WHO CARES?

I make no apologies for my arrogance. Yes, this is a self-published book. It's no joke! Some of my friends say, "self-published doesn't count," and I say, why do you need the prior approval of others to publish? Go back to Atlas Shrugged! Yet, in giving advice to self-publishers in the Aug. 1997 Writer's Digest, Tom and Marilyn Ross ("11 Ways to Avoid Failure") counsel "write what other people want" and "few care about your life history and opinions." ! Oh, it's supposed to be rude, or even unethical, to start a writing career with yourself. Think about it! (More, later.) Well, OK, many people don't want to learn, they just want to remain comfortable

True, I haven't led a life of "normal" people. I haven't even tried to have and raise a family. As much as I project the penultimate American dream of personal freedom, I never been dedicated or absolutely "loyal" enough to any one team or venture run by other people to advance to a position of obvious public recognition, authority, and responsibility. Indeed, when it comes to my own life, who (besides me) cares? But I was so angry about the intellectual duplicity of both sides when it came to posturing on issues that have affected me.

Now, my life history could never have made anything more than a silly manifesto (I wouldn't send it to The Washington Post) until I added it all up. And there are a lot of special things I can build on, such as:  

(1) I was thrown out of school for "telling" that I was a latent homosexual!

(2) My military service (68-70) may have been mediocre. But who was 4-F for homosexuality and still managed to serve anyway?

(3) The whole personal growth and polarity theory (see Ninth Street Center web page below) has a special place in my dialectic.

(4) The gay community's terrestrial life as-we-know-it almost came to an end during the AIDS crisis of the 1980's - nobody says this anymore, it's politically incorrect.

(5) My "telling" set up my participation in the DADT ("Don't Ask, Don't Tell") debate on gays in the military in 1993, and our gay leadership really blew it.

(6) "Family values" really is about a cultural tension over personal growth and personal obligation. Let's face it: young men used to think of sexual performance (and its consequences) as like swimming: an absolute pre-requisite for meaningful life.

(7) Nobody talks yet about the tension between loyalty (social cohesion and gravity) and free speech (social kinetic energy).

(8) A libertarian public policy really is the best way to get people to resolve moral issues on their own. When poverty is handled by government, middle-class families are sheltered from it. We need a historical moment where we limit the powers of government to intrude upon psychological space once and for all. We need to debate the Right to Privacy amendment.

 My attitude towards my own homosexuality (even when "latent") has always seemed schizophrenic - that duality of self from the compulsions of the night and the sanity of a wakeup call. If it's behavior or desire for behavior decided by "free will," how can I claim I should not be discriminated against by others who believe such behavior collectively harmful and individually sessile? Well, it's my own private business! Just leave me alone! Then why should I want to talk about it, write about it, become a public figure, a "professional homosexual." The answer may sound glib. You really can't keep it completely private. You are known by what you don't do! A disinterest in the opposite sex and in family matters or parenting is (sometimes wrongfully) equated to homosexuality, at leas "latent." Worst, many "normal" people don't understand how they depend on others on the fringes to help subsidize their choices to raise families.

 A writer may indeed establish himself as an ultimate authority and even as a decision maker on some set of problems. He may break out of the conventional tyranny of numbers in business (appeal to the lowest common denominator to achieve the highest sales) and say something really original, and truthful. He may enjoy his own kind of power behind the throne. People tend to view writing as a "profession" that demands a person build credibility in the information and vision he wants to sell to the public. Hence, there exists a plethora of ethical problems, such as conflict of interest, that can occur when one puts oneself in even that potential position. A writer may enjoy stepping on people's toes and making people feel things they don't want to feel. It's all too easy to become sadistic and, like the Uhlan character played by Jack Nicholson in As Good As It Gets, insult people by telling the truth. Then he can wind up with nothing. He will deserve all the ostracism he gets.

---

What is the value of Do Ask, Do Tell, however rough around the edges? There is hardly any other commercially published book like it. This is a book about public issues; it does not "kiss and tell," and it is not just a set of "memoirs." (Yup, who would care about my memoirs?) And it is not just "opinions" (the "opinions" are well supported by anecdotes, observations, and factual presentation) although (on gays in the military) it contains "an Opinion." What DADT does, is to combine personal narratives (most of them from early adulthood) and anecdotes with a mass of footnoted, dissertation-style research, and connect a number of issues in ways that should surprise and shock most readers, in order to finally produce a whole that (violating the triangle inequality) is greater than the sum of its parts, like a musical symphony that is more than just a set of distinct movements.

Major publishers, on the other hand, tend (when publishing non-fiction) to produce mostly books that are easy to mass-market by focusing upon one simply stated theme (often "kiss and tell" or one particular isolated issue) and therefore have limited impact upon public debate (however quickly they sell immediately after publication). So the public remains polarized.

One particular dichotomy, above all others, comes through DADT. That is the following: we seem to experience a moral imperative to learn to care more about other people at their own level and in relation to their real needs, yet this almost Biblical unconditionality of love/power seems to hide and anesthetize one from personal failure or inadequacy. To know victory one must be willing to experience defeat and ego deflation. One must play the game. This is the paradox of meritocracy.

I've further crystallize my core ideas in the file (no link available now) psychological libertarianism.

Return to home page.