The Problem With the Mark Foley Problem
by John Nichols
Unfortunately, it appears those of us who have argued that the
current
ruckus on Capitol Hill is not a Mark Foley Scandal but a Republican
Congressional Leader****p Scandal may be losing the debate.
A week after Foley's political career imploded -- after details of
his
emails and instant messages to teenage congressional pages began to
surface -- the fascination with the former congressman seems actually to
be
on the rise. Yesterday's New York Times features a lengthy profile of
Foley
beginning on its front page today, while talk radio and the blogosphere
are
abuzz with discussion of every new salacious detail about a politician who
until last Thursday was barely known outside the precincts of central
Florida and a few blocks of Wa****ngton, DC. My most amusing progressive
radio show on the dial, Stephanie Miller's morning program, features daily
re****ts on "La Cage Aux Foley."
Everywhere Americans look or listen, the shorthand for the whole
affair is "The Foley Scandal."
The focus on Foley is problematic for a number of reasons.
First and foremost, it turns what ought to be a discussion about the
win-at-any-cost approach of the Republicans who run Congress into a wildly
speculative discourse on one troubled man and what his experience says
about
everything from pedophilia to workplace ethics to privacy and gays in
politics. Everyone is getting into the act, from moralizing conservatives
--
like Family Reserach Council Tony Perkins claiming that "tolerance and
diversity" are to blame for the whole mess -- to Desperate Democrats
describing Foley as a "pedophile predator." The tone of the discussion is
especially disturbing at a time when right-wing forces have placed
anti-gay
initiatives on the November 7 ballots in eight states. Prospects for
beating
those measures in states such as Wisconsin, Colorado and Arizona are not
helped by discussions that, whether intentionally or unintentionally,
reinforce inaccurate yet persistent stereotypes.
While I have ****ed away from writing at much length about Foley's
personal story -- preferring to focus on the far more serious and
significant issues that have been raised about how the Republican
leader****p
places politics above all other concerns -- it seems that some
consideration
of the congressman's circumstance is in order. I was convinced of this
when
my wise colleague Katha Pollitt emailed the other day with some smart
questions about a line in one of my articles on the scandal. In a piece
discussing the pressures on Foley as a closeted Republican, I wrote,
"Unlike
the vast majority of homo***uals -- who, as a group, are less likely to be
attracted to children than hetero***uals -- the congressman began to
engage
in activities that were inappropriate and potentially illegal. Details
that
have surfaced in recent day suggest that Foley had made a mess of his life
-
a mess that exploded on him and his party when it was revealed that the
co-chair of the Congressional Caucus for Missing & Exploited Children had
sent 'Do I make you a little horny?' e-mails to teenage boys." Katha
wanted
to know whether I meant to suggest that closeted gay men were more likely
to
be attracted to teenagers -- a notion about which she was distinctly, and
correctly, dubious.
I appreciated the question, and others from friends and colleagues
regarding Foley's personal story and whatever conclusions can be drawn
from
it, because they provide an opening to explore the backstory of a
controversy that could yet depose the Speaker of the House.
As regards Katha's specific question, I don't buy the argument that
being closeted caused Foley to be attracted to particular groups of men or
boys. Sure, the need to cloak a huge part of his identity created
pressures
on the congressman. But, right or wrong, I'm of the view that our
behavioral
penchants and tendencies are set early in life. I share the position of
Matt
Foreman, the executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force,
who says: "Given similar past sordid situations in the page program
perpetrated by male members of Congress against female pages, it's absurd
to
blame the Foley spectacle on his being gay, closeted or otherwise." In
other
words, what Foley did is what Foley did. It makes little sense to try and
find in his specific actions indicators of broad patterns or universal
tendencies among gays or straights, people who are in the closet or people
who are out.
So, then, the question becomes: What was up with Foley?
With all the new twists and turns in his story -- including this
week's declarations by the former congressman's lawyer that he's an
alcoholic and a survivor of childhood ***ual abuse -- that's a tough
question to answer with precision.
