I'm queer and I live in the deep south in a closed primary state. I have to register as a Republican so I can actually vote in local elections. I don't identify as a Democrat or a Republican. Almost every local candidate runs as Republican which means if you're not registered as one - you're not allowed to vote. Even if a different party runs - a Republican candidate will win. And a lot of the time - the other party is someone who was paid to run by a Republican candidate so the race would be closed from the General Election. Very illegal but somehow they keep getting away with it. For a lot of people in my area, in or out of the umbrella, - we're registered as Republicans so we can have a say locally, not because we're actually Republicans.
I'm going to sail pretty close to the being a butt on the internet line -- and folks should feel free to call me out if they think I've gone over -- but the reason it's hard to come out as Republican in the modern era is that you have to embrace a bunch of embarrassing positions: 'Despite 5 decades of experience, I believe that trickle-down will work this time' 'I've done my own research and have concluded that the overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change is not just wrong about some specific details, but is both completely wrong, and a sham' 'I've decided to live in a fool's paradise and believe that the interpretative framework used in Dodds to overrule Roe could never be applied to overturn Lawrence or Obergefel, and I'm going to trust in the good faith of justices who solemnly testified that Roe was settled law in their confirmation hearings' 'We should pretend that 'don't say gay' bills only bar the discussion of actual sexual conduct, and don't at all impinge on acknowledging varying family structures among teaches and students' 'Donald Trump won the 2020 election, and there's a vast conspiracy suppressing the evidence that this is so' And so many more.
I mean, there's always room to debate appropriate marginal income tax rates, whether incentive structures in certain social programs have perverse effects, and the like, but imo in the modern era, declaring oneself a Republican means that one is giving up the idea of discussing these issues in good faith, based on facts, and adopting a purely ideological yet factually unsustainable position.
Randy Shilts’s And the Band Played On—about the early days of AIDS in mainly SF (he was the only dedicated AIDS reporter in the country at the time and worked for the SF Chronicle), but also LA and NYC discusses some Republican gay men and their horror at the (non) response of the Reagan administration until Rock Hudson died. It’s unsettling stuff, especially when he talks about evangelical gay men.
I was guest lecturing for a public health graduate level class this week and in my presentation was sharing statistics about the state my organization works in and someone asked why, since things are so grim, ppl in the state didn’t vote out the elected officials who actively fight against progress. It’s the age old question, right? And it’s one that for my own sanity I’ve kind of had to stop thinking about. It feels like every time one rationale is addressed or refuted, another takes its place. In the end, ppl vote for the identity that feels right for them, regardless of the harm that they could be inviting on themselves.
I’m sure the gay Republicans believe they are safe because the GOP has long been a haven for them. My parents were Rockefeller Republicans and very active in local and national activities - they raised money, attended conventions and inaugurations, hosted events, etc. From the time I was old enough to tag along, I met gay Republican men (I can think of five right now off the top of my head). They weren’t officially out, but everyone knew they were gay. They were walkers for some of the wealthy widows, and they were influential in party decision making. Whether they are being naive now, I can’t tell, but I know where the confidence comes from.
Am going to read the book, but, I am kinda surprised that economics and making more money didn't come up.
Follow the money. I suspect for gay Republicans as much as any Republican since Reagan...they are the party of dragons. Of hoarding wealth. That dominates everything.
The right has ammosexuals...people who identify as a 2nd Amendment absolutists. Literally nothing else matters.
These are just friedmansexuals...people who believe the ultimate good of society is to return profits to shareholders. Literally nothing elese matters.
Re: links. I believe there is some connection between the consumer experience and the college reading links, and it's in the realm of enshittification. It's like things are being optimized/designed only to make it to the next step (good grade on a standardized test, making extra money on an ad or device), and the big picture---or maybe there's a piece in there of the, like, joy of the human experience???---is being sold out for a temporary measure that serves a specific, not very meaningful purpose. This is my main feeling of the times we are living in right now, and the thing that makes me the most depressed. Like, we will ruin everyone's experience of something if we can make an extra penny or push some quantitative dial a little farther. Thanks for this space that feels like the opposite, and for the link to "Hands."
" abortion and LGBTQ rights aren’t separate matters for the Right, but a set of interlocking issues that mobilize the base"
To white Christians, esp males, both represent losing property rights . A name-bearing child whose value as a symbol or as a representative is to some men the most important. Or property that includes inherited identity, the version of white masculinity passed on through fathers and grandfathers, gym teachers, Scout leaders, drill sergeants, English teachers, war movies, even by the early school bullies to whom you're told you must show physical superiority or else you'll never advance. A hard fight to "win" masculinity. (G, T, L, Bi, non-binary undermine its power or its existence or importance.) I think RW opposition to immigrants may be partly similar.
