A lament for what might have been for Kentucky and what will not be
Matt Gunterman June 19th, 2007
As a society and a state, we only have so much energy — whether it be intellectual, emotional, or physical — to devote to the causes we collectively identify as important to our present and future.
Where we put our collective efforts and what we make our common priorities are our free choices, and each and every state and our nation as a whole faces its choices.
And those choices have consequences.
I think it’s fair to say, and I believe historians of Kentucky agree on this point, that the aggregate of our state’s decision making since about the end of the Civil War has been on the less progressive side, and the end result is that — relative to the other states — Kentucky has fallen behind. We are undeniably at the bottom of nearly every indicator one cares to cite on trends of potential and prosperity.
Lots of lip service comes from our business and political communities about doing what needs to be done to “get Kentucky ahead” in the nation, but when the going gets a little tough, Kentucky always seems to take a little break from the action to wipe its brow and contemplate the world, while the persistent states chug right along, rarely taking their eye off the goal. That’s what happened in Kentucky with education reform and investment, that’s what’s happened with infrastructural development, that’s what’s taken place with the environment and natural resource management, and it’s even a trend that’s measurable in our culture.
Our culture? Yes, our culture. Most people probably think of Kentucky’s culture as an asset, and in many ways it most certainly is, from the landscapes of the Bluegrass, to Churchill Downs, to the musical sounds of Appalachia and Rosine and so much more.
Yet, there are terribly regressive elements to our culture, as well, and that fact has been made painfully clear in the reaction of Kentucky’s social and political “establishment” to President George W. Bush’s nomination of Dr. James W. Holsinger, with his record of an irrational and unscientific anti-gay agenda, as the nation’s next surgeon general. I’m not talking about the reaction of the everyday Kentuckian here because we haven’t seen any measure of it. What I’m speaking of is the collective voice of Kentucky’s chattering class, its self-defined elite population: it has come out in full force behind the Holsinger nomination.
Before I turn to the specifics of that reaction and the problems with it, I want to first make this more general point. Why is it important for Kentucky to embrace — not just tolerate — its homosexual population? Well, can any society prosper and turn its back on something like 5 percent of its population — a population that research tells us is generally very well educated and earns high-than-average incomes? And, keep in mind, while we turn our backs on them, other states are welcoming them with open arms. Some people might argue that we can do without that highly productive 5 percent or — perhaps it is better to say — we can do without that 5 percent producing at its highest potential.
Yet, imagine the aggregate effect of oppressing and/or losing that population over the course of a generation. It will be substantial, won’t it? Furthermore, our loss will be the gain of others. These people won’t simply roll over and not produce in their lives and careers; they’ll simply go elsewhere and find success. And, let’s be realistic here: a generation from now, attitudes towards homosexuals will be very accepting and lax, just as in the last generation we’ve seen attitudes towards race and interracial marriage liberalize.
So, for a moment, let’s put ourselves in the shoes of our grandchildren, who will not have inherited our general fear and hatred of homosexuals, but who will have inherited the inferior society and economy that we ourselves built around that fear and hatred. Attitudes will change, but there’s nothing stopping them from changing now except our own refusal to do so.
The hard thing for us to do as Kentuckians today is to say to ourselves, “You know, I don’t agree with it, I don’t think it’s right in the eyes of God, I would never engage in that sort of activity myself, but by golly these people are human beings, taxpayers, and they have their civil rights, and so let them be and let’s build a society where we call prosper and all have an equal stake.”
That would be the hard thing for Kentuckians to do, and — quite frankly — I can tell you today that we aren’t going to do it. We aren’t going to do it because its the cultural equivalent of work, and we’re taking the lazy way out on this one. We’ll let time take its course, and we’ll let our children’s children suffer the consequences and lament the repercussions of what was our emotional sloth.
Now, back to Kentucky’s chattering class and its favorable reception of Dr. James W. Holsinger’s nomination. Both the Louisville Courier-Journal and the Lexington Herald-Leader have endorsed the nomination, and even as more facts about Holsinger’s controversial and pseudo-scientifically problematic views on homosexuality have come to light, they have continued to aggressively defend their previous endorsements.
