Harvey Milk, Goldwaterite
Last night, I saw Milk, an earnest and often very entertaining hagiographic portrait of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay elected official in the United States. I was particularly intrigued by the fact, only glancingly referenced in the film, that Milk started out as a Republican — he was an ardent supporter of Barry Goldwater — before joining the left of the Democratic Party.
Faced with ferociously hostile police and the constant threat of public disgrace, it makes perfect sense that lesbians and gay men in the 1950s and 1960s would have been instinctive libertarians, leery of further empowering an already overweening, overly intrusive state. The Goldwater movement attracted all kinds of freethinkers who, like Milk, later gravitated towards a hippie sensibility.
So what causes the libertine libertarian to embrace the cause of the social services state, to oppose free trade and stand shoulder to shoulder with the longshoremen, and to embrace labor-liberalism writ large? My guess is that it had to do with misery and poverty faced by a lot of the younger gay migrants to the Castro. A lot of these kids were forced to commit crimes or to turn to prostitution by virtue of their extreme social marginality. Had Milk stuck to his libertarian creed, he could have called for gays to become the new Mormons — to build parallel social institutions outside of the state. To some extent, this happened. For example, the whistles gay men used to warn of violence were, I assume, a form of spontaneous community self-help, and Milk served as an informal social worker or padrone to hundreds if not thousands of men in the community, this despite being a relatively recent arrival.
At the same time, the main threat facing gay men in San Francisco was, judging by the film, overaggressive cops who ruled by fear, yet who also turned a blind eye to crimes against gays. So really, Milk had to get a hold of the reins of power, if only to restrain these abuses. Having seen the destructive power of local government at work, perhaps Milk felt that, in the right hands, local government had redemptive potential as well. Who knows? I do find Milk’s political turn to be an interesting puzzle.
Of course, there is a simpler explanation, which you might call the Rodney Stark thesis. When Milk jettisoned his old banker cronies to move west, he became part of a new social group that, informed by its social marginality, was more inclined to embrace soak-the-rich solutions. It didn’t help that the established gay elite was reluctant to expend substantial resources on the rougher-hewn part of the community.
One of the more heartening parts of the film’s tragic ending was the defeat of Proposition 6, a truly horrible measure that threatened to strip lesbians and gays of the right to teach in public schools. You get the impression that the measure was defeated in no small part due to the opposition of that old Goldwaterite Ronald Reagan. Would Karl Rove have stood tough against Anita Bryant in that fight? Sad to say, I think we all know the answer to that question is no.
Surely Goldwater would’ve supported states’ rights over gay rights, as he did with civil rights?
— Chris · Dec 2, 04:17 AM · #
I presume the movie doesn’t mention how the dissolving of social restraints on gay male behavior led directly to the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s, which first emerged exactly where gay liberation had triumphed most: San Francisco, New York, and so forth?
— Steve Sailer · Dec 2, 04:28 AM · #
Reihan: “Had Milk stuck to his libertarian creed, he could have called for gays to become the new Mormons — to build parallel social institutions outside of the state. To some extent, this happened.”
???? is this supposed to be a good thing? yes, the formation of a isolated gay subculture was necessary and inevitable. that’s what happens to all minority/marginalized communities. but in the long run what you want to do is assimilate into the larger society—you know, become normal. i can imagine only what would have happened if gays (or blacks, asians, catholics, etc.) took your advice. maybe the gays all should have moved to Nebraska and taken over the state. Like the mormons!
self-segregation is extremely unhealthy. milk recognized that gay people were no less a part of America than any other group—with all the rights AND responsibilities that entailed—and (though obviously foremost a gay advocate) he realized that different people could work together to advance common interests, i.e. through government.
i don’t know about milk’s libertarian past, but i doubt he was ever as opposed to the welfare state as you makes him out to be. people supported goldwater for all sorts of reasons; did milk really change that much ideologically?
— raft · Dec 2, 05:08 AM · #
“I presume the movie doesn’t mention how the dissolving of social restraints on gay male behavior led directly to the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s”
According to the Laws of Sailer, must a gay-issue movie mention every other gay issue or else be held suspect of some big liberal Hollywood coverup? Besides, Milk was assassinated in 1978. AIDS wasn’t even identified until 1981.
— Danny · Dec 2, 08:33 PM · #
Danny stop oppressing Steve Sailer, he is only speaking the harsh truth to us sentimental fools who can’t handle awesome wisdoms he’s imparting.
— Freddie · Dec 3, 03:29 PM · #
Why is it always “soak the rich”? Maybe – and I know this is really hard to process – liberals support social spending because they want to help other people, not because they want to punish anyone. Now, since conservatives are having such smashing electoral success, you may not want to take my advice, but sometimes it’s okay to assume your political opponents really are acting in good faith.
— Ryan · Dec 3, 05:38 PM · #
Steve Sailer is the AIDS of comment threads.
— on the other hand · Dec 3, 06:06 PM · #