Thursday, March 8, 2007

Porn Free: The Rhetorical Role of Matt Sanchez


Conservative blogger Matt Sanchez offers us a fine example of rhetorical “role creation” in an essay he just penned for Salon.com.

You may have heard that Sanchez got his picture taken with Ann Coulter at the event at which she referred to John Edwards as a “faggot.” When the photo surfaced, some noted the irony in a gay man literally embracing Coulter given her comments (which was hardly the first time she’s made offensive remarks about homosexuality). When the fact that Sanchez once starred in gay pornographic movies emerged, the scrutiny intensified.

Two main purposes drive Sanchez’s Salon piece. The first is to address his past in the porn industry—a past that he had apparently tried to keep secret. The other is to address why he would apparently condone the use of hateful language directed at a community he’s part of. The implicit question he responds to is, “How can a gay man support someone who attacks your humanity in such a vulgar way?”

Sanchez does this by casting himself in the role of the Victim—not of Coulter, but of “liberals” who “outed my gay porn past.”

To do that, he has to do two seemingly contradictory things: argue that his pornographic past is no big deal (to admit there’s anything “wrong” with it would implicate himself in an act of immorality), but also argue that porn is immoral (to say otherwise would cancel his conservative credentials, if simply being gay didn’t already do that).

He wouldn’t have to negotiate that tricky tension if he made another rhetorical choice—say, that of casting himself in the role of the Repentant Sinner (a la Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, or even George W. Bush himself). But that approach doesn’t lend itself to placing responsibility on anyone else, and that’s what Sanchez wants to do.

So, we find Sanchez, in the space of a few paragraphs, both dismissing his porn career and condemning porn’s moral evils. On one hand, his stint in adult films happened “once upon a time” in the “ancient” past. It was a “long-ago summer job.” Porn itself is “self-explanatory and without depth.” It’s not something that he feels the need to disavow:

“It's just a part of my past, and as anyone who reflects on the past realizes,
it contributes to who I am today. No apologies, just recognition. No running
away, just moving forward.”


So Sanchez exonerates himself from any wrong-doing in the past. Yet, as a conservative, it’s not a rhetorical option to leave it at that. Sanchez cleanses himself rhetorically by scapegoating the porn industry itself for its moral lapses, or, as he calls it, “porn’s liberalism,” in which “everything taboo is trivialized and everything trivial is magnified.” It’s a “cult” in which he lost his belief (note again the lack of personal agency the metaphor implies). It’s this liberal mentality that ensnared him and kept him “anesthetized.”

But Sanchez accuses liberalism of more than simply sharing the same moral outlook as the porn industry. It’s guilty of hypocrisy. After all, he reasons:

Those on the left who now attack me would be defending me if I had espoused
liberal causes and spoken out against the Iraq war before I was outed as a
pseudo celebrity. They'd be talking about publishing my memoir and putting me on
a diversity ticket with Barack Obama. Instead, those who complain about
wire-tapping reserve the right to pry into my private life and my past for
political brownie points.

Of course, if he had espoused liberal causes, he likely wouldn’t have embraced someone who used the word “faggot” as a punchline. He elides the fact that the “attacks” result not from his past in pornography but from the apparent hypocrisy of a (professionally) gay man not only siding with a political camp that openly reviles homosexuality, but with a particularly ugly exemplar of its hateful excesses.

One can also take issue with his equation of himself to a victim of warrantless wiretaps. It’s one thing to have the government eavesdrop on your private phone calls without reason, quite another have regular citizens point out that they’ve seen you have mass-mediated sex for money. One’s “private life” isn’t exactly private if its on sale at the local adult bookstore.

But this isn’t simply a momentary lapse in analogical reasoning. I argue that it’s central to the rhetorical role Sanchez creates. He is the victim of liberals, a group that not only is in league with the porn industry (although, remember, there’s nothing wrong with *being* in pornography), but then hypocritically attacks and “outs” someone they would defend, if only he weren’t a Coulter fan.

As for Coulter, Sanchez says, “I don't agree with what she said, but anyone in the military would defend her right to say it.” Yet, if what Sanchez thought was so morally bankrupt about the porn industry is its penchant for trivializing the taboo (to use his own words), what is one to make of Coulter’s jocular use of “faggot?” One could argue Coulter’s entire career is based on trivializing the taboo by saying incredibly hateful and hurtful things, then writing them off as “jokes.” For that matter, Sanchez himself does this by making light of such remarks as so much weightless, meaningless babble:

We all have a tendency to want to hate the enemy. I suppose that's why Coulter
gets applause when she uses terms like "faggot" or "ragheads" (was that the last
Coulter scandal, or was it her comments about 9/11 widows?).

Perhaps most telling, however, is Sanchez’s admission that, “I am embarrassed to admit that was I worried that my fellow conservatives would distance themselves from me when the news about my film career broke.” He claims the opposite has, in fact, happened.

