Thought Theater

"Tit For Tat": Part II genre: Gaylingual & Polispeak & Six Degrees of Speculation

The following is a posting by John at AMERICAblog. The basic issue is that a gay friend of John's was fired by Howard Dean shortly after the partner of the fired man wrote a letter objecting to the lack of support offered by the Democratic Party in fighting gay wedge initiatives sponsored by Republicans in a number of states.

Howard Dean fires gay man in apparent retaliation against his partner
by John in DC - 5/03/2006 10:53:00 AM

Can you say Valerie Plame?

The Democratic National Committee yesterday fired its gay liaison, my friend Donald Hitchcock, and immediately replaced him with someone else (thus showing the position wasn't phased out). What's odd about the firing, to put it lightly is that it comes within days of Donald's partner, Paul Yandura, publicly criticizing the DNC for not being pro-gay enough.

The DNC claims they aren't retaliating against the spouse for the other spouse's politics. From all appearances, that's exactly what they're doing.

Howard Dean would never fire a straight woman because her husband had criticized the DNC. But somehow when it's a gay couple, Dean has no problem giving the appearance of taking revenge on an employee who has done nothing wrong. Then again, the employee is gay, so you know, perhaps that makes him only three-fifths an employee in the eyes of the DNC.

You just don't fire someone days after their spouse criticizes you and expect people to believe anything but revenge is at play. It's petty. It's sick. And it's one more sign that Paul Yandura may in fact be right - the DNC appears to have a very serious gay problem.

It's Valerie Plame all over again. But this time, when it's Democrats taking revenge on the spouse, somehow we're to accept this kind of vicious crass politics as "fair game"?

Howard Dean owes all an explanation, unless he wants to see all hell break loose between now and the election.

First, I understand John wanting to come to the defense of his friend. I would want to do the same. Where I differ from John would be in how to go about offering that support. Specifically, I find some of his remarks merely undermine his position as an advocate for defeating the Republican Party in order to advance the causes that he finds important. John is an intelligent person who understands Washington politics. In truth, many see him as an insider...I can't speak to that assertion. What I can do is point out my own perspectives, particularly as this issue relates to my thoughts on the pervasiveness of a "tit for tat" mentality.

I'm not privy to all the details and I suspect neither is John as it relates to the termination of his friend. It's doubtful that information will ever be discussed publicly given the sensitivity surrounding personnel issues. If a suit is filed, perhaps we will know more.

In the meantime, the rush to extreme statements simply fuels conflict and consternation amongst what many might perceive to be allies who are otherwise united in an effort to promote change. There will be a disconnection when those observing this interaction attempt to make sense of the events they are witnessing. Most importantly, there is the palpable potential to question both the motivations and the sincerity of the combatants. If the observers begin to question these basic tenets, the seeds of inertia are planted.

This is not the first time John seemingly overreacted. I'm reminded of a situation where he blamed a campaign operative's "irrelevant" email announcing the candidate’s participation in a Habitat for Humanity project. Apparently, the precipitating event was that John missed an email about a speaking opportunity such that he concluded that the causative factor was the superfluous email. John went on to state the idiocy of those who send unsolicited emails and that he had blocked the candidate's email address...even though the candidate didn't actually commit the perceived offense.

Here's the problem. John often pitches for Democratic candidates in need of support on his website. The oversight of the campaign worker had now seemingly become a legitimate reason to abandon an otherwise acceptable Democratic candidate. If the objective of John's website is truly as stated, then the actions were wholly contradictory and indicative of conflicting and ulterior motivations that serve to undermine his sincerity.

I'll be honest with you at my own peril...I believe John was wrong then and that he's wrong again today. In life I have always looked for deeds to match words and while many might accuse me of possessing the memory of an elephant (but I'm not a Republican), it is simply the means by which I feel I can discover more of the "truth". I've occasionally been accused of pulling out the gottcha card...but the essential thing to remember is that I am comfortable with that being a reciprocal proposition...besides, "truth" is not a gottcha. I've been wrong before and I will be wrong again...but I'm committed to trying to use each experience to learn more "truth". That's simply who I am.

As an aside, I think it’s worthwhile to tell you a story about a situation when I was in the second grade. My school had a program whereby students could receive a carton of milk at lunchtime. I didn't like milk as a kid so I didn't participate. On Fridays, as a treat, the students received chocolate milk. Well apparently someone was taking extra cartons of chocolate milk thereby leaving others without their lunchtime beverage. Our teacher sat us all down and said that we were not going to recess until the culprit stepped forward. As expected, no one admitted to the offense. As I sat in my chair, I was debating with myself if I should take the blame in order to end the stalemate so that life, absent conflict, could resume. Before I was able to conclude that I would take the blame (even though I hadn't taken the milk), our teacher issued a warning that the problem had better cease or she would have to consider other consequences...at which point she allowed us to go to recess.

I share the experience because it has been, by and large, a fundamental part of my life story. I prefer resolution over conflict and I am willing to participate in finding solutions. Don't get me wrong, I have a temper and I can be as stubborn as they come...but as we like to say in my family, the sooner you get done with the fighting, the sooner you can resume the laughing. You know, winning is great, but winning because you're right is even better. We can all learn to win without being right but it will never alter the "truth". As my old boss and friend has said so many times with just the proper degree of sarcasm, "it’s great to be able to explain something...but it’s all the better when it has the added benefit of also being the "truth".

I don't know if Howard Dean is wrong...my own impression of Dr. Dean is that he often speaks before he fully thinks. Is it possible he fired someone without ample consideration...sure. Is it possible he had legitimate reasons for the termination but unfortunately his timing was terrible...yes.

Is John justified in supporting and defending his friend...sure if it's a thoughtful action. Is it appropriate for John to say Dr. Dean "owes all an explanation unless he wants to see all hell break loose between now and the election"...only if he's comfortable that many may grow skeptical of his priorities and his motivations. Is a "tit for tat" smack down going to advance our professed collective goals...absolutely not. I've said it before, but it bears repeating...a good friend once told me that in all decisions, make sure the impact of your actions matches the intent with which you began. It seems fitting for this situation.

The good news...we live in a country where we each get to make choices. Hopefully, those choices will amplify the "truth" that we say we are committed to pursuing. The bad news...if those choices are inconsistent with the "truth", we become disconnected from it and the legitimacy that it rightly commands.