Here’s the brutal truth.
If Democratic U.S. Rep. Mike Michaud loses the gubernatorial election on Nov. 4, it won’t be because of his congressional record (or lack thereof). It won’t be because of the policies he’s proposed (or not) to fix the state’s problems. It won’t even be because one or the other of his two opponents is a superior candidate (although that’s not an entirely irrational proposition).
It’ll be because he’s gay.
That’s the uncomfortable reality no one wants to discuss.
Late last year, Michaud publicly acknowledged his homosexuality. The experts were quick to claim it wouldn’t be a big factor in the gubernatorial race. After all, this was a state where voters had long since banned discrimination based on sexual orientation. Maine had voted decisively to legalize same-sex marriage. Openly gay and lesbian elected officials were hardly a novelty, anymore.
“I think for voters in general, the question of gay equality is not so much just settled as it is so settled that people are probably tired of talking about,” University of Southern Maine political science Professor Ron Schmidt told the Bangor Daily News. “I don’t think any kind of attempt to make this an overt issue would work.”
Note that word “overt.”
Michaud’s supporters rejected the notion that there could be an undercurrent of homophobia in this state so powerful that it might cause voters who’d supported the congressman since he was a fledgling state legislator in 1980 to nervously edge away from him. I mean, it’s not as if he’d been exposed to Ebola or something.
Even social conservatives insisted Michaud’s coming out wouldn’t be an issue for them. As Christian Civic League of Maine executive director Carroll Conley told the Bangor Daily, “The contrast between the three candidates is already so politically clear that I don’t see anybody resorting to [Michaud’s sexual orientation] for any kind of political advantage.”
At the most, political analyst Michael Cuzzi told the newspaper, Michaud might lose a few votes in “very devout, religious communities,” but he’d probably make up for that in the more liberal areas of southern Maine where support for equal rights has been strongest.
Others weren’t so sure. Republican Jason Levesque of Auburn lost to Michaud in the 2010 2nd District congressional race. Levesque told the Lewiston Sun Journal that the announcement would cost his erstwhile opponent votes on his home turf.
“I do not believe that it will be him being gay that’s the issue,” he said. “I believe it will be that he hid it for so long that’s the issue. It’s not his homosexuality – it’s why did he hide it for so long. That’s an important distinction.”
Uh … yeah, maybe there’s some kind of distinction there. But probably not.
A GOP legislative candidate running in a conservative area of western Maine that Michaud has traditionally carried by solid margins told me recently that many voters he’s met while going door to door are “uncomfortable” with supporting the congressman for governor.
“They just don’t feel the same way about him as they did before,” the candidate said.
“Is it because he’s gay?” I asked.
“Um, well, I didn’t want to say that,” he mumbled. “But I guess that has something to do with it.”
Other political operatives from different parts of the state have told me much the same thing. Even in a Portland suburb, where Democrats hold a decided edge, a Dem legislative candidate said she’d encountered a surprising amount of concern about Michaud’s sexuality. “There’s a latent undercurrent out there,” she said. “It’s not showing up in the polls, but it feels real, and it’s not working in [Michaud’s] favor.”
What is showing in the polls is that Michaud is trailing Republican Gov. Paul LePage in the 2nd District. Political experts have tended to attribute that to the area’s conservative tendencies being more in line with LePage’s agenda. But that ignores the fact that Michaud has frequently run against congressional candidates who were as far to the right as LePage – or even further – and he defeated them all by landslide margins. The current polling numbers can’t be explained away simply by ideology.
Mainers, like most people, are reluctant to admit their social shortcoming. Most of us still refuse to acknowledge our long history of racism regarding the Indians. We’ve couched our negative comments about recent immigrants from troubled parts of Africa in economic terms (we can’t afford the welfare and education costs), even though those arguments were never raised in the 1980s and ‘90s when we absorbed influxes of refugees from eastern Europe, most of whom were white. And we’re careful to keep our politically incorrect thoughts about our gay and lesbian neighbors to ourselves, at least when we’re in public.
But there’s no place as private as the voting booth. And it’s there our true selves will be revealed.
Which may be to Mike Michaud’s detriment.
Emails that begin, “I’m not homophobic, but …” may be directed to trashcan@herniahill.net.
Al, thanks for effectively “illuminating” the matter by using very pointed examples of other subjects of discrimination.
Yes, but the problem is also that: (In part because of historical prejudice) Even IF the election was in no way affected by Michaud’s decision to come out of the closet, there are a good number of people that would be convinced otherwise. Which will of course, lead to the inevitable accusations of prejudice and anti-gay bias, regardless of actual fact.
And basically, by framing the question as you have, Mr. Diamon, you have illustrated it quite clearly. Now, if I state a preference for any of the other candidates, you’ve put on the table the spectre of bigotry and homophobia. For now, even left unsaid in the moment, you have pushed the presumption of bias to the forefront.
