasoned leaders and activists of the GLBTQ community at the Generation Q Mega Mixer. Young leaders (25 and under please) will have the opportunity to socialize, learn from, and quite possibly have a dance off with some of the community's most inspiring members in a relaxed social environment.
Sunday, October 11
6:30 pm
Sole Repair Shop, 1001 E Pike
Seattle LGBT Equality Weekend March & Rally
http://nationalmarch.seattleoutprotest.o…
Get involved with one of our planning committees! Contact for more time and details:
March/Rally Committee, March@seattleoutprotest.org
Workshops Committee, Workshops@seattleoutprotest.org
Outreach Committee, Outreach@seattleoutprotest.org
Mixer Committee, Mixer@seattleoutprotest.org
HIV/AIDS Vigil Committee, Vigil@seattleoutprotest.org
Biweekly General Organizing Meetings, please contact whitney@seattleoutprotest.org for time and location.
National Equality March: Equality Across America
www.equalityacrossamerica.org
Approve Referendum 71
Keep the Domestic Partnership Law
More...
Seattle OUTProtest has brought together a grassroots coalition of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered and straight people and organizations to organize a series of solidarity events to coincide with the National March for Equality this October.
March and Rally
Forty years after the Stonewall Rebellion, we march in solidarity with our brothers and sisters and allies in Washington, DC to demand equal protection in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states and to show our public support for the Approval of Referendum 71 here in Washington state.
Sunday, October 11
2:00 pm: Volunteer Park, 10th Ave E & E Prospect
5:00 pm: Rally, Federal Courthouse, 7th & Stewart
Thinking Queerly: Community Workshops on LGBT Issues
Community organizers and activists will present a series of workshops on a range of issues affecting the lgbt community including Stonewall and lgbt movement history, homelessness, hate crimes and self defense, lgbt health, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, lgbt legal issues, Gay-Straight Alliances, marriage equality, and more.
Saturday, October 10
9:30 am to 5 pm
Piggot Auditorium, Seattle University
HIV/AIDS Vigil
As the AIDS pandemic nears its fourth decade, we gather to educate and raise awareness about the continued struggles of people living with HIV/AIDS and their families, friends, and support networks as well as to demand all resources and all funding necessary for prevention, treatment, and a cure.
Saturday, October 10
Starting at 6 pm
Seattle Central Community College South Plaza, Broadway & E Pine
Generation Q Mega Mixer
Come mingle and mix with seasoned leaders and activists of the GLBTQ community at the Generation Q Mega Mixer. Young leaders (25 and under please) will have the opportunity to socialize, learn from, and quite possibly have a dance off with some of the community's most inspiring members in a relaxed social environment.
Sunday, October 11
6:30 pm
Sole Repair Shop, 1001 E Pike
Seattle LGBT Equality Weekend March & Rally
http://nationalmarch.seattleoutprotest.o…
Get involved with one of our planning committees! Contact for more time and details:
March/Rally Committee, March@seattleoutprotest.org
Workshops Committee, Workshops@seattleoutprotest.org
Outreach Committee, Outreach@seattleoutprotest.org
Mixer Committee, Mixer@seattleoutprotest.org
HIV/AIDS Vigil Committee, Vigil@seattleoutprotest.org
Biweekly General Organizing Meetings, please contact whitney@seattleoutprotest.org for time and location.
National Equality March: Equality Across America
www.equalityacrossamerica.org
Approve Referendum 71
Keep the Domestic Partnership Law
16
What about having ambassadors that actually have some sort of connection to the country to which they are sent? I understand this is one of those patronage positions, but can't we have it both ways occasionally?
I often wonder what would have happened if Dubya had sent Condi Rice to Russia instead of making her the National Security Advisor. She was obviously over her head in that role, and totally dropped the ball on Al Qaida. She was/is a Soviet expert, and supposedly speaks Russian. Considering Russia's importance in world affairs, and the shrewdness of the man running that country, having someone with some skills on the job would seem like a good idea. (And maybe Putin has a weakness for brown sugar.)
