I never understood what the “gay problem”
is all about. As far as I am concerned, the moral
aspect is simple: as long as the people involved
are consenting adults, what they do in their bedrooms
is only and exclusively their own business, end
of story. Alas, plenty of people who are otherwise
adamantly against any interference of the government
in the private life of its citizens (e.g., when
it comes to business practice or guns control),
cry out loud for a government-imposed “morality”
that extends from the treatment of gays to that
of abortion practices and school prayer.
It was therefore no surprise that last November
the US Army dismissed nine of its linguists—all
experts in crucial languages for the “war”
against terrorism, such as Arabic, Korean and
Mandarin Chinese —invoking that most unfortunate
Clinton doctrine, the “don’t ask don’t
tell” policy that has regulated dismissal
of gays from the military over the past few years.
As readers may remember, President Clinton started
out his first term with a couple of bold moves,
one of which was an executive order that would
have made it as normal for gays as it is (now)
for blacks to be in the army (the other bold move
was the call for a universal health care system,
which ended in total catastrophe despite Democratic
control of both the House and Senate, but that’s
another story). Soon came immediate criticism
from the far right, coupled with the obvious fact
that the gay community can’t muster more
than a limited number of votes which usually go
to the Democrats anyway (ah, the beauty of a two-party
system with essentially no choices!). The predictable
result was that Clinton “moderated”
his stance and ended up proposing his infamous
“don’t ask don’t tell” compromise.
From a moral perspective, the new policy makes
no sense: one either thinks that a gay lifestyle
is incompatible with the “values” of
the military, in which case allowing gays to stay
just because they don’t declare themselves
is simple opportunism; or one thinks that the
sexual habits of one’s soldiers matter not
to the functionality of one’s army, in which
case the policy is an example of moral cowardice.
Either way, Clinton, gays, and rationality lose,
while bigotry scores points.
From a practical viewpoint, furthermore, not
only there is absolutely no evidence that the
presence of gays in the military has any negative
effect on troops morale (remember, the same was
said of blacks and women, before those issues
were settled), but we have at least one glaring
example—the Netherlands—of an army which
openly embraces gay culture and doesn’t seem
to be any worse for it.
But the more interesting point one can take from
this and similar discussions (e.g., those about
abortion and school prayers) is that the standard
distinction between “liberals” and “conservatives”
in terms of being respectively in favor and against
a large role of government in our lives just doesn’t
cut it. In reality, we need to consider at least
two major axes along which political positions
and public opinions can be distinguished: on the
one hand, there is the “economic” axis,
on the other hand, the “social” axis.
One can call for little governmental interference
in economic matters while at the same time cry
out for a large role of big brother in people’s
bedrooms and public schools. Such person would
be a religious conservative. But it is also possible
to be a libertarian and favor little or no government
influence in any sphere of life (except perhaps
national defense). A third position is occupied
by people who would want a large role of government
in the control of the economy (to balance the
natural tendency of big business to act amorally
and with reckless disregard for the public good),
but little in the sphere of personal life. That
would be a progressive liberal, such as myself.
Then there is the strawman “pink” liberal
that most people in America seem to love to hate,
the guy who wishes for governmental control of
everything, communist-style. Needless to say,
this fourth corner of our logical space of political
positions is essentially empty in this country
(though certainly not throughout the world).
Reality, of course, is more complicated that
this simple classification may hint at, but thinking
along the two axes of economy and social issues
at least brings us beyond the simplistic dichotomy
of “liberal vs. conservative.” It also
strongly suggests that we should have at least
three, and possibly four, parties to represent
the four corners sketched above. Instead, we are
forced to choose between two alternatives that
don’t quite fit what a growing number of
Americans actually thinks. I therefore propose
to split the Republican party into one of economic
conservatives but social moderates, and one of
economic and social conservatives (the latter
mostly populated by the Christian right). Democrats
could split into social and economic liberals
on one hand, and social liberals but economic
conservatives on the other. But who is going to
force such healthy multiplication of political
choices: the people, or the government?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next month:
America, Europe, and the rest
of the world
© by Massimo Pigliucci, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back
to Article Index | Home
|
