The recent news
that congressman Mark Foley had been vindicated of all
charges associated with allegations that he'd sent sexually
explicit e-mails and instant messages to former
congressional pages is not entirely surprising -- but
not for the reasons that have been discussed at length
previously in The Advocate. The investigation
by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement has to be
viewed in a much larger context.
During their
investigation of Foley, law enforcement officials ran into a
pretty big obstacle: Congress. After investigators were
initially denied access to Foley's office computer by
the House Office of General Counsel, Florida
Department of Law Enforcement commissioner Gerald Bailey
appealed directly to House speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Rather than
intervene and provide investigators with an opportunity to
discover whether laws had been broken, Pelosi forwarded the
letter without comment to the House Office of General
Counsel. The counsel's office promptly denied the
request once again.
This is important
because it is indicative of an astonishingly pervasive
mode of operation in our nation's capital. It is part of
every aspect of Washington society: politicians,
media, advocacy organizations, lobbying firms, and
staff. It's like the cocktail party circuit that everybody
wants to be a part of, so they smile and say polite things.
Anything that upsets the delicate balance of the party
is frowned upon in a very serious way.
Accordingly, each
of these elements of Washington operates to
preserve the status quo, thus inherently being averse
to anything that would promote change or threaten
existing power structures. It is what's wrong
with Washington, and it is what may have prevented the
full truth about Foley's actions from being known to the
American public.
It is the same
mentality that prevented Republican leadership from
dealing with Foley's proclivities before they became public.
It is the same mentality that saw both Democrats and
Republicans protest the FBI's search of congressman
William Jefferson's office following the discovery of
$90,000 in his freezer. It is the same mentality that
prevented Democrats from using their newfound
congressional majority, complete with subpoena power,
to investigate and prosecute the gross abuses of the law
by the Bush administration.
Organizations and
their lobbyists are also a part of what prevents change
-- in our case, achieving civil equality. Much time,
effort, and money go into building relationships with
members of Congress and their staff. These
relationships, in essence, become intangible assets to our
advocacy groups. Because of their investment, anything that
threatens these assets is looked upon unfavorably,
disavowed, and avoided.
It is the reason
the Human Rights Campaign fired me when I volunteered to
them, for fear of them being blindsided with the
information, that I was the anonymous blogger who
exposed the Foley scandal. It is also why they pushed
the information out as quickly as possible. They wanted no
association with something that had the potential to
change the balance of power in Washington. I
understood this well, and that is why I acted
anonymously.
James Kirchick
questions the motivation behind exposing the behavior of
Mark Foley. This is couched in a larger discussion on the
ethics of outing, which naturally lends itself to how
it affects our movement.
I have long
contended that I did not out Mark Foley -- rather, I
helped to expose unethical and possibly illegal behavior.
Whether or not to out closeted politicians is a
complicated issue, and I don't purport to know better
than anyone else. People who do this will be judged
individually. They know this.
Recently, at the
National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association
national convention, this was a topic of discussion on a
panel that I sat on. I shared with the panel and the
audience the conclusion that I have reached on this
and the advice I had for journalists considering the
outing of a politician. When someone lives a closeted life,
they lie on a daily basis to themselves and those
around them. In the case of politicians, it's an even
more complex lie.
It's an unhealthy
way to live. In so many cases, people in power become
confident that they have successfully covered up their
biggest secret, and that leads them to believe they
can get away with almost anything. My advice to the
journalists was this: "Where there is smoke, there is
probably fire."
Being gay isn't
wrong. Abusing power and betraying the public trust is.
Truth is always a good thing.
I find these to
be good principles to live by, whether being an advocate
or a professional. If more of our brothers and sisters lived
by these principles, we wouldn't need to discuss the
issues raised by Kirchick. Let's hope that we can get
to a place where these issues are a thing of the
past.