Might be an entirely different world now, and just because of one patronage job.
I often wonder what would have happened if Dubya had sent Condi Rice to Russia instead of making her the National Security Advisor. She was obviously over her head in that role, and totally dropped the ball on Al Qaida. She was/is a Soviet expert, and supposedly speaks Russian. Considering Russia's importance in world affairs, and the shrewdness of the man running that country, having someone with some skills on the job would seem like a good idea. (And maybe Putin has a weakness for brown sugar.)
Might be an entirely different world now, and just because of one patronage job.
17
Loveschild:
You ignorant cunt.
Where does Dan mention marriage in this post?
I think the comparison he did make was to...
"Russia, where anti-gay violence is tolerated/encouraged by the state. Or Saudia Arabia, where gay men are publicly executed. Or Iraq, where death squads hunt gay men"
...which is arguably a far cry worse than apartheid where a race could not own land or vote, but weren't hunted down and murdered solely on the basis of their race if they were otherwise minding their own business and obeying the law.
As natural rights go I rank freedom from death squads ahead of property rights and emancipation or marriage.
Call me crazy.
You ignorant cunt.
Where does Dan mention marriage in this post?
I think the comparison he did make was to...
"Russia, where anti-gay violence is tolerated/encouraged by the state. Or Saudia Arabia, where gay men are publicly executed. Or Iraq, where death squads hunt gay men"
...which is arguably a far cry worse than apartheid where a race could not own land or vote, but weren't hunted down and murdered solely on the basis of their race if they were otherwise minding their own business and obeying the law.
As natural rights go I rank freedom from death squads ahead of property rights and emancipation or marriage.
Call me crazy.
18
The legitimately gutsy move (and one that would have been comparable to Regan's) would have been to appoint an openly gay man to be U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See (The Vatican).
19
#13: Really Loveschild? Comparing the situation of blacks under Aparheid to oppresion of gay people is outrageous? Tutu and Mandela disagree with you.
There's a reason South Africa was the first nation in the world (not Europe, not Canada, not New Zealand) to constitutionally protect gays and lesbians explicitly in their constitution. Coming out of Apartheid the ANC got it: you oppress one group, YOU might be next. Civil Rights are for everyone. South African society is no more open to gay people than many others but their experience with oppression and second-class citizens made them do the right thing.
I can marry my partner in South Africa, I can't in the USA.
There's a reason South Africa was the first nation in the world (not Europe, not Canada, not New Zealand) to constitutionally protect gays and lesbians explicitly in their constitution. Coming out of Apartheid the ANC got it: you oppress one group, YOU might be next. Civil Rights are for everyone. South African society is no more open to gay people than many others but their experience with oppression and second-class citizens made them do the right thing.
I can marry my partner in South Africa, I can't in the USA.
21
@ 17 Trash, Everyone who has read this blog in the last months knows that gay marriage is behind everything Savage posts concerning gays. I agree that no one should be killed because of their behavior but Russian or Saudi society have their own history and moral codes, you can provide them advice and they can accepted or reject it. But to imply as he and you have that offenses committed against people because of their race (not an act but something physical) can be talked about as the same as a behavior is wrong. Only a moron believes that Africans were not killed, jailed and subjected to far more terror by whites than anything suspected homosexuals have experienced in Saudi Arabia (where it is said that homosexual acts are somewhat rampant these days) or in Iraq. Race cannot be disguised or kept in the closet.
22
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, (Loveschild is different by now - she's more like an ankle-nipping housepet you can't help but kind of like), but I just have to express my admiration for how precisely in tune Lord Basil is with the general political tenor of Dan Savage and this blog. You go sir!
Really though, a good paranoid-wingnut rant is to be savored, like fine wine. But like wine, they should be taken in moderation.
