Notes from the Left Coast

Drummond Pike’s Blog

My uncle, Roy Pike, Jr., died in his late eighties. My brother and I sorted through his many effects after his passing in the course of which we discovered correspondence between Roy and his “special friend.” It served to confirm what everyone knew, but no one spoke about. Roy was gay. As with many in his generation, he remained steadfastly in the closet all his life, living much of it with my grandmother. He sold jewelry for Shreve & Co downtown, was an avid hiker and superb photographer, going on many Sierra Club trips. But he never openly spoke about his orientation, and he lived quietly ensconced in his generation’s not uncommon role of unattached male dinner partner in San Francisco’s social circles.

I don’t know that Roy was ever unhappy about his choices or his confined existence, but  When Harvey Milk was killed, I would think Roy felt the loss more profoundly than most, even though Milk was clearly at the other end of the spectrum as an “out” and at times flamboyant public figure. In retrospect, I am sad I never had a chance to talk with him about his experience of being gay in a hostile world. As the controversy erupted 17 years ago over “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the military, I wonder what he would have said about his own experience in World War II when he met his friend in London. This is not to say he was a tragic figure, for he was not. He was an engaged, productive, and talented man who got a great deal of enjoyment out of life, limited as it was by social convention. But one wonders how it might have been different if he hadn’t been forced to live in the shadows.

Tides sponsors and supports the National Equality March scheduled for this weekend in Washington (http://equalityacrossamerica.org). This event will give voice to the very simple notion that we should all be equal under the law – the 14^th Amendment would appear to provide just that, but despite all the gains we have made, the LGBT community is still legally left out in the cold.

My kids have grown up in a very different world from that of their great uncle. To them, this whole argument is silly on its face. The idea that people should have the freedom to be with who they want is, to them, basic. That gay and lesbian people should be treated differently under our legal system just makes no sense. Clearly, the clock is ticking on those who are stuck in the mental model of my parents’ generation. But it’s going to be a long road with many hazards and obstacles before we arrive at a more generous and enlightened perspective about this very basic human right. Supporting the March seems like the least we straight people can do. Marching with the thousands of others expected, would be even better.

At Tides, we have long been on the receiving end of rightist critiques of our many activities and programs. Full of innuendo, remarkably bad conspiracy theories, untruths, and half-truths, their theory seems to be that our commitment to sustainability, human rights, and social justice makes us highly suspect at best, and downright anti-American at worst. The latest examples, of course, are these bizarre constructs being promoted by FOX’s Glenn Beck insinuating that Tides is promoting a communist and/or socialist agenda on the unsuspecting public according to a grand plan. It’s all part of the scorched earth approach that Paul Krugman alluded to in his recent column.

We’ve considered various ways of responding, legally and otherwise, and invariably receive the advice that its just better to continue on our way and not get bogged down in a fruitless effort to set the record straight.

While I’ve developed a fairly thick skin as a result of the frequent screed directed at us, and at me individually, I find myself deeply saddened by the condition of current social policy debate in this great country of ours. In all of our years of supporting progressive ideas and organizations, I don’t think we (Tides) ever lost respect for the views of others. And for most of our 33 years, conservatives have held the reins of government, and, until recently, the support of many voters. But in the tradition of a loyal opposition, we have always thought that advancing alternative views was central to the democratic process. It is in this spirit that we hosted the recent Momentum 2009 conference. Videos of all the speakers are available to all to view, consider, and, if moved, comment upon, in the hopes of fostering intelligent dialog about solutions to the difficult problems of our day. There is no secret agenda. We simply invite an open exchange of ideas. The question is, though, is that still possible?

There are many voices, particularly in some corners of the broadcasting world, that seem to believe the best way to prevail is to silence your counterparts by trashing them personally, often without any factual basis. Just bully them out of the way. I’ve been on the receiving end of this, in my small way, as a result of this blog. One recent comment gives a flavor of what one can expect these days: “Hey, Drummond, how’s it feel to be hit on the head with a shovel? Get used to it. There’s more coming.”

I’m too old to have my feelings hurt by such things, but it is a sad thing to see that our political discourse has dropped into the gutter in this way. Much in the tradition of “yellow journalism” practiced in the late 1800’s, the anonymity of the Internet invites extremists to vent. In response, many simply cringe. And, as we have seen recently in Kansas, some resort to violence.

Politics has always been a rough and tumble game, not for the faint of heart. But during most of my adult life, there has always been a parallel experience where rational minds come together to wrestle out where the common ground lies. In the best cases, they try to develop palatable solutions that most can agree upon. Many would argue this has been the source of much human progress. While I’d not argue that progressives start in that middle ground, the gargantuan problems facing us in so many realms suggest that we need to find this path as we seek the solutions we so desperately need to find.

Irving Kristol’s passing reminds us all of the tradition that he founded that many call “neo-conservatism.” In his approach, and that of William F. Buckley and perhaps our generation’s David Brooks, intellectual rigor, rational thought, and facts mattered in constructing conservative positions and proposals. Propaganda and character assassination had no place. Buckley, for instance, would face off against smart people with differing views in the most intelligent exchanges one can imagine. Quoted in a Salon.com article a decade ago, Kristol’s son William said this about Buckley, “Buckley really believes that in order to convince, you have to debate and not just preach, which of course means risking the possibility that someone will beat you in debate.”

Fatalists sometimes argue that the rising seas will put out the fires of human conflict and the few survivors will have no choice but to cooperate or die. Even the figuratively shovel-wielding commenter noted above might agree that civil discussion has some merit in contrast, especially if we can actually begin to work together to solve humanity’s problems.