Personally, I couldn’t care less who Mr. Michaud chooses to fall in love with, unless it impacts his ability to do his job. And any vote I cast this election will be based not on the candidate’s orientation, but his or her platform and record. (Sorry though they all are.) Apparently that’s not good enough for some people.
Alas, you’ve chosen a low road Mr. Diamon. It is indeed quite scurrilous of you to attempt to frame the election in such a manner as to give the impression that one must either vote for Michaud or be thought a Bigot, even if you didn’t QUITE come out and say so in so many words.
Fortunately, the 2nd District does not cast all the votes for Governor.
And the virtual tie between LePage and Michaud should be taken with a grain of the following:
“If you don’t think on Election Day that I can win, then bless you, go vote for someone else.”
Eliot Cutler, May 8, 2014 in front of the Maine Forest Products Council Board.
Cutler voters should take that to heart.
This whole game if pulling the hater card is beyond anything reasonable.
It’s old news and smells very badly.
You can call me anything you wish,,,,don’t mean a thing.
It just makes you a jerk looking for trouble.
Old and irrelevant news.
No sense in shooting the messenger, or accusing him either; this message has been around and shall come around again. Like it or not folks, some people (maybe neither you nor me) will use that nasty prejudice card over and over again. It doesn’t take a Diamon to remind us of that, it does however, take a column such as this one, to bring it to the uppermost regions of the minds of some. As a person who is different, (in appearance neither race nor gender) I understand the prejudice card—and, though I feel sad about its’ existence, I apreciate any willingness to discuss its’ existence. Thanks, Al.
So let’s see if I have the point of the article, “If you vote against Michaud, that means you’re a bigot and a hater! No other reasons are allowed.” Now, do I have that right?
No, AP, you don’t.
Per Old Radio Guy: “Like it or not folks, some people (maybe neither you nor me) will use that nasty prejudice card over and over again. It doesn’t take a Diamon to remind us of that, it does however, take a column such as this one, to bring it to the uppermost regions of the minds of some.”
Blame it on LePage
I disagree. Like everything else about him, his sexual orientation is imminently forgettable. Honestly, who cares or even remembered that he’s gay (or asexual, or whatever it is he finally decided on). I think that for Al to bring it up and claim it will have anything to do with Michaud losing the election is fallacious.
Weak!!!
The only word to describe this dribble.
So Al, in that line of thought if Cutler loses, are we all antisemitic?
The vast majority of voters have elevated their political thought process beyond sexual affiliation, skin color, religion, ect. I’m sure there is a subset of voters that are truly one issue voters, for which these things are the only issue, but i am willing to bet, of the 40% of people who actual vote, the same % who are voting against Michaud because of his sexual affiliation, are the same % of people voting against Cutler because he is Jewish, or against Lepage because he is french. Or even in reverse, voting only for a candidate because of his sexual affiliation, skin color, religion, ect.
and yes i meant drivel not dribble to the grammar checker who has nothing better to do.
Let me see if I got this – if Lepage finishes third, we can assume it’s because he’s gay(?) if he finishes second then he must be Bi-sexual, and if he finished 1st, it’s because Maine is full of closet homophobes, right?
Thanks Al. (reminds me of when a gay family member told me in late September that the country would never elect Obama because of his race.)
My takeaway fro AD’s article was not that he’ll lose because he’s gay, but that’s what his supporters will blame it on.
Pingdaddy,
Well sort of. It’s like equating the Maine electorate to bunch of pre-adolescent kids. Think of the election as foot race. One youngster in the group of runners shouts “last one there is q***r!
Basically, according to some- Mainer’s are as a group, not mentally mature enough to get past their long held pre-adolescent biases. I for one accept Al’s thesis as a universal and immutable law of social and political science. Whomever finishes this race dead last is gay. It is as obvious as white on rice.
What we need is to have the Maine Supreme Court void the election and coronate somebody.
The president got elected because of his race not because he had the crudentials if this is what’s goin on now useing sexual preference to guilt us into voting for someone we don’t agree with then I’m done voting
Dear ‘MOM’,
According to your ‘logic’, John Kennedy got elected because he was Catholic.
Presidents Kennedy and Obama got elected IN SPITE OF their religious faith or race.
So, no, Mom, you don’t know what’s going on.
Dear Actual News,,
You are providing further proof that Libs are by far the most intolerant group of people to be found anywhere.
Congratulations on your achievement.
I challenge you to show me where anything other than Marching Lock Step with the Lib Agenda is allowed in the Democratic Party.
Although I cant stand them either,,,,at least the Republicans allow Diversity in their party.
Open your mind and be free!!
Regards,
Phauxy Lady
@ faux-y lady: “Although I cant stand them either,,,,at least the Republicans allow Diversity in their party.”
I don’t have a rejoinder to the oxymoronic comment above. Let it stand as a monument to lack of comprehension.