In Gingrich's 'Anti-Colonial' Comment, Confusion, Homophobia and a Glass House

Say what you will about Newt Gingrich, but the Republican leader knows how to cause a scandal, which is precisely what he did when he told the National Review that President Obama's political agenda hinges on a "Kenyan, anti-colonial" perspective.

Americans, claimed Gingrich, simply can't relate, and are understandably confused by the President's approach. "This is a person who is fundamentally out of touch with how the world works," said the former Speaker of the House.

Gingrich's was a loaded statement, and garnered a rapid response from the White House. "[Gingrich] is trying to appeal to the fringe of people who don't think the president was born in this country.", said Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Good Morning America today.

Birthers, however, aren't Gingrich's only intended audience; he's also talking to anyone who believes, for lack of a better word, in fascist ideals. And, as we all know, fascism has no place for the gays.

Gingrich can't take all the credit for his comment. In fact, he readily cited conservative columnist Dinesh D'Souza's recent piece in Forbes, "How Obama Thinks." Though I'm loathe to provide a block quote, this text definitely deserves a read, simply for evidence of how many ways D'Souza manages to offend.

Our President is trapped in his father's time machine. Incredibly, the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s. This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anti-colonial ambitions, is now setting the nation's agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son. The son makes it happen, but he candidly admits he is only living out his father's dream. The invisible father provides the inspiration, and the son dutifully gets the job done. America today is governed by a ghost.

I can't really comment on the blatantly offensive, and undeniably racist, "Luo tribesmen" remark, nor is there any evidence whatsoever that the President's father, whom he barely knew, was a socialist. I can, however, take aim at Gingrich's "anti-colonial" hypothesis.

Colonialism isn't the hot topic it was during 67-year old Gingrich's childhood, when all of Africa remained Europe's playground, plundered and pillaged for the white man's wealth. When the nations began to revolt, many liberation leaders, like Algeria's Ahmed Ben Bella, tapped into the then-relevant socialist ideals propagated during the Cold War, when Soviet powers were saturating the continent's political systems.

Times have changed, however, and only Libya maintains a "revolutionary" government. Most of the other nations that dabbled in socialism, such as Mozambique, have evolved into democratic republics. Other nations, like Morocco, which achieved independence in 1956, have constitutional monarchies. None operate the "socialism" of which Gingrich and the Tea Party speak and so often associates with Obama.

With that admittedly brief history lesson out of the way, "anti-colonial" means something entirely different than what Gingrich intends: "anti-colonial" becomes any effort to overthrow an unjust, repressive, exploitative and often violent government or leader. If Gingrich's worldview considers "anti-colonial" to be a pejorative, then he's endorsing, however unintentionally, the erection and maintenance of a controlling, fascist government, a type of government that doesn't necessarily reside solely in the socialist realm.

Fascist governments are defined by rules and regulations: for example, Mozambique's socialist experiment failed, as did so many others, because their idea of "citizen" was endlessly restricted, thus leaving large swathes of the population out in the cold, and eventually leading to a civil war. Another example, also of the Socialist variety, comes from Cuba, where the revolutionary leaders for years ostracized, targeted and murdered gay men and women for not fitting into the "appropriate" Cuban identity.

The same has been done here, in the democratic United States, where a parade of leaders and officials have lambasted same-sex love as antithetical to the American dream, whether it be in regard to the nuclear family or protecting our nation from terrorists as part of the Armed Services. And of course the most obvious example of colonialism as fascism comes from the Europeans, who defined citizenship by race and religion. Colonialism, then, is any form of exploitative, repressive and overbearing government that restricts inclusion for a preferred social population.

For example, a government that represses gays would have colonial tendencies. Such practices are anathema to liberal democracy. Despite what Gingrich and D'Souza claim, being "anti-colonial" is a good thing; Nelson Mandela, one of the world's most beloved statesmen, was fiercely "anti-colonial."

Gingrich's "anti-colonial" comment not only reveals his regrettably myopic view of history, and politics, but suggests that he supports colonial practices that, in the end, run counter to our nation's ideals. He and his Tea Partiers, who so desperately want a uniform America, made in their heterosexist, capitalist image, become the colonists, and those who resist are transformed into liberationists, into freedom fighters.

Surely that's not what Gingrich wanted to convey, so I suggest that he choose his words a little more carefully next time. As for D'Souza: rather than choosing your words carefully, why not just keep them to yourself?

Photo credit: Full-Time Lover's Flickr http://gayrights.change.org