"why would any gay person belong to the Republican Party?"
Republicans excel at collecting single issue voters who don't agree with each other -- such as gun rights absolutists who believe in abortions who keep voting for the same Republicans as the no-abortion absolutists do. (Whereas a Democratic party problem is those voters who refuse on moral grounds to vote for a candidate because of one or two issues they strongly disagree with, even though the candidate supports many other issues they do support.)
Anyway, one guess is that some gay Repubs may be voting for tax cuts , stock market returns and property and business-owner rights, believing wealth and status offer the most protection of their personal rights. For some, gun rights too. Or if libertarian, don't believe they can rely on any government institution to to protect gay rights.
This is a fascinating article! I just wrote my honors thesis last year about conservative beliefs about queer expression and how conservative people reconcile their constant push for “freedom of self expression” with the current conservative party’s push to limit such expression among queer people. I had some really good interviews, including with queer women of color, where they focused on the difference between conservatism and the current Republican party (perhaps somewhat predictably, the white, likely straight men I interviewed felt much more connected to the current Republican party and almost always mentioned “respect for traditions, because those are proven to work” — at least, to work for them!). I’ll have to read this book — I could have really used it for my research last year! :)
Great interview -- it reminded me of a coworker who was gay and staunchly Republican for economic reasons. His stance on gay marriage in the late nineties? "I'd rather be a boyfriend in a BMW than a husband in a Honda."
WRT the links... Jean Twenge had an amazing substack post about Gen Z and reading. Unsurprisingly, if you know Twenge, it's the smartphone's fault. I shared it with my Gen Z high school students who wanted to argue with the data. And then agreed that they read less than they used to in middle school -- which is not uncommon because high school takes up much more time and prepping for college apps and the frenzy that entails does not leave time to read. But there is also something about how English is taught, with a focus more on excerpts and passages, or articles and speeches and a move away from novels and long form that is also bad. I have so many thoughts on this and could go on and on.
But here's the Twenge piece if you are interested.
This was a fascinating interview! Thank you for posing such interesting and thought-provoking questions. Young's responses are thorough, insightful, and further thought-provoking. This topic has fascinated me for a long time, especially as a white, hetero, cisgender man with [waves hand jedi-style] all-the-privileges who finds it difficult to understand how people can vote against their own interests.
1. On kids' friendships - I (50's) had the same best friend from first grade through senior year of high school. We drifted apart after graduation - different life paths. Husband has had the same best friend from junior high to now (added an additional best friend to the mix, from work). Neither of our kids has formed "best friend" relationships, until Kid1 got to college and lucked into a friendship like that with the roommate. Close friends, not best friends. I feel like the author's experience is coloring her expectations (or lack thereof) for childhood friendships. They can go both ways. And, there's research showing that many men, like my husband, continue to think of childhood best friends as their "best friend" even decades later. It's true of my 80 year old father, too .... That may also say something of how we mature differently, within gender constraints, as men and women? That women are more likely to develop additional intimate friendships, whereas men are more likely to maintain their childhood ones?
2. In terms of reading complex material - I know we scapegoat smartphones; I do suspect that's contributing though. I also think social media in general, as well as screen time in general, contributes. Asking kids to engage in activities which facilitate in-depth, long-term focus - reading, art, Lego building - would be good for that. My kids didn't get smartphones until they were a freshman and junior in high school; they got them at nearly the same time. I feel like our eldest, who waited the longest, has the best ability to focus, between the two. Also: I don't think we should underestimate the impact of stress (over college scholarships/applications and the world in general) on brain health for youth; and, I don't think we should disregard the concerns about repeated COVID infections and mild Long COVID affecting cognition. Although, of course, this negative impact on reading and writing was already in process prior to COVID's arrival.
Great interview! It reminds me of that episode of the West Wing with the gay Republican, although I don't think the episode really interrogated the craziness of that.
This was such a great interview, especially because Young was able to precisely articulate the "why" behind why this this demographic (gay Republicans) are supporting a party that (almost universally) does not support them back. And it's done with more research than I've seen for why other groups who don't benefit from the far right's policies, for example blue collar white men who are losing buying power, vote Republican. We have assumptions why, but I haven't seen the specifics broken down this clearly in a way that it is should be easy enough for ANY reader to understand.