Really though, a good paranoid-wingnut rant is to be savored, like fine wine. But like wine, they should be taken in moderation.
23
19 Even tho i don't agree with the current South African position on this. To me they seem to may have over extended their laws when it comes to marriage, but given their history and what they went thru it's understandable. I respect it as the sovereign nation that they are. That however doesn't mean that the same model needs to be forced upon all nations just because "a vocal minority group" (as mr Savage correctly stated) wants to do so thru harassment or thru the use of political maneuvering (as he is trying to imply on this post) which could be construed as nothing more than an imposition of values from one group unto another. The days of minority or nations of european descent dictating to other nations are gone with 20th century and will not be brought back no matter how much Savage yearns for them.
24
Loveschild @21, you appear to be assuming the matter is a difference between behavior and identity when it's not. Arguably, religion has a stronger basis in behavior -- as the vector of nurture to religious faith is clearly mapped out -- than does sexual orientation, which while not hereditary (obviously), still has natural (i.e. inherent, non-nurture) components.
Hence, since we regard religious faith as a matter of identity, it follows that we regard sexual orientation as a matter of identity as well.
To address your objection to the comparison of the gay rights struggle to apartheid, please note that gay segregation (if not extermination) is exactly what the opponents of gay marriage want. Left unchallenged, they'd not only kill the rights for gays to work or raise children, but would force them to contain their gay identity within the confines of their skull.
Until recently, for example sodomy was a capital crime in Texas, and you apparently have forgotten how they kill gays in Iraq.
Incidentally, Dan's big push is for gay rights, not merely marriage. He just wants the same thing that the mainstream's got. No more.
Hence, since we regard religious faith as a matter of identity, it follows that we regard sexual orientation as a matter of identity as well.
To address your objection to the comparison of the gay rights struggle to apartheid, please note that gay segregation (if not extermination) is exactly what the opponents of gay marriage want. Left unchallenged, they'd not only kill the rights for gays to work or raise children, but would force them to contain their gay identity within the confines of their skull.
Until recently, for example sodomy was a capital crime in Texas, and you apparently have forgotten how they kill gays in Iraq.
Incidentally, Dan's big push is for gay rights, not merely marriage. He just wants the same thing that the mainstream's got. No more.
25
Or, maybe, just maybe, this appointment wasn't supposed to MEAN anything to appease Dems but he just appointed the best man to the job? And that man just happens to be gay. Maybe? Possibly?
27
#25: Yeah, to be fair the only place I've seen Obama claiming to be bragging about this appointment is here. I don't know if this was ever intended to be such a big deal.
I'm a big homo, but I have to admit sometimes my people have the tendency to assume it's always all about them. This might not be meant to be that.
I'm a big homo, but I have to admit sometimes my people have the tendency to assume it's always all about them. This might not be meant to be that.
29
@25...how hard can it be to be ambassador to New Zealand? Is getting the "right" person in there all that critical?
30
@24: Even before Lawrence v. Texas (2003), sodomy was not a capital crime in Texas. A capital crime is one punishable by death.
31
@25
I totally agree! Um, Obama appointed a guy to be an ambassador to New Zealand. Who is also openly gay. It's not a fucking political statement dumbasses. Chances are, of all the hundreds of ambassadors out there, a few are bound to be gay. Jesus, people. It's not always all about YOU, drama queens. Don't take your lead from Dan.
I totally agree! Um, Obama appointed a guy to be an ambassador to New Zealand. Who is also openly gay. It's not a fucking political statement dumbasses. Chances are, of all the hundreds of ambassadors out there, a few are bound to be gay. Jesus, people. It's not always all about YOU, drama queens. Don't take your lead from Dan.
32
I found the story about Regan's appointment very interesting and I agree with many of Dan's points.
That said, I wonder if Dan made the Jamaica suggestion because his own weed supply has gone dry lately.
That said, I wonder if Dan made the Jamaica suggestion because his own weed supply has gone dry lately.
33
Let's look at some donation records for Obama appointment of a Gay Inc leader to
an ambassadorial position:
http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2009/10/ga…
Let's look at some donation records for Obama appointment of a Gay Inc leader to
an ambassadorial position:
http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2009/10/ga…
34
I think Reagan was also a closet tolerant. While his slow response to AIDS was terrible, wasn't he the first president to let an openly gay couple stay in the White House? Sure, this wasn't advertized. He also opposed the California initiative to fire gay teachers (the one from "Milk"). In biography after biography I read about how he and Nancy treated gay couples as equals.
I think once the liberal Baby Boomer narrative is exhausted Reagan will be viewed as a mediocre president, but one who was an expert at keeping the various factions of the Republican Party together. The Gerald Ford/Nelson Rockefeller Liberals, the Goldwater Libertarians, the new Evangelical faction of Falwell and Robertson, the cultural redneck Republicans now clinging to Sarah Palin. They all liked Reagan. In foreign policy he talked a talk he only executed with caution: bail from Lebanaon (quagmire) go to Grenada (easy win). Ditto domestically: rail against taxes even though he lowered once and raised twice.
Liberals want to make Reagan the Bogeyman (or if they are feeling generous an old actor who gave a good speech), and conservatives have reinvented him as the Messiah. It made me sick how much the GOP primaries twisted Reagan's legacy. Here's the truth: he was neither. He was good at making everyone feel good and keeping the cultural conservative believing "their man" was in charge, even as he only threw them the occasional bone and acted more Eisenhower-esque than anyone in the party would admit.
The worst legacy of Reagan is that he left a generation of Republicans who actually took his rhetoric at face value
I think once the liberal Baby Boomer narrative is exhausted Reagan will be viewed as a mediocre president, but one who was an expert at keeping the various factions of the Republican Party together. The Gerald Ford/Nelson Rockefeller Liberals, the Goldwater Libertarians, the new Evangelical faction of Falwell and Robertson, the cultural redneck Republicans now clinging to Sarah Palin. They all liked Reagan. In foreign policy he talked a talk he only executed with caution: bail from Lebanaon (quagmire) go to Grenada (easy win). Ditto domestically: rail against taxes even though he lowered once and raised twice.
Liberals want to make Reagan the Bogeyman (or if they are feeling generous an old actor who gave a good speech), and conservatives have reinvented him as the Messiah. It made me sick how much the GOP primaries twisted Reagan's legacy. Here's the truth: he was neither. He was good at making everyone feel good and keeping the cultural conservative believing "their man" was in charge, even as he only threw them the occasional bone and acted more Eisenhower-esque than anyone in the party would admit.
The worst legacy of Reagan is that he left a generation of Republicans who actually took his rhetoric at face value
35
It should be noted that Reagan only made the Perkins appointment AFTER Congress embarrassed him over his longstanding refusal to put any real pressure on South Africa's racist regime. His South Africa policy was driven by a bullshit theory called "constructive engagement" that essentially did nothing; Desmond Tutu took him to task over it in an amazing speech at the time ("n my view, the Reagan administration’s support and collaboration with it is equally immoral, evil, and totally un-Christian.")
Reagan vetoed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 that put stricter sanctions on the apartheid regime. Congress stood up to him and overrode it, under the leadership of Ted Kennedy and many others who refused to pretend that the apartheid regime's supposedly "anti-communist" stance was more important than doing what was right. Kennedy went to South Africa in 1985 to expose the injustices there - over the objections of Reagan and of Perkins' predecessor, Herman Nickel. (I believe that Ambassador Nickel openly denounced the trip.)
Point being that, yeah, Reagan's act of appointing Perkins was audacious in a sense, but he didn't do it because he was warmhearted or truly brave. He did it because the political climate of the moment forced him to do so. I suspect that the same would happen with the Obama administration if the pressure were there.
