Recently released documents show that Britain’s counter-intelligence and security service MI5 monitored George Orwell as a potential security threat. Turns out ol’ George’s politics were difficult to pin down.

MI5 did come up with some pretty damning evidence:

“He dresses in a bohemian fashion both at his office and in his leisure hours.”

Scandal! But in the end, they couldn’t place Orwell as a member of the international communist conspiracy. While they felt he certainly had ‘advanced communist’ and ’undoubtedly strong left-wing’ views, he was ultimately an ‘unorthodox’ commie. Quoth MI5:

“It is evident from his recent writings – The Lion and the Unicorn – and his contribution to Gollancz’s symposium The Betrayal Of The Left that he does not hold with the Communist Party nor they with him.”

I find all this very interesting. Orwell once wrote that Charles Dickens was an intellectual “free from all the smelly little orthodoxies now contending for our souls”. Turns out Orwell was the same kind of thinker. A real intellectual evaluates everything on its merits, and while guided by certain values, resists the totalizing and reductionist influence of ideology. For Orwell, this allowed him to have socialist views while simultaneously condemning the criminal monstrosity of the Soviet Union…a trap many of his contemporaries couldn’t avoid. It also helped him write some kickass books.

So here’s to you, George. Way to confuse the mediocre minds.

Mike Rogers has a list. If you’re on it, and you’re a politician, there are rough seas ahead.

Rogers, contributor to the crusading Blogactive, claims he has a list of 33 Congress members who pursue anti-gay policies but are themselves homosexual. And if they don’t mend their hypocritical ways, Rogers will ‘out’ them on his blog. Oh, and about 30 of the names are Republicans.

Said Rogers:

“I write about closeted people whose records are anti-gay. If you’re a closeted Democrat or Republican and you don’t bash gays or vote against gay rights to gain political points, I won’t out you.”

What to make of this threat? On the one hand, hypocrisy deserves to be exposed. It’s a reprehensible human quality, the cause and perpetuator of a great deal of stupidity and suffering. Believe me, there’s nothing I’d rather see than a bunch of Republicans getting their digital comeuppance.

Still, there’s something a little distasteful about Rogers’ crusade. Reduced to its essential components, his threat amounts to little more than political blackmail. Yes, LGBT equality is a vitally important political issue. But as the ‘War on Terror’ so ably demonstrates, individuals who pursue progressive political goals need to choose their methods carefully, lest they become the monsters they oppose.

A politician who votes for a anti-gay agenda is homophobic. Full stop. Their personal sexual orientation is immaterial. They should be challenged on the fact that their position is wrong and inconsistent with the values of a free society based on constitutionally entrenched civil rights. Not that they are hypocrites. The first argument has legal and moral weight; the second merely shows that they are bad people- and we more or less knew that anyway. Destroying the career of a closeted-gay-homophobic congressman is ultimately hurts only one person. It does nothing to challenge prevailing social attitudes or build legal protections. If anything, it makes the LGBT community look like a sinister mafia who launches personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with their position. These are the tactics of social conservatives. Is that a game that progressive individuals should be playing?

Rogers’ crusade politicizes the personal lives of his targets.  Isn’t that what social conservatives have been doing to gay and lesbian individuals for centuries? My understanding is that the ultimate goal of the LGBT movement is to de-politicize sexual orientation, to create a society where everyone is accorded the same human and civil rights, regardless of their sexual preference. It seems to me that Rogers is perpetuating the hyper-politicization of homosexuality by making an individuals sexual orientation- not their voting record, policy choices or ideology- the central issue. A gay Repulican who votes against gay rights is a sad, sad individual. But do they deserve to be pilloried on the basis of their personal life? Again, this is a social conservative tactic. It’s slimy, it’s mean, and ultimately, I think it works against the interests of the LGBT community.

Although I am not gay, I believe that total equality for gay individuals is a fundamentally important part of a truly free and democratic society. But I also firmly believe that the ends never justify the means in public life. If progressive victories are achieved by appropriating the hateful tactics of social conservatives and cynical political careerists, then they are no victories at all. Ideals, ethics and morality have always been the strength of progressive movements. If these movements surrender their keystones for short term advantage, then they are doomed to fail.    

UPDATE [06/09/07]: The Washington Post agrees.

It’s a brave new world. Or more accurately, it’s a brave new old world catching up to a brave new world that emerged in the 1970s.

England’s venerated Yeoman Warders, guardians of the Tower of London and the Crown Jewels, have admitted their first female member. About time, since the Warders have been around since 1485.

Moira Cameron made her debut yesterday, giving tours of the 941 year-old fortress. Said Cameron:

“It’s wonderful to meet these people because they so want to be here and are interested in anything you can tell them. And you can have a really good laugh with them as well.”

There was never a formal ban on female Beefeaters, but since the job requires at least 22 years of good service in the UK armed forces, women were often at at a disadvantage. Recent rule changes have allowed women to claim their maternity leave as part of their service, thereby allowing them to rack up service years equal to their male counterparts.

Cameron has been generally well received by the other warders (there are 35) and the general public. A few idiots have protested, but, well, that’s why they’re idiots. I’ve been to the ToL twice, and given my historical nerdiosity, I will go again (full disclosure: I actually lived next to the Tower for a year). And I look forward to a Moira Cameron tour.