I'm queer and I live in the deep south in a closed primary state. I have to register as a Republican so I can actually vote in local elections. I don't identify as a Democrat or a Republican. Almost every local candidate runs as Republican which means if you're not registered as one - you're not allowed to vote. Even if a different party runs - a Republican candidate will win. And a lot of the time - the other party is someone who was paid to run by a Republican candidate so the race would be closed from the General Election. Very illegal but somehow they keep getting away with it. For a lot of people in my area, in or out of the umbrella, - we're registered as Republicans so we can have a say locally, not because we're actually Republicans.
I'm going to sail pretty close to the being a butt on the internet line -- and folks should feel free to call me out if they think I've gone over -- but the reason it's hard to come out as Republican in the modern era is that you have to embrace a bunch of embarrassing positions: 'Despite 5 decades of experience, I believe that trickle-down will work this time' 'I've done my own research and have concluded that the overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change is not just wrong about some specific details, but is both completely wrong, and a sham' 'I've decided to live in a fool's paradise and believe that the interpretative framework used in Dodds to overrule Roe could never be applied to overturn Lawrence or Obergefel, and I'm going to trust in the good faith of justices who solemnly testified that Roe was settled law in their confirmation hearings' 'We should pretend that 'don't say gay' bills only bar the discussion of actual sexual conduct, and don't at all impinge on acknowledging varying family structures among teaches and students' 'Donald Trump won the 2020 election, and there's a vast conspiracy suppressing the evidence that this is so' And so many more.
I mean, there's always room to debate appropriate marginal income tax rates, whether incentive structures in certain social programs have perverse effects, and the like, but imo in the modern era, declaring oneself a Republican means that one is giving up the idea of discussing these issues in good faith, based on facts, and adopting a purely ideological yet factually unsustainable position.
Randy Shilts’s And the Band Played On—about the early days of AIDS in mainly SF (he was the only dedicated AIDS reporter in the country at the time and worked for the SF Chronicle), but also LA and NYC discusses some Republican gay men and their horror at the (non) response of the Reagan administration until Rock Hudson died. It’s unsettling stuff, especially when he talks about evangelical gay men.
I was guest lecturing for a public health graduate level class this week and in my presentation was sharing statistics about the state my organization works in and someone asked why, since things are so grim, ppl in the state didn’t vote out the elected officials who actively fight against progress. It’s the age old question, right? And it’s one that for my own sanity I’ve kind of had to stop thinking about. It feels like every time one rationale is addressed or refuted, another takes its place. In the end, ppl vote for the identity that feels right for them, regardless of the harm that they could be inviting on themselves.
I’m sure the gay Republicans believe they are safe because the GOP has long been a haven for them. My parents were Rockefeller Republicans and very active in local and national activities - they raised money, attended conventions and inaugurations, hosted events, etc. From the time I was old enough to tag along, I met gay Republican men (I can think of five right now off the top of my head). They weren’t officially out, but everyone knew they were gay. They were walkers for some of the wealthy widows, and they were influential in party decision making. Whether they are being naive now, I can’t tell, but I know where the confidence comes from.
Am going to read the book, but, I am kinda surprised that economics and making more money didn't come up.
Follow the money. I suspect for gay Republicans as much as any Republican since Reagan...they are the party of dragons. Of hoarding wealth. That dominates everything.
The right has ammosexuals...people who identify as a 2nd Amendment absolutists. Literally nothing else matters.
These are just friedmansexuals...people who believe the ultimate good of society is to return profits to shareholders. Literally nothing elese matters.
This week’s links are 10/10. I usually pick and choose but every single one was Very Very Good. Thank you for sharing!
Re: links. I believe there is some connection between the consumer experience and the college reading links, and it's in the realm of enshittification. It's like things are being optimized/designed only to make it to the next step (good grade on a standardized test, making extra money on an ad or device), and the big picture---or maybe there's a piece in there of the, like, joy of the human experience???---is being sold out for a temporary measure that serves a specific, not very meaningful purpose. This is my main feeling of the times we are living in right now, and the thing that makes me the most depressed. Like, we will ruin everyone's experience of something if we can make an extra penny or push some quantitative dial a little farther. Thanks for this space that feels like the opposite, and for the link to "Hands."
Very informative interview. I learned a great deal. Thank you.
" abortion and LGBTQ rights aren’t separate matters for the Right, but a set of interlocking issues that mobilize the base"
To white Christians, esp males, both represent losing property rights . A name-bearing child whose value as a symbol or as a representative is to some men the most important. Or property that includes inherited identity, the version of white masculinity passed on through fathers and grandfathers, gym teachers, Scout leaders, drill sergeants, English teachers, war movies, even by the early school bullies to whom you're told you must show physical superiority or else you'll never advance. A hard fight to "win" masculinity. (G, T, L, Bi, non-binary undermine its power or its existence or importance.) I think RW opposition to immigrants may be partly similar.
