Yesterday askew posted a diary that said
It turns out Marcy Kaptur's opponent, Rich Iott, likes to spend weekends re-enacting World War II as a Nazi. The teabagger-backed Iott is part of the Wiking Group which re-enacts WWII as the 5th SS.
This diary is an expanded version of a comment I made there.
There was and is a continuing response to this diary, most comments saying that this loon's hobby disqualifies him for public office. I happen to think that Marcy Kaptur is a better candidate, but that's not why I'm here today. Here's my question: where do we draw the line? At what point is someone's personal life a dis-qualifier for public office? At what point is someone's hobbies, religion, sexual orientation, eating habits, high school prom picture so heinous that you absolutely could not vote for them?
This is my third diary, my previous diaries were about Meg Whitman's housekeeper problems. I think Meg's staffing issues are important because they deal with how she deals with her employees. That is to say, how she deals with real people, power, and money. I don't care about her hobbies, or what she and Dr. Harsh do behind closed doors, no matter how many other people are behind the door. (although, being married to someone who's really named "Dr. Harsh" is really something you could play with...) Where do you draw the line?
I don't care that Rich Iott likes to play dress-up and go off into the woods and shoot his loads with the boys. Yes, the Nazis were awful. Yes, dressing up as a Waffen SS soldier isn't the best idea for a Halloween costume. You won't get a lot of candy. OTOH, there were uniformed Nazis who were just in uniform because the law required it. (The sitting Pope is one, or he volunteered, and is lying to us now.)
But what if Rich Iott was a Civil War reenactor? Anyone in a Confederate uniform is basically celebrating treason. How about if he were a Civil War reenactor but only as a Union soldier? Could you vote for him then? What if, G-d forbid, he was a "switch" some weekends Union, some weekends Confederate? Most confederate soldiers were the tea-partiers of their day, poor, dumb schlubs fighting to defend the plantation oligarchs who were not their friends. But is playing dress-up a disqualifier for public office?
I have some history dealing with this question. There were many discussions in the BDSM community around here about 25 years ago about a guy who would show up at parties dressed in a Nazi uniform. (By all reports, he was one of the most ethical, nicest dominants around. He certainly wasn't a racist, or an anti-Semite. Supposedly, he was a great kisser.) To many of us, the Nazi uniform was just too "icky", but OTOH, we were "Masters" and "slaves" together. We were proud of pushing boundaries, of living life on the edge. (The kids today have made the edge more accessible; they haven't invented anything new {thank goodness} they've just made the edge a more commonplace place to be. In the old days, you could count on your fingers "edge players", now, that list looks like the phone book.) Is dressing in a Confederate soldier's uniform worse? How about dressing as a Roman? They had slaves, too. Does dressing up and playing as any of the above dis-qualify someone for public office?
Xaviera Hollander, in her book, "The Happy Hooker" writes about Jewish client she had who was a concentration camp survivor. One night, a female SS guard had pulled him out of the barracks. She was naked under her leather coat. She made him █████████ her. Xaviera's client had acquired 5 or 6 authentic SS leather coats, and replayed that scene with her and other hookers. Does this dis-qualify said client for public office?
Back when I was dating, an African-American woman approached me, said she'd heard good things about me and offered to be my slave. I had the oddest, immediate, racist reaction, that (I hope) I kept off of my face. Yes, there are black submissives, it was just when she said the word "slave" I had a freak out moment. I had issues with my knowledge of history and owning a black slave. Which was weird, since I'm Chinese-American, am not from the South, and my family came to this country in the 1930s, long after slavery had been abolished. It's just that I had to take a minute to remind myself that this was okay. (Not that it matters, but we had a fine relationship, which ended when she moved to New York to work for Enron, and came out as a Lesbian, which I hope had nothing to do with me. I really should try to find her...) Is she not qualified for public office?
My point is, that these guys go off into the woods to shoot their antique weapons. They are no better or worse than Civil War reenactors, just as racist, just as whatever. But what does it mean? Are WWII reenactors unqualified for public office? How about Civil War reenactors? People who go to toga parties? BDSM community members? COS players? Furry Fans? Philatelists? Pete Stark is the only acknowledged atheist in congress, can he be reelected? Who is disqualified for public office because of their hobbies, lifestyle, or extra-curricular activities?
OTOH, what if your very progressive, very pro-Labor, pro-LGBTQ, pro-giving-you-a-pony Representative or Senator is suddenly "outed"? His wife produces a leather SS coat with semen stains. Or her husband's boyfriend gets mad and spills the beans on what the three of them do in the "comfy chair" on the weekends. Or his Fursuit turns out to be a gerbil, and his wife has a Tom Cruise outfit? Will you vote for him/her next time?
I know I can never get elected to anything, and that's okay. But that doesn't mean it's right. I canvassed for my first campaign in 1974.I've made some choices in my life; I don't regret any of them, but I can't ever get paid by a campaign. I've worked on a few, well, a lot over the years. I can do most jobs a campaign requires, except IANAL, and I hate making the candidate sit down and dial for dollars. I have done it, but I hate it, and afterwords, the candidate doesn't like me anymore. (they like the money, though...) But there are no pictures of me shaking the candidate's hand. I don't go to the election night party if the candidate is going to show up. I try really hard to be the Invisible Man. Actually, on a campaign, I am John Galt.
So, here's the question: askew posits that Iott's being a WWII reenactor is enough to make him not electable. What if Iott was on our side? What if he were a good, progressive voice, a dependable vote, a potential member of the progressive caucus? If there's a good, progressive candidate on the ballot, what in there personal life would make you not vote for them?
P.S. The Atlantic article that started all this.
Update: Maybe I haven't been clear. This is not a diary about Iott, he's just an example. This is a diary about you. Would you vote for an otherwise great Democrat, if he were a Nazi reenactor? Or any of the options listed in the poll. Or is there anything else someone could do in their personal life that would keep you from voting for them?