Whether that’s true or not is less interesting than the fact that Sanchez assumed that he would be distanced by conservatives. Perhaps it’s because conservatives have made political hay attacking gay marriage. Maybe it’s because they’ve attacked civil rights for gays and lesbians. Maybe it’s because they’ve tended to oppose hate crimes legislation. Maybe it’s because so many conservatives (including Ann Coulter) publicly say that homosexuality is degenerate.

And maybe it’s because the conservatives in Coulter’s audience laughed at her “joke.”

The fact that Sanchez worried about how his past would affect his relationship with conservatives suggests that perhaps his victim status is more than a rhetorical construct. As a gay man, he, along with gays and lesbians across the country, is victimized by so many on the Right on a regular basis.

And the anger and frustration aimed at Sanchez is not an attack on his conservatism itself, but on the fact that he seems so willing to aid and abet his own victimage.



Some questions to ponder and talk about via comments, if you like (along with anything else you might want to say):

For gay/lesbian Republicans (and those who love them): what about conservatism as an ideology speaks to you deeply enough that anti-gay aspects of the party platform can be overlooked? Is the “anti-gay” aspect of conservatism overplayed? Is the G.O.P. more open in practice than in its campaign rhetoric?

Why do you suppose Sanchez wrote this piece for Salon? Why do you suppose Salon published it?

Are there any other rhetorical options available for someone in Sanchez’s position? What else could he have said?

What other aspects of Sanchez’s article intrigue, bemuse, infuriate, entertain, surprise, or confuse you?

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Great analysis as always, Ted.

I think Sanchez wrote the Salon piece-- and Salon chose to publish it-- because the typical Salon reader is an open-minded, liberated person who views the world in complex terms. To be honest, even as my wife and I were laughing about Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter cozying up to the star of a film called "Donkey Dick," I couldn't help but feel a slight twinge of guilt-- certainly, this gay man has the right to pursue whatever career he wants and to associate with the people he finds interesting. If he wants to be a gay porn star and hang around with the FOX News crowd, surely-- as a liberal-- I can't judge him.

But upon further reflection, I've decided that I think I can... well, maybe not judge, but at least express some amount of disapproval and skepticism. As you point out, it seems odd that a gay porn star would hang out with homophobes, but what strikes me as being more odd is that the party of homophobia seems to have reached out to Sanchez-- and Sanchez was more than a porn star; he was also an escort. A prostitute. The second gay prostitute to affiliate himself so closely with the right wing media in the past two years.

I have no problem with gay prostitutes. Some of my best friends are... Well, that's not exactly true. But prostitutes are human beings, and have the right to hold their own political convictions. But I don't think that prostitutes are particularly trustworthy-- they make their money by acting out the fantasies of others, and by making it convincing. Prostitutes just say what someone else wants to hear.

This is relevant, because Sanchez went on FOX News with a very elaborate story about how liberal war protesters abused him, and how Lee Bollinger and others at Columbia ignored (and, perhaps, tacitly endorsed) the abuse-- fulfilling Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly's most hateful fantasies about both the anti-war movement and the pinhead intellectuals in charge of higher education in this country. The fact is, his story (being told that he was "too stupid" to see how the military was exploying him as a member of a minority group) is the same story O'Reilly, Hannity, and Coutler have been hyping on television for months, maybe even years-- elitist liberals hate the troops and think that they're dumb.

Thus, I find Sanchez's background in the sex industry entirely relevant to this conversation-- not because I think that prostitutes or porn stars are degenerates, but because I suspect that his background in fulfilling the fantasies of others makes his current role is poster child for the far right's persecution fantasies rather suspect.

Ted Remington said...

That's an excellent point, Bradley. I hadn't thought about it that way, but there's certainly a matter of "ethos" (i.e., personal credibilty) implicit in the whole thing, given Mr. Sanchez's background.

And you're also right that the issue raises an inherent tension in conservative rhetoric in general when it comes to this issue. On one hand, they defend Sanchez as a target of liberal "outing," yet they, in general, condone systematic discrimination against homosexuals, in the military particularly.

So, are we to understand that the conservative party line is that Matt Sanchez is a decent person who's been maliciously attacked by liberals, but that at the same time he should be kicked out of the military? One might hope that an unintended side effect of the sainting of Mr. Sanchez by conservatives would be a weakening, however slight, in the dogmatic position that gays can't serve in the military.

I'm not holding my breath, though.

Thanks for the great comment, Bradley.

BTW, I posted a link to this blog on Mr. Sanchez's own blog. It would be interesting to hear his take on the "conservative homosexual" tension, although my guess is we wouldn't hear anything much different than what we've already heard: liberals = nasty hypocrites; conservatives = principled (if occasionally loose-lipped) comrades.

tjr

Anonymous said...