"why would any gay person belong to the Republican Party?"
Republicans excel at collecting single issue voters who don't agree with each other -- such as gun rights absolutists who believe in abortions who keep voting for the same Republicans as the no-abortion absolutists do. (Whereas a Democratic party problem is those voters who refuse on moral grounds to vote for a candidate because of one or two issues they strongly disagree with, even though the candidate supports many other issues they do support.)
Anyway, one guess is that some gay Repubs may be voting for tax cuts , stock market returns and property and business-owner rights, believing wealth and status offer the most protection of their personal rights. For some, gun rights too. Or if libertarian, don't believe they can rely on any government institution to to protect gay rights.
This is a fascinating article! I just wrote my honors thesis last year about conservative beliefs about queer expression and how conservative people reconcile their constant push for “freedom of self expression” with the current conservative party’s push to limit such expression among queer people. I had some really good interviews, including with queer women of color, where they focused on the difference between conservatism and the current Republican party (perhaps somewhat predictably, the white, likely straight men I interviewed felt much more connected to the current Republican party and almost always mentioned “respect for traditions, because those are proven to work” — at least, to work for them!). I’ll have to read this book — I could have really used it for my research last year! :)
Fascinating read, especially as a liberal, bi woman. I'm putting the book on my to read list!
Great interview -- it reminded me of a coworker who was gay and staunchly Republican for economic reasons. His stance on gay marriage in the late nineties? "I'd rather be a boyfriend in a BMW than a husband in a Honda."
WRT the links... Jean Twenge had an amazing substack post about Gen Z and reading. Unsurprisingly, if you know Twenge, it's the smartphone's fault. I shared it with my Gen Z high school students who wanted to argue with the data. And then agreed that they read less than they used to in middle school -- which is not uncommon because high school takes up much more time and prepping for college apps and the frenzy that entails does not leave time to read. But there is also something about how English is taught, with a focus more on excerpts and passages, or articles and speeches and a move away from novels and long form that is also bad. I have so many thoughts on this and could go on and on.
But here's the Twenge piece if you are interested.
https://open.substack.com/pub/jeanmtwenge/p/are-books-dead-why-gen-z-doesnt-read?r=e00p6&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
This was a fascinating interview! Thank you for posing such interesting and thought-provoking questions. Young's responses are thorough, insightful, and further thought-provoking. This topic has fascinated me for a long time, especially as a white, hetero, cisgender man with [waves hand jedi-style] all-the-privileges who finds it difficult to understand how people can vote against their own interests.
Great interview!
Comments on two of the links:
1. On kids' friendships - I (50's) had the same best friend from first grade through senior year of high school. We drifted apart after graduation - different life paths. Husband has had the same best friend from junior high to now (added an additional best friend to the mix, from work). Neither of our kids has formed "best friend" relationships, until Kid1 got to college and lucked into a friendship like that with the roommate. Close friends, not best friends. I feel like the author's experience is coloring her expectations (or lack thereof) for childhood friendships. They can go both ways. And, there's research showing that many men, like my husband, continue to think of childhood best friends as their "best friend" even decades later. It's true of my 80 year old father, too .... That may also say something of how we mature differently, within gender constraints, as men and women? That women are more likely to develop additional intimate friendships, whereas men are more likely to maintain their childhood ones?
2. In terms of reading complex material - I know we scapegoat smartphones; I do suspect that's contributing though. I also think social media in general, as well as screen time in general, contributes. Asking kids to engage in activities which facilitate in-depth, long-term focus - reading, art, Lego building - would be good for that. My kids didn't get smartphones until they were a freshman and junior in high school; they got them at nearly the same time. I feel like our eldest, who waited the longest, has the best ability to focus, between the two. Also: I don't think we should underestimate the impact of stress (over college scholarships/applications and the world in general) on brain health for youth; and, I don't think we should disregard the concerns about repeated COVID infections and mild Long COVID affecting cognition. Although, of course, this negative impact on reading and writing was already in process prior to COVID's arrival.
Great interview! It reminds me of that episode of the West Wing with the gay Republican, although I don't think the episode really interrogated the craziness of that.
This was such a great interview, especially because Young was able to precisely articulate the "why" behind why this this demographic (gay Republicans) are supporting a party that (almost universally) does not support them back. And it's done with more research than I've seen for why other groups who don't benefit from the far right's policies, for example blue collar white men who are losing buying power, vote Republican. We have assumptions why, but I haven't seen the specifics broken down this clearly in a way that it is should be easy enough for ANY reader to understand.