Reagan vetoed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 that put stricter sanctions on the apartheid regime. Congress stood up to him and overrode it, under the leadership of Ted Kennedy and many others who refused to pretend that the apartheid regime's supposedly "anti-communist" stance was more important than doing what was right. Kennedy went to South Africa in 1985 to expose the injustices there - over the objections of Reagan and of Perkins' predecessor, Herman Nickel. (I believe that Ambassador Nickel openly denounced the trip.)
Point being that, yeah, Reagan's act of appointing Perkins was audacious in a sense, but he didn't do it because he was warmhearted or truly brave. He did it because the political climate of the moment forced him to do so. I suspect that the same would happen with the Obama administration if the pressure were there.
36
SpecialBrew the newspapers reviewed Reagan as a mediocre president the day after he left the White House. I just remember loving to listen to him speak. I think the contemporary resentment has more to do with conservative stratagems started on his watch (some by his administration) that continued into the age of Murdochian propaganda-news.
David Wright @30 You're right. I'm not sure where I got the idea that they were sending gays to the chair or the gallows, but I was sure of it. Maybe I'm confusing lynchings with state executions. I don't know.
Speaking to Obama's fierce advocacy by way of gay ambassadorships, I think his administration at least owes his bosses (that's us) a real explanation and a time / action schedule of when we can expect things to happen, either by date or as we reach certain milestones. Doing so would also fit into his established policy of transparent government, a precedent I'd like to see followed by future administrations.
David Wright @30 You're right. I'm not sure where I got the idea that they were sending gays to the chair or the gallows, but I was sure of it. Maybe I'm confusing lynchings with state executions. I don't know.
Speaking to Obama's fierce advocacy by way of gay ambassadorships, I think his administration at least owes his bosses (that's us) a real explanation and a time / action schedule of when we can expect things to happen, either by date or as we reach certain milestones. Doing so would also fit into his established policy of transparent government, a precedent I'd like to see followed by future administrations.
37
If recent events are any indication, an openly gay ambassador to Jamaica wouldn't last a month without getting murdered.
38
Jamaica is a good choice, and Obama should definitely do it. The Vatican is a great choice, too.
But I would also add Singapore to the list. Singapore is among the countries that just needs a little nudge -- a triggering event -- to eliminate its legacy British colonial anti-sodomy laws. It's a cosmopolitan, modern country that seeks to attract international investment. The anti-sodomy laws are rarely enforced there nowadays, and they are increasingly anachronistic. If Singapore gets rid of the laws, it could influence other countries in Asia to do the same.
In that context, the best ambassadorial choice for Singapore would be a same-sex married couple: the ambassador who brings his spouse.
But I would also add Singapore to the list. Singapore is among the countries that just needs a little nudge -- a triggering event -- to eliminate its legacy British colonial anti-sodomy laws. It's a cosmopolitan, modern country that seeks to attract international investment. The anti-sodomy laws are rarely enforced there nowadays, and they are increasingly anachronistic. If Singapore gets rid of the laws, it could influence other countries in Asia to do the same.
In that context, the best ambassadorial choice for Singapore would be a same-sex married couple: the ambassador who brings his spouse.
39
What seems ballsy at first is really a foolhardy and dangerous idea - no one else has mentioned it here, but on Septmber 9th:
"An honorary consul to the British High Commission in Jamaica was found brutally murdered in his Montego Bay home on Sep 9.
"John Terry was found naked, wrapped in a bloody sheet, with a cord wrapped tightly around his neck. He had been brutally beaten in the head. There was reportedly a note left with Terry’s body that read, 'This is what will happen to all gays.' It was signed by 'Gay-Man.'
The hatred in Jamaica extends to foreign diplomats - it would be very dangerous to send any gay man in to do THAT job..
Read more at: www.xtra.ca/public/National/British_cons…;
"An honorary consul to the British High Commission in Jamaica was found brutally murdered in his Montego Bay home on Sep 9.
