From Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit:
Why are liberals so homophobic? https://t.co/b6WmOyoXqr
— Instapundit.com (@instapundit) July 12, 2017
By Andrew Kahn
Now that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin have met in the flesh, our obsession with imagining the president as a gay man has reached a climax. Frank Bruni used his Thursday column in the New York Times to publish a work of fan fiction, “Donnie and Vlad: A Love Story,” about the “irrepressible,” unrequited, and ultimately “gross” affection of the commander in chief for the leader of Russia. As the men talked behind closed doors for over two hours at the G-20 summit, Twitter got to work:
Ah, young love. https://t.co/Gh8LjJNagf
— John Dingell (@JohnDingell) July 7, 2017
Trump must be terrible at blowjobs if it’s taking this long. https://t.co/Q90QKwavjy
— Michael Ian Black (@michaelianblack) July 7, 2017
The joke is not that old, but it feels ancient. The Lithuanian mural atop Bruni’s piece of Trump and Putin kissing went viral over a year ago; Trump smooched a shirtless Putin on Saturday Night Live in November; and Stephen Colbert was assailed for calling Trump Putin’s “cock holster” in May. In the press, where it’s generally untoward to tease a president in explicitly sexual terms, Trump is said to have many “bromances”—attempted, “budding,” ongoing, and failed: with Tom Brady, with James Comey, with Rodrigo Duterte, with Andrew Jackson (d. 1845), with Morning Joe, with Kim Jong-un, with Narendra Modi (actually a romance, no b), with Rupert Murdoch, with Elon Musk, with Benjamin Netanyahu, with Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi, with Xi Jinping. And with Qatar Airways CEO Akbar El-Baker. And, of course, with Putin. (Trump has not, according to the press, had a ro- or bromance with Peter Thiel, who is gay and just his “tech pal.”) These references occur regularly in straight news coverage as ostensibly neutral descriptions. They’re also very, very popular with political cartoonists.
The trope is deployed not because it is novel but because it is not. It is hammered like a schoolyard taunt, with a smug assurance that Trump has been duly “trolled.” Like a lot of liberal comedy right now, it serves a fantasy of resistance through snark. (Think of Seth Rogen’s dumb Twitter messages to Donald Jr., recently glorified on Colbert’s show, or the news—ecstatically received in February and then chronicled as legend only three months later—that Melissa McCarthy had humiliated Sean Spicer.) Sexual politics aside, our glee in calling Trump gay says more about us than it does about him.
There’s more at the original, but it’s par for the course for the left. The stereotypical insinuation is that male homosexuals are weak and effeminate, weakness and femininity being conflated, and that is just what the left are doing with it’s use of homosexual slurs against President Trump.
It’s pretty obvious that the President is not homosexual, given his predilection for seeking trophy wives. He could, I suppose, have had a homosexual dalliance or two about which we know nothing, but it seems somewhat far-fetched that he could have done anything which has really remained secret, given the intensity of the scrutiny under which he has been since he declared his candidacy.
The left know that, yet they continue to use homosexual insults against the President. Why? The left suppose that conservatives see homosexuality as the worst insult which can be made against someone, so they use it. Trouble is, in doing so, they not only reveal their own hypocrisy, homosexual acceptance being one of the major tenets of modern ‘progressive’ thinking, but that they hold, themselves, the negative stereotypes of homosexuals that they project on conservatives.
The use of such against the President is nothing new; when the Rev Jerry Falwell died, the left gleefully characterized him as being sodomized in Hell. Yet conservatives, who supposedly abhor all things homosexual, with the unfortunate notable exception of the characterization of Hillary Clinton as being a lesbian,1 have tended not to do that.
Why don’t conservatives use that tactic? I cannot speak for anyone else, but I don’t use it because it is an assault on the truth, and the truth about the left is damning enough as far as I am concerned. I would guess that most other conservatives are sensible enough to realize that using homosexuality as an insulting implication against liberals, when such things aren’t actually true, only weakens their arguments. One would think that the oh-so-intellectual left would be able to see that weakness as well, but apparently many of them cannot.
Then again, for all of their claims of superior intellect, the left are actually pretty stupid.
- Something that this writer has not done. ↩