But, as someone who has covered Foley for many years and had an
op****tunity to spend a good deal of time with the man, let me offer some
thoughts:
I first got to know Foley a number of years ago when he was one of
the
few Republicans who was speaking up on the issue of media consolidation.
Always interested in media issues -- especially as they related to the
film
and music industries -- the congressman had a good eye for the changing
character of our communications after the passage of the noxious
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Foley's insights about the collapse of the political discourse on
local radio stations that were bought up by national chains, as well as a
his concerns about the homogenization of music playlists, made him stand
out
not just from his fellow partisans but from most members of Congress. I
appreciated Foley's intelligence, and his enthusiasm. He was a less
regimented Republican than most, which made him more interesting than the
average member of the party's House caucus. I wrote about Foley frequently
and we appeared at some of the same forums on media issues.
I knew Foley was gay, and was aware that he was in a long-term
relation****p with a Florida physician. As someone who saw him in a number
of
settings, I never had a sense of him as being "on the prowl." He was
gregarious, even boisterous. I thought that Foley seemed oddly immature
for
a veteran legislator; someone who always seemed to be trying a little too
hard. But in hindsight I suspect that he was trying a bit too hard to fit
in
with folks who he did not want to stereotype him as just another
conservative Republican. Some people speculated that he was experiencing a
bit of a mid-life crisis as he passed the age of 50 and looked at the
prospect that he had hit a political ceiling in a Republican Party. GOP
leaders had made it clear that they would not sup****t him for higher
office,
but that very much wanted him to hold onto a "safe" seat in a electorally
volatile state.
Foley had always been a good politician, but in the first years of
the
Bush presidency he began losing his touch. It was no secret that Foley was
struggling with questions of how "out" he could be. The struggle heated up
in 2003 when, as he was preparing to seek Florida's open U.S. Senate seat,
Foley became the subject first of "he's gay" whispering campaign and then
of
articles in gay and lesbian publications and finally daily newspapers that
discussed his ***uality in varying degrees of detail. Foley did not handle
the controversy well, and ultimately ended up folding that campaign. Two
years later, in 2005, he again toyed with making a Senate bid. But, by
that
point, party leaders were clearly and unequivocally discouraging him from
seeking any office but the one he held.
Foley's political tightrope walk became an increasingly difficult
one
as the Bush administration and Florida Republicans ramped up their use of
anti-gay messages to energize the party's social conservative base. My
sense
of Foley in recent years was that the congressman was growing increasingly
isolated within his own party, and increasingly lonely in Wa****ngton. He
wanted out. And he had job offers, good ones, coming from the
entertainment
industry, which is always on the hunt for Republicans who can lobby on its
behalf. Foley was unenthusiastic about seeking reelection in 2006.
More than a year ago, he had begun hinting about exiting politics
for
a lobbying gig, or perhaps what he considered a dream job in the movie
industry. Undoubtedly, complaints about his emails to pages were a factor,
although at the time no one outside Foley's inner circle and the offices
of
House Speaker Dennis Hastert and a few other key players in the GOP caucus
knew of them
This spring, as the deadline for declaring his candidacy for another
term approached, Foley was pressured by Republican Congressional Campaign
Committee chair Tom Reynolds, R-New York, to make one more run "for the
good
of the party." Reynolds wanted to keep open seats at a minimum in what was
shaping up as a difficult political year, Though we now know that that the
RCCC chair was aware of Foley's troubling emails, holding the House was
Job
One. Foley finally agreed to seek another term, and the rest is history.
But it is a more complex history than the shorthand version that
re****ters who are covering this fast-breaking scandal -- including this
writer -- have tended to descibe.
There is more to Foley's story than the "sleazy hypocrite" label
that
has been attached to him by Democratic critics in particular. Yes, the
congressman was a co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Missing and
Exploited Children, and, yes, his office was the source of a steady stream
of blunt pronouncements about the need to crack down on those who prey on
children. If one accepts that 16- and 17-year-old young men who are past
the
legal age of majority and who are living away from home are children, or
if
one is simply unsettled by abuses of the power relation****p between a
senior
member of Congress and teenage pages who dream of political careers, then
it
is evident that the "hypocrite" tag may be the kindest that can be
attached
to Foley.
