DURING THE 2004 election, the Internet became a potent force in political activism. Fund-raising, grassroots organizing, advertising and communication could all be done with a mouse click at a small fraction of the cost of television spots, direct mail and phone banks.
One of the greatest technological advances in the history of civilization enabled anyone with a laptop and a DSL connection to become part of the process to decide the future of America.
But some gay activists have been exploiting this new medium to advance a political agenda that doesn’t reflect gay people in general. Instead of focusing on the key issues that affect the lives of men and women throughout the U.S., they appear bent on tearing down the Bush administration no matter the damage to the country as a result.
While disagreements about foreign or domestic policy should be part of a vibrant democracy, actively working to topple the government, particularly during a time of war, is irrational considering the threat faced by global terrorism.
The tone of some gay activist sites — led by John Aravosis’ AmericaBlog and mimicked by others — is so vitriolic concerning every aspect of the current government that there is no room to express outrage at a particularly heinous event.
EARLIER THIS MONTH, photographs made their way into cyberspace showing two Iranian youths being hanged for “committing the crime of homosexuality.” That story caused barely a ripple, but at the same time these activists waged a full-blown fax and telephone campaign against a town in Latvia that refused to issue a parade permit to a gay group.
But in the larger context, neither incident interrupted the incessant anti-Bush drumbeat.
Similarly, these activists make much about photographs of
prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, but remain silent while humanitarian workers are murdered.
The aim is to focus on incidents that may sap the will of the American people to remain on the front lines in the war on terror. But it doesn’t have as much impact on the Pentagon as it does the men and women in harm’s way.
Either way, undermining support for the war in Iraq gives aid and comfort to those who have no regard for life, liberty or diversity. Losing this battle in the war on terror won’t bode well for anyone in the U.S.
THE WEB SITES of these activists are populated with extreme elements who seek to compromise America’s security and cripple its economy. Intelligent debate over issues and strategies is crushed by expressions of blind rage and conspiracy theories.
With rhetoric so shrill, all but the most partisan readers are repelled. The operators of these sites and the opinions expressed therein are often represented to the rest of America as the core constituency of the gay community.
Only a few degrees of separation exist between these activists and some dangerously radical groups. Clinking just a few links will transport one to the Web sites of International ANSWER, Code Pink, United for Peace and Justice or Queers for Peace.
All of these “antiwar” groups are part of a global anti-American movement that supports totalitarian regimes like Cuba and North Korea. History has shown how well despots treat gay members of society.
The gay community runs the risk of being marginalized by these associations and with it any hope of advancing its broader agenda. It is already being taken for granted by one political party, some of whose members are blaming gay issues for losses in last year’s elections.
Hatred won’t produce victory at the polls and social change will only come by winning hearts and minds. It certainly can’t be achieved by aligning with forces that threaten the security and survival of the U.S.
