Just when I thought problematic playboy Dominique Strauss-Kahn was out of the news, Lynn Parramore (of the Huffington Post, New Deal 2.0, Recessionwire.com, etc) posted a new story on Alternet supposedly investigating the difference between Libertines and Libertarians through the example of DSK. At least that’s what the title “Libertines v. Libertarians” seemed to suggest. However, that is clearly not what its about with libertarianism only being given this passing mention in the essay:
“Much as our libertarians desire freedom from government intrusion, and look rather like silly adolescents to Europeans who understand social bonds, the desire for sexual abandon without consequences sounds a little bit like selfish teenage fantasy over here across the pond.”
An interesting point... but utterly undeveloped. What Parramore’s essay is full of however are perfect examples of how the American Left is still totally unprepared to deal with the question of personal sexual desire, not in terms of differences between us and the Brits but in relation to its interactions with public life and Power. Progressive sexual activists are staunch defenders of private forms of sexual expression. We vocally support the right of people to be attracted to anything from infantilism to burping to feet. Particularly if you don’t really let anyone else know beyond your liberal security blanket. And particularly if you don’t hold societal or governmental power. As Parramore puts it
“But there’s something that remains a problem whether you are a statesman from France or a senator from Louisiana. If you are wont to do things in private that you don’t wish to be known, then you are vulnerable to blackmail. Set-ups. Distractions from the work of governing.”
This is a perfect example of the double standard that the Left puts onto its politicians. Any sexual “misdeeds” from, yes, the extremely serious charge of rape to the extremely silly charge of sending a picture of your dick across the tubes of the interwebs are thought of as not only a serious attack on the moral character of a politician but also an equally serious blow against the fitness of the person to govern. While that may hold some truth to it, we seem to care much less about lying about things which actually affect governance such as reasons for going to war, whether or not we’re torturing people, and what our tax plan is going to be. Furthermore, the essay seems to be suggesting that if stories about Strauss-Kahn engaging in kinky consensual sex had been leaked that they wouldn’t have affected his electoral chances at all. Just how do you think people would react if it came out that David Cameron liked to have his ass fisted or Barak Obama just loves it when Michelle talks to him like he’s a baby right before he orgasms? Neither politician would be impeached, but I doubt very strongly they would ever be re-elected. Either Parramore does not realize this or she is supporting into the idea that citizens should hold their elected leaders that would appear as vanilla as possible.
What Parramore seems to find most problematic about DSK, even more than the multiple accusations of rape, is his attitude and the attitude of his entourage about sex and power. She dismisses entirely the idea that any of Strauss-Kahn’s partners could be truly be consenting she paints him as “decidedly not classy: an aging, Viagra-pumped satyr with an ego large enough to assert that young women are there for the fun of watching him flop around in the altogether.” and later as “sexist, not sexy.” Now, no, the maturing Frenchman may not be the most physically attractive man in the land, but to dismiss his sex appeal is to dismiss possibly one of the most important aspects of attraction, Power. An aging but still fit and virile, extremely intelligent, extremely powerful man seemingly on the verge of the Presidency of a major world power is basically the definition of what has historically been both classy and sexy. Yes, its partially because of what Parramore decries as “a kind of ancient male privilege that has long been argued to be the just spoils of power” but its also because to many, I would go so far as to say most, power is attractive. Emotionally if not sexually. People in America thrown themselves at aging rock stars, abusive sports stars, and rich movie stars with abandon and relatively little rebuke. Maybe because they’re interested in getting something out of it for themselves beyond the sex, maybe because they want someone to brag about fucking to their friends, or maybe just because the idea of being with someone who holds more societal power and sway is attractive to them. Is it so absurd to believe that people can feel this way about politicians as well? It is as though, for many on the left, the idea of bringing Power into sexuality inherently removes the potential for consent.
It would be an extreme understatement to say that DSK is not the poster child for a new Progressive way of dealing with the problematic relationship between sexuality and Power. Odds are some of the liaisons he has had in his life were not only dangerous but also illegal and damaging. I want to make it clear that I am in no way defending the supposed “ancient privilege” of the elites in general and Strauss-Kahn in particular to rape. But the New Deal 2.0 founder’s rejection of power dynamics in politics as “a playing field on which young women are presented as disposable sex toys” is short sited to the extreme. The question of how to manage private sexual desires and existence in the public sphere is one of the most important that has historically faced organized society. If we on the left seek to outlaw or shame it away from our politics we are no better than the right wing religious activists or the Victorian-style right wing moralists who have pushed what can best be described as a ‘Don’t ask / Don’t tell’ agenda in the way in which we discuss the impact of personal displays of sexuality (as opposed to the extremely public displays of voyeurism such as pop music or Fifty Shades of Grey) on the public sphere. We cannot wish away problematic situations simply by picking a few scapegoats and wishing for an easier course to navigate. We start by being honest about ourselves, embracing that even the most Progressive of us has potentially problematic impulses, and judging ourselves and our politicians not by the dusty morality of our forebears but by the actual realities of the world around us. Yes, Ms. Parramore, in an organized society we are all in it together... but that doesn’t mean we’re all the same. And it doesn’t mean we want to be.
You can find Lynn Parramore's essay at http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/libertines-v-libertarians-dominique-strauss-kahns-rejection-sexual-restraints and follow her on twitter at https://twitter.com/LynnParramore