But the congressman was not so hypocritical when it came to social
issues. He was one of the most prominent members of former New Jersey
Governor Christine Todd Whitman's "It's My Party Too" group, which has
worked to pull the GOP away from the grip of the religious right --
although
you would not know about the association from the group's website, from
which all Foley references have been removed. Foley has been reelected in
recent years with sup****t not just from moderate GOP groups such as the
Log
Cabin Republicans and the Republican Majority for Choice but with generous
campaign contributions from groups that generally back Democrats, such as
the Human Rights Camaign and the Service Employees International Union.
The Log Cabin Republicans, the party's chief advocacy group for gay
and lesbian rights, strongly endorsed Foley this year, noting that: "He
has
consistently voted against the anti-family marriage amendment, and has
sup****ted the hate crimes bill, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act
(ENDA), and the Early Treatment for HIV Act."
It is true that Foley was an imperfect player on issues of concern
to
gays and lesbians. Early in his career, he voted for the Defense of
Marriage
Act, and unlike another sup****ter of that foul measure, former Senator
Paul
Wellstone, he never renounced the vote. Foley also faced legitimate
criticism for failing to be a leader in challenging the military's failed
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. But his record was still better than those
of all but a few Congressional Republicans -- and, it should be noted,
many
Congressional Democrats.
So, while Foley may have refused to publicly acknowledge that he was
a
gay man until this week, he chose frequently to vote as a sup****ter of gay
rights. That distinguished him from other Republicans who have become the
focus of scandals, such as former Congressman Ed Schrock. Before the 2004
election, Schrock, a Virginia Republican who regularly voted against gay
rights and enjoyed Christian conservative sup****t, was ruined politically
when recordings began to circulate of the congressman using a telephone
service on which men placed ads to arrange liaisons with other men. Like
Foley, Schrock quickly quit his seat.
There are those who will suggest that the fact that both Schrock and
Foley were closeted Republicans is an im****tant factor in this discussion,
and that being closeted really was Foley's primary problem. One of the
Florida congressman's most consistent critics, online journalist Mike
Rogers, told the Miami Herald, ''I do believe that he had unhealthy ***ual
advances to these guys because he was living his life as a closeted gay
man.
Healthy gay men who are mature and dealing with their ***uality in a
mature
way don't hit on kids who are 16 years old. What's his signature issue
[child protection]? You don't know whether to laugh or cry.'' Rogers has
been covering these stories for a long time, and he certainly has a right
to
assess them as he thinks appropriate. But, again, I'm not of the view that
being a closeted Republican is the issue. There is no question that Foley
struggled with the challenge of how to be a prominent Republican and a gay
man without acting as a total hypocrite. No doubt, in recent years in
particular, he struggled with a sense of isolation within a party that
was,
unquestionably, more understanding and respectful of gays and lesbians in
its congressional caucus during the days when an ascendant Newt Gingrich
was
running the show. But other closeted congressional Republicans -- and
Democrats -- have managed their lives without scandal.
My sense of Mark Foley in recent years was that he was becoming an
increasingly sad and lonely man. How that sadness and loneliness related
to
his inappropriate and potentially illegal actions is something that, no
doubt, Foley and others will explore in the future. But, I remain in
agreement with the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's Matt Foreman,
when
he says of Foley's circumstance: "It's a tragedy for him and his family. I
don't want to get into the pain of the closet. It's irrelevant if he's gay
or not."
Above all, however, I agree with something else that Foreman says:
"What's clear is that the House leader****p elevated holding onto a seat
above the interests of young people in the page system. And they want to
talk about 'moral values'? Please."
Pity Mark Foley or hate him, try to understand this congressman or
try
to demonize him, but understand that the fundamental truth of the current
moment is that Republican leaders in the House knew that one of their own
had a problem and chose to disregard that knowledge in order to protect a
"safe" seat and their shaky grip on power.
That, to my view, is the greater scandal.
Copyright ©2006 The Nation
###
|