In fact, their articles have taken a rather populist tone by stating that Holsinger’s greatest sin is arguing that “male homosexual sex was unnatural and unhealthy,” a statement most Kentuckians likely agree with, but their belief of it, or Holsinger’s for that matter, still doesn’t change the fact that it’s well outside the realm of established medical consensus. Furthermore, Holsinger’s huge lapse in judgment was his attempt to wrap his own religious opinions on homosexuality in an aura of science by disingenuously cherry picking research data.
The Op-Ed pages of the papers have been filled with taunts like this from Martin Cothran, a senior policy analyst for the Family Foundation of Kentucky:
Yes, it sounds incredible, but there it is: a doctor who thinks anal sex isn’t healthful. Just what turnip truck did this guy fall off of anyway? Where has he been the last few years? Studying AIDS data or something? OK, we know that people used to take medicine seriously and that once upon a time, doctors based their opinions on actual evidence. But aren’t we past all that? Haven’t we come to the realization some things are more important than medical facts?
Or, let’s take this piece from Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for Concerned Women for America, which both Kentucky papers have now run.
The irrefutable reality that thousands of former homosexuals have chosen to leave the gay lifestyle they once chose to enter serves to further bolster — if not prove entirely –Holsinger’s advised medical assessment.
Kentucky’s major newspapers are gladly serving as platforms for the radical right to rile up the basest fears and hatreds of Kentuckians. Why? Because to stir up this outrage serves the purposes of the chattering class: to push the Holsinger nomination at all costs. The chattering class in Kentucky tolerates gays, so long as those gays are content to know their place and accept their second-class status.
Now, however, this arrangement is out of whack because the progress of the nation and Kentucky’s gay community is conflicting with the agenda of the state’s chattering class. The chattering class wants a Kentucky surgeon general; they want the prestige and have grand visions of Holsinger developing into the next C. Everret Coop.
The gay community and the nation as a whole, however, believes it’s time we stand up to the bigotry that Holsinger’s professionally stated opinions represent. The opinions he holds, in other words, are unacceptable to the mainstream of the nation, regardless of what the mainstream of Kentucky is; the nomination, after all, is to serve as the nation’s surgeon general, not Kentucky’s.
The surgeon general is in significant part a figurehead position, a symbol of the vibrancy of the medical profession in the United States, and it’s quite obvious to everyone involved but Kentucky’s chattering class that this nation can find a far more appropriate and unifying figure to be that head than Dr. James W. Holsinger.
The person in all of this who has disappointed me most, however, is Democratic Congressman John Yarmuth, who represents Louisville and who yesterday endorsed Holsinger’s nomination.
Yarmuth fashions himself a liberal, and we don’t have many politicians in Kentucky who do that. He represents a traditionally Democratic city and district, one with a sizable population of people who have suffered from persecution in the past and continue to do so. I don’t expect Republicans or conservatives to understand the nuances of this issue or even what’s at stake for our future in it. That’s why we have liberals and progressives: to imagine a better future and fight for it. That’s their social and political function.
We needed Yarmuth’s leadership on this one, and we’re not going to get it. It’s a shame. We know how the future will judge his failure on this one, and I for one plan to be around to remember it.
As I pointed out yesterday, if the paper that Holsinger had published in 1991 had argued against interracial marriage, a practice which is still abhorred by many on the religious right in this nation, I doubt Yarmuth’s representative would have said that the congressman:
“…finds ample reason to believe that those opinions will not interfere with (Holsinger’s) work (as surgeon general), that as a practicing professional he’s never let that interfere.”
So, the chattering class in Kentucky could have made a powerful statement in opposing the Holsinger nomination. It could have said:
‘It would be flattering to have a Kentuckian as surgeon general, but unfortunately President Bush, while choosing a man with impressive professional credentials, has also selected one whose religious campaign against homosexuals, which he attempted to bolster by misrepresenting and inappropriately contextualizing scientific data, places the nominee outside the mainstream on the issue of increasing tolerance of homosexuals in American society. This issue is one our nation — and our state, especially — needs leadership on, and we believe that James W. Holsinger cannot provide that leadership. Therefore, we oppose his nomination.
But that didn’t happen.
- Anti-Science Agenda , Homophobia , James W. Holsinger , Surgeon General
- Comments(26)
Great Post Matt. Here, here. The Herald-Leader is being a coward on this one- which fits in with my next Nougat column about those in the media afraid to stand up for what is right because it is for the moment unpopular.
This is really powerful. Thanks for writing this. If only people would listen.
Holy crap - I’ve been so preoccupied with some personal issues, that Yarmuth endorsement went totally under my radar.
Matt Barber? So glad there’s a man out there to speak for concerned women. Christ. “The irrefutable reality that thousands of former homosexuals have chosen to leave the gay lifestyle they once chose to enter serves to further bolster — if not prove entirely –Holsinger’s advised medical assessment.”
Actually, dude, that’s totally refutable.
This makes NO sense at all. I have read and reread the bit about Yarmuth and cannot figure out how you get an “endorsement” out of that. Honestly, are you just looking to pick a fight. He says that he’s “concerned,” but seems to be withholding judgement… that’s why we have Senate approval. This is really bad journalism.
Interesting Harold Johnson that your IP address is:
housegate10.house.gov
I’m not looking to pick a fight, by the way, Harold Johnson, I’m just pointing out that the brave and proper thing — for a liberal — would be to oppose the nomination.
Oh, also, Harold Johnson, if Yarmuth wants to “clarify” his “endorsement” into some opposition, you’d better believe I’ll sing his praises. Until then, I’m just going to say he’s a coward.
This makes NO sense at all. I have read and reread the bit about Yarmuth and cannot figure out how you get an “endorsement” out of that. Honestly, are you just looking to pick a fight. He says that he’s “concerned,” but seems to be withholding judgement… that’s why we have Senate approval. Lexington’s ABC affiliate reported that Yarmuth was the only member of the delegation that has reservations. This whole grudge gunterman has is pretty ridiculous, this quote from a spokesman (not an endorsement) should NOT negate the fact the yarmuth has been fantastic thus far.
Harold, if Yarmuth “[finding] ample reason to believe that those opinions will not interfere with (Holsinger’s) work (as surgeon general),” is NOT an endorsement of the possibility of Holsinger becoming surgeon general, then what is?
It’s easy to resolve all this, have Yarmuth come out against the nomination. Have him clarify it.
Harold/Darrel/whatever your next name is- as Joe Lanman clearly pointed out, Yarmuth “[finding] ample reason to believe that those opinions will not interfere with (Holsinger’s) work (as surgeon general),” is CLEARLY an endorsement, and no amount of spin can change that.
way to beat up on our only liberal in kentucky, gunterman. you sound like an elitist of the chattering class in new haven. seriously dude, louisville is a little different than southwest connecticut. come visit some time. then maybe you will understand practical politics. i thought you were ok until this.
That’s right ab, liberals and Democrats should be immune from any criticism. Its our duty to keep our mouth shut whenever they let us down.
And those New Haven fairies don’t know how to demonize gay people like they do in Louisville i guess…right on man!
For shame Matt.
So now Yarmuth is “demonizing gay people” by not attacking Holsinger. Give me a fucking break. Holsinger = Yarmuth in your mind?
Seriously, what world do you live in??
Sonka, you, Mark Nickolas, and Gunterman can all go to hell. We seriously don’t need you. How do you really expect to defeat Mitch McConnell with this ridiculous pie in the sky attitude? Yes, people in Kentucky do not believe in gay marriage or civil unions or even partner benefits. Is that bad? Maybe, but it is the reality on the ground in Kentucky.
This website has become a joke.
This is an excellent entry. It needed to be said, even though I do think it will fall on deaf ears. But your historical perspective is right, Matt. People in the future will look back at these anti-gay attitudes and find them silly. It’s really funny how Yarmuth’s people aren’t taking the criticism well. Must be bad poll numbers.
Pardon me for being interweb dorky, but LOL @ Sonka.
If you re-read the last paragraph (italicized in the post), I don’t think it’s a pie-in-the-sky attitude at all. I think it’s 100% reasonable and attainable, AB.