"John Terry was found naked, wrapped in a bloody sheet, with a cord wrapped tightly around his neck. He had been brutally beaten in the head. There was reportedly a note left with Terry’s body that read, 'This is what will happen to all gays.' It was signed by 'Gay-Man.'
The hatred in Jamaica extends to foreign diplomats - it would be very dangerous to send any gay man in to do THAT job..
Read more at: www.xtra.ca/public/National/British_cons…;
40
Obama did effectively just send an ambassador to an horrifically homophobic country, Samoa.
The island is completely overrun with fundamentalist churches of every stripe from Mormons, to Baptists and Seventh Day Adventists, where the believers are more hardcore than any of their American fellow travellers.
The island is completely overrun with fundamentalist churches of every stripe from Mormons, to Baptists and Seventh Day Adventists, where the believers are more hardcore than any of their American fellow travellers.
41
Oh Dan, I love how you're shamelessly implying, meh, our relationship with Jamaica isn't that big of a deal, anyway.
43
What a joke! Von Reagan's policies toward Apartheid-Era South Africa amounted to little more than Von Reagan playing the monkey to P.W. Botha's organ grinder. Von Reagan shilled for the Apartheid regime at every turn, even telling the most preposterous lies, such as the one about white South Africa standing beside Uncle Sam "in every war we've ever fought".
It was the anti-Apartheid activists (Randall Robinson, Jesse Jackson, et al) who pushed Congress to not only pass sanctions, cut off aid to RENAMO and UNITA (South Africa's death squad proxies in Mozambique and Angola) and did so by overriding Ronald Von Reagan's vetoes.
It was the anti-Apartheid activists (Randall Robinson, Jesse Jackson, et al) who pushed Congress to not only pass sanctions, cut off aid to RENAMO and UNITA (South Africa's death squad proxies in Mozambique and Angola) and did so by overriding Ronald Von Reagan's vetoes.
44
I take the UK no longer has relations with Jamaica?
I suppose we could borrow an idea from Stephenson's Snow Crash and attach a nuclear device to the vital signs of our ambassador to Jamaica, just to make it clear that anything short of being deathly terrified for his daily personal welfare would be regarded as an act of war against the US.
And then not only assign someone who is openly gay, but stereotypically gay. It has the makings of a dark comedy.
I suppose we could borrow an idea from Stephenson's Snow Crash and attach a nuclear device to the vital signs of our ambassador to Jamaica, just to make it clear that anything short of being deathly terrified for his daily personal welfare would be regarded as an act of war against the US.
And then not only assign someone who is openly gay, but stereotypically gay. It has the makings of a dark comedy.
45
I take the UK no longer has relations with Jamaica?
I suppose we could borrow an idea from Stephenson's Snow Crash and attach a nuclear device to the vital signs of our ambassador to Jamaica, just to make it clear that anything short of being deathly terrified for his daily personal welfare would be regarded as an act of war against the US.
And then not only assign someone who is openly gay, but stereotypically gay. It has the makings of a dark comedy.
I suppose we could borrow an idea from Stephenson's Snow Crash and attach a nuclear device to the vital signs of our ambassador to Jamaica, just to make it clear that anything short of being deathly terrified for his daily personal welfare would be regarded as an act of war against the US.
And then not only assign someone who is openly gay, but stereotypically gay. It has the makings of a dark comedy.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
SL Letter of the Day: Insane Demands by Dan Savage
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
-
SL Letters of the Day: Just Say No to DSGs by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Gonna Boil My Laptop After Answering This One by Dan Savage
-
Bigot Florist Files Countersuit by Dominic Holden
-
America Doesn't Care About Black People by Charles Mudede
-
"Bus service shouldn't be optional—it should be a right." by Cienna Madrid
-
US Military Grants Itself the Power to Police American Streets and "Quell" "Civil Disturbances" by Brendan Kiley
-
Fucking NBA Rejects Kings Move to Seattle by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (45) RSS