Bradley & Ted,
Thanks for the great dialog.
Looking at the self-referential feast that Mr. Sanchez serves up ad inifinitum and at the disjointed rhetorical evidence, I'm convinced that he's desperately craving attention ... quite successfully.

If you look at his blog entries about the Countdown piece, of all the things he could focus on, he refers to how others address his most ego-centric elements - looks & age. Then, he says, "Modesty aside ...", without a hint of irony. The passage is counter-intuitive.

Though I think you & others have dissected his wandering & ego-centric ramblings very well, I will point you to his interveiws at KristenBjorn.com [google Pierre Labranch]. The rhetorical devices and vague/deflective(yet seemingly resolute) answers are very similar to those he gives today.

My assessment tends toward the belief that he has always wanted so hard to be thought of as unique and essential: "hey, I've got a huge willy and I'm a top and I'm not gay"; "hey, I'm a big, buff Marine - we're the best in the world"; "Hey, I'm aconservative at a liberal institution."; "Hey, I'm a reformed [or repentent, tho' there's no sign of either] porn actor prostitute who is hated by the viscious nelly fags who make up the left in this country."

He NEEDS to be someone special. We all do, I guess. I just find his way of going about it disingenuous. I mean, for someone who joined the Corps, he could not have gotten in without an intial and sustained deception.

Peace.

Paul

Anonymous said...

I was just talking to my wife about this an hour or so ago, and we came to some of the same conclusions you did, Ted. We wondered about how Sanchez reconciled his dedication to the military (an organization that has homophobia codified in its policies) with his own knowledge that gay men and women can serve their country with honor and courage.

Also, it seems to me that Matt Sanchez is now in a unique position to reveal just why conservatism in general (and the Republican party in particular) can appeal to young gay people. It seems counter-intuitive to me, but I'm prepared to admit that Sanchez may know something I do not, as I have never been a gay man nor a Republican. Frankly, I think that's what his Salon essay should have been-- not nasty partisan mudslinging, but, rather, an honest reflection on how he came to embrace an ideology that quite often seeks to shun him and others of his sexual orientation. That would be some compelling-- perhaps even persuasive-- reading.

Anonymous said...

Bradley, I think that it's premature to assume that Mr. Sanchez has a coherent big message. For now, his proxies seem to have rallied around some spinning points. He, however, continues to focus on telling everyone where he's appearing next and on sustaining his victimhood.

I also thinks it's premature to assume that he identifies as gay, obviating the need for him to explain the appeal of GOP-style conservatism to young [which he arguably isn't at 38 or so y.o.] gays. I have quite a few Republican gay friend & they focus primarly on economics, immigration, other non-social issues. I haven't been able to discern a coherent justification for alignment with the GOP, as it is. They most often stick with the economic factors & say that they're just realizing that Bush has abondoned traditional conservative principals.

Anonymous said...

ted,
is it really that shocking that a conservative would hold a self-contradictory position. that, afterall, seems to be a hallmark of modern conservatism, or at least of the republican party.
the entire movement seems based on contradiction. sanchez feels welcomed by the right even as they seek to write anti-gay discrimination into our nation's founding document. he loves the military which would kick him out if they ever learned his true self.
from the clear skies act (which, as al franken says, would clear the skies of birds) to the patriot act (which russ feingold rightly predicted has violated the very same rights we're seeking to defend), conservatives have turned logic on its head in repeated feats of doublethink that would make orwell proud (or perhaps cringe).
consider this: the best way to support the troops is not with body armor, proper health care upon their return, or even with a plan for victory, but by keeping them in an unwinnable situation for which they are neither trained nor equipped...
afterall, we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here. or to put it another way, "war is peace."

Anonymous said...

Paul,

I agree with everything you've said regarding Sanchez and his "message." I don't think he has anything other than crass self-promotion on his mind. But, since Ted mentioned that he posted a link to this blog on Sanchez's blog, I thought I would offer the guy some advice on how to be taken seriously.

And you're right-- as soon as I posted my response, I realized that he wasn't exactly "young."

PANNELLI said...

perfect pussy

cum swapping

facial cum

lesbian fisting

Anonymous said...

Sanchez should learn to relax and check out these videos:

Great Movies

Anonymous said...

More great movies:

Watch sexy Facial Cum movies

Unknown said...

What you want to start doing is to practice Yoga and Meditation. These are basic principals that make our life better, and also, there are many different benefits that come from practicing yoga and meditation, for example, a person who is really into yoga and meditation is going to be able to control their wrath in cases in which everything seems to be going out of control. Also, and I already mentioned this, a person who really knows their way around yoga and meditation lives happier, a person that know these practices will learn to be optimistic, to appreciate nature, and on top of it all, to manage stress, which is one of the worst diseases of our world.

da net ego said...

да много интересненького у вас тут сори что не по англ кому интересно что написал сами переведут :) а вообщем зайдите в бесплатный гей чат, онлайн парни покажут свои прелести )