Look back on the Americans that are most often recognized as making great changes in this country. Are any of them cowardly? Did any one of them toe the line so as not to upset the status quo?
If we exempt supposed allies (i.e., “liberal” Democrats) from criticism as they were something to be revered for simply existing, we may as well just join the Republican party as far as I’m concerned.
And I’ve never been to Connecticut but the Fairness Campaign is pretty alive and kickin’ in Louisville, KY. I have no doubt that this state has lost some of its best and brightest because of such bigotry.
“Honestly, are you just looking to pick a fight.”
Hahahahaha… since I don’t believe anyone would be dumb enough to post the same arguement with the exact same phrases under two different names, I’d have to say someone has sent “talking points” (or is that “posting points”) to some hardcore Yarmouth supporters. Now who would care that Yarmouth’s alignment against his base is getting attention? Oh yeah, Yarmouth.
You know, I just love seeing the vicious reaction from (supposed)Liberals whenever their precious blogs actually take a shot at them whenever they sacrifice their beliefs for votes. Seriously, have you noticed how any little criticism becomes a totally shocking “attack.” I guess Republicans would feel pretty surprised if talk radio hosts pointed out their pandering to the other side too.
This (and the post telling all the bloggers to go to hell) shows a growing problem in the Democratic party in Kentucky. The blue-blood, silver spoon-fed elites just can’t take it when a self-made man starts to emerge. Although I can’t imagine why a self-made man would ever become a Democrat in light of what has run/ruined that party (and the state for most of the last two generations), that is exactly what we see in Mr. Gunterman. I’ve witnessed first-hand what Mr. Gunterman has achieved and how very close he came to winning the highest elected office in the county despite being single, young, and the target of good-ol’ boy democrats that just can’t handle the thought of someone accomplishing something without having it be handed to him. I’m sure Gunterman and I disagree on many issues, but his work-ethic, compassionate outreach, and new vision won me over during his last campaign. I can disagree with a man over issues not related to running a county as long as he’s moving our county forward. That’s the problem with the State Dem’s, their “leaders” can’t handle anyone who steps out of line… and that’s why they come down so hard on anyone who criticizes them.
Mr. Gunterman overcame a lot to make it to Yale, Mr. Yarmouth (and those like him) got to hand over Daddy’s check to get there. In Mclean County we saw local elected Democrats of the old order rather support a Republican of the old order rather then let true Progress occur… it appears that Yarmouth is much the same. I used to worry that there was too little room for Progressives in the Republican party, but I see now there is absolutely no place for them in the Democrats unless their lap-dogs, obedient party soldiers, or brainless zombies who can utter talking points like “honestly, are you just looking to pick a fight.”
And to think this is all over an issue that Yarmouth as a Rep. has no say and no influence over.
How come I have to go to hell, but Terri, Jim and Shawn don’t have to?? It’s not fair, I say!
don’t be a stranger AB, you need to keep us “gay-lovers” in check…
oh, and the latest poll said many more Kentuckians are pro-life than pro-choice, so we better start talking up potential “government ownership of uterus” candidates, or else AB will give us another righteous jumping the shark smackdown. we used to be soooo cool like 2 months ago, but now we like totally suck and stuff
Potential candidates? Hell, they’re already in office right now.
the fairness alliance is an excellent campaign. i’m all for gay rights. i agree that in ten years our culture will be far more accepting of glbt folks both from a legal and normative perspective.
however, if the fairness alliance wants to ride the boat of the democratic party, they need to understand that we cannot elect people if we are subservient to this one issue. the right to privacy in respect of abortion rights is important; gay rights are important. however, lets not become like the Republicans and become ideologically subservient to a few issues.
i am sorry for being an asshole. i was out of line. After 10 years of Northup, though, it is hard when someone rips a candidate for being “elitist” and threatens him just because that candidate endorses one individual. and I am not a “yarmuth person” by any means.
i just think it is disrespectful to say “i’m going to remember you” for a transgression which is mild at best.
hate me all you want. i’m no DLC-er. i just think it is a little bit disingenuous to have a website that espouses beating McConnell in any way possible and then unnecessarily beats up on a guy who will be very helpful in defeating McConnell.
Truth of the matter is that Gunterman’s time in the Northeast probably helps him understand Louisville a lot better than most of us West Kentuckians do. Louisivlle isn’t just weird, they like being to think of themselves as weird-as seen by Ear X-tacy stealing Austin, Tx’s famous “Keep Austin Weird” slogan for t-shirts [what's next, "I Heart Lou?" (might be confused with a gay-rights slogan {and I guess Louisville isn't ready for that})]. Who-hoo, I got to use Brackets, parenthesis, and whatever you call those squigly parenthesis that share a key with brackets all in one gramatically incorrect sentence.
Anyway… what do I matter, I don’t live in the golden triangle therefor I am of no value to any politician, media member, or other bloodsucking leach that runs the state. I mean afterall, the non-golden triangle Kentuckians only produce the raw materials you traingle dwellers need to keep eating and not freeze to death in the winter… nothing important at all.
Gunterman is a member of the “New Haven chattering elite”?!
You clearly have no idea who Matt Gunterman is as a person, a politician, or thinker.
Thanks for the thoughtful and insightful article Matt. I look forward to the next one.
ProgRep: “I don’t live in the golden triangle therefor I am of no value to any politician, media member, or other bloodsucking leach that runs the state. I mean afterall, the non-golden triangle Kentuckians only produce the raw materials you traingle dwellers need to keep eating and not freeze to death in the winter… nothing important at all.”
As a golden triangler that is not a native golden triangler, I have thought the same thing in my 6 years of living in Louisville. Kentucky’s metropolitian areas are of great value, no doubt, but so are its small cities, towns, and rural communities. I think these resentments between different types of communities are so counterproductive and counterintuitive to what we need to move this state forward economically and socially.
What the Yarmuth defenders here seem to be missing is that no one but Yarmuth made him lend his endorsement. It was just stupid. I expect Chandler to just stay out of it, and he represents the far more conservative district.
A number of years ago, when calvin happened to be in Austria attending a conference. It was noted that some people in a remote mountain area had been “discovered” speaking a version of German which hadn’t been heard for hundreds of years. calvin thought about that when Kentucky’s newest museum opened. He had an epiphany of sorts. One does not have to be physically isolated to be “frozen” in time. All it takes is creating an absurd world in your own mind.
In today’s world, how can any person consider themselves to be educated and believe in an infallible bible? calvin thinks it’s psychological. The universe is too large for most humans to comprehend. It has to be made smaller so that some can live in it successfully or semi-successfully. Unfortunately, it’s a state of being that enables some to be manipulated by charlatans wrapping themselves in the bible or in the flag. All going on while those who really benefit from this manipulation (the likes of Peabody and their ilk) pull the strings and the wool over our eyes. This scenario has repeated itself throughout history and around the world. Regardless of religious belief.
While our small minds are fighting each other over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, we take our eyes off the real enemy of our well-being. The rich don’t really care if Holsinger is nominated or not. While we are busy fighting over it, they continue to take everybody’s money.
calvin recommends that readers pick up a copy of Howard Zinn’s, “A People’s History of the United States”. We’ve had class warfare since Day One. Instead of fighting each other, we should be looking at the monied class who benefit from our ignorance and even when we see them stealing our money, can’t or don’t want to believe it.
It’s the Mitch McConnell’s of the world who are their enablers. There are other, more colorful words, to describe Mitch and the corporate-controlled media. Let’s just say they don’t have the best interests of the majority in mind as they go about their daily work.
ditchmitchky has it’s work cut out for it to bring the daily machinations of the money machine and their minions to the attention of people who fight for their survival on a daily basis. But, it’s a good fight for the right reasons.
Joe Sonka thanks you for your support.
Have you ever noticed that those who always get all the government’s focus are the first to say things like “all this bickering over who got what doesn’t help any of us?” Seriously, whether it’s the golden trianglers offended that the others don’t like gettting left out time and time again, or if it’s on a county level where the county-seat gets every bit of investment money from the county, it’s always the haves that say “let’s not argue over who’s getting what from the government.”