I’m always relieved when reality lives up to stereotype. Since I’ve gotten to London, it’s done nothing but rain. Sideways, downwards, upwards, everywhere. I’m impressed by how many Londoners walk around in what feels like a freezing, torrential downpour with nothing on their heads. I’ve had a classic few cabbies as well. Most of them assume I’m American and it always amuses me to ask them about the city as we drive around. Last time I was here, I was being driven through the West End and inquired about some of the buildings. “Oh, yeah, mate,” one said. “Some of these buildings ‘ave bin ‘ere fah faaazands of years.” Today, I gently inquired of a cabbie what he thought of William Hague, the Tory leader and subject of my assignment. “‘E’s a prick, innee?” he said. “‘Course they all are, innit? I don’t really care much for politics meself, guv. Booze, football and birds. That’s all I give a tosser about.” I’m not making this up. A recent poll in the Daily Telegraph had as one question, “Do you think that William Hague is a bit of a wally?” A hefty plurality agreed. They don’t call it Cruel Britannia for nothing.
QUOTE OF THE WEEK: “If there had been no so-called scandals, does anyone doubt who would be sitting in the Oval Office today?” This piece of wisdom comes from Bob Shrum, a lovely man whose politics seem stuck somewhere around 1976. Read the quote again. What on earth can it mean? Is he saying there were no real scandals under Bill Clinton? And if there weren’t, why did they cost Gore the election? Does Shrum think the voters are idiots? Or were there actual scandals worthy of the name? (And if lying under oath – which even Bill Clinton now almost concedes he did – isn’t a scandal, then what is? Spilling your DNA on an intern’s dress in the Oval Office? Or was that “so-called” DNA as well?) Well, at least Shrum isn’t pretending, like some others, that Gore actually did win the election. All this to divert attention from the fact that Shrummy helped Gore run possibly one of the worst campaigns in living memory. Actually, make that a “so-called” campaign.
THE THAW: I’ve always had a soft spot for David Horowitz. He has guts. He was also one of the very first converts from the Left to the Right to see that the gay world was not monolithically left-wing or bitter or angry or opposed to family values or economic freedom. I will always remember that. While he’s right to attack some of the extremism of the gay left, he has never tarred all of us with the same brush, as so many conservatives sadly have done. So it’s a real delight to see his magazine, Front Page, feature a truly smart article by a lesbian writer I’m ashamed to say I’ve never heard of: Beth Elliott. It’s called “How Gays And Conservatives Can Work Together.” You’ll recognize some of the themes if you’re a regular here, but they are written with passion and intelligence. It’s also such a relief to find a lesbian saying these things. For some reason, groupthink seems even more entrenched among lesbians than gay men. The exceptions are, of course, glittering: Camille Paglia and Fran Lebowitz are my faves. There’s also a terrific young lesbian writer called Norah Vincent you’ll be reading much more about in the future. Anyway, enjoy. It’s the kind of intellectually refreshing, honest, and brave piece about gay politics that you’d never find in, say, the Weekly Standard.
The Dish 