Skip to main content

Mark Kingwell is a professor of philosophy at the University of Toronto.

By now you may have come across, or read about, an article by New Yorker staff writer Masha Gessen about the gay opposition to the presidential ambitions of gay candidate Pete Buttigieg, a former mayor of South Bend, Ind.

The essence of the article, which embraces much more hemming and hawing than the usual run of her otherwise forceful journalism, is this final paragraph: “What makes Buttigieg an easy and reassuring choice for these older, white, straight people, and a disturbing possibility for the queer people who seem to be criticizing him for not being gay enough? It is that he is profoundly, essentially conservative. He is an old politician in a young man’s body, a straight politician in a gay man’s body.”

Story continues below advertisement

Hence the recurring theme that Mr. Buttigieg is “not gay enough” or “not gay in the right way.” If you have gay friends, or are gay yourself, the argument will be familiar. Mr. Buttigieg, who is married to a man and has been out for some time, is certainly gay. But his array of career choices, life opportunities and self-presentation tactics seems distant from what many people consider gay politics. Or, in the more precise shades offered by Ms. Gessen, he is LGBT but not LGBTQIA. He’s a normalizer, not a radical.

Suppose you slot into a non-majority demographic. Do you want to be accepted and embraced as part of the bell-curve middle, complete with weddings and kids and joint mortgages? Or do those victories of inclusion just mask an erasure of subcultural tribe identity, coded language and gesture, as well as the thrill of secret libertine lives? Do the long-overdue diminishments of prejudice and even violence compensate for basically becoming straight? (“I miss being gay,” a married gay friend of mine said recently.)

That issue can’t be resolved here. But behind it, with Mr. Buttigieg still in the race for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, there is another question: Is it possible to become president of the United States without being, in effect, a straight white male neoliberal?

The answer is probably not. As of this writing, Bernie Sanders, the mildly democratic socialist senator from Vermont, is ahead in the Democratic caucuses and primaries. I happen to agree, along with writers from the leftist journal Jacobin (obvious) to the centrist USA Today (far less obvious), that Mr. Sanders could beat Donald Trump in November. But wider polls indicate that most Americans would sooner elect a gay man, a black man or a woman before anyone remotely describable as socialist.

That Mr. Sanders is no more than a familiar replicant of many a Canadian politician – pro-health care, anti-inequality – won’t help him. He will never be president, even though he scores three out of four of the traditional electability criteria (i.e., straight white male – also old, but we can bracket that one).

In short, whatever your factual sexual preferences, skin colour or gender, straight white men who support market capitalism, preferably billionaires, are the natural ruling order of allegedly diverse democratic countries. The United States still awaits its first female president, but we all know that Margaret Thatcher has her (whoever she may be) beaten by a long throw. Barack Obama was undeniably the first black president of the United States, but that did not affect his status quo decisions on drone strikes, bank bailouts and mortgage foreclosures.

Identity politics matter far, far less in electoral politics than the shadow parade of nominations and debates might suggest. You don’t get to be president of the United States by being radical. That’s for campus activists and special interest groups pursuing social justice agendas. In politics, wearing the big-boy pants means exactly what it says: get straight, get white, get male, get neoliberal. And do that pretty much right now if you want to win or even just be taken seriously.

Story continues below advertisement

No doubt many citizens will think: “Straight white capitalist men are pretty good at what they do.” Fine, but let’s stop pretending that the personal qualities of the candidates matter or that the electorate’s “tolerance” of candidate diversity is a democratic virtue. There is, beneath the surface, no diversity at all.

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies