Richard Kim

The passion of Jim McGreevey

"The Confession" charts the New Jersey governor's path from Nixon-loving Catholic boy to Democratic player to proud "gay American." But his attempt at repentance amounts to little more than an egomaniac's memoir.

  • more
    • All Share Services

The passion of Jim McGreevey

As long as we’re trafficking in confessions, let me begin with one of my own. Some years ago, I was a closeted homosexual. I was also — and this is the embarrassing part — YMCA Youth Governor of New Jersey, an “office” I campaigned for with cheerful determination and ruthlessness in rank high school gymnasiums up and down the turnpike. I admit that as I signed a stack of student-authored bills into “law” — most of which legalized drugs or prostitution — I dreamed that I might one day do this for real. I had it all planned: the Ivy league, law school, a judicial clerkship, elected office, even a political wife in the mold of Hillary Clinton, a safely sexless fantasy who at the time was peddling her disastrous healthcare plan through Congress. The first part worked out fine, but I was far too lazy to get into law school and much too faggy to deceive anyone for long, and so ended my fledgling career as a closeted homosexual politician.

Of course wide gulfs separate a swishy high school senior from a 47-year-old, twice-married sitting governor, but I mention this all to say that Jim McGreevey’s story is not entirely alien to me. I understand how a child who “grappled with [his] own identity,” who “felt ambivalent about [himself]” and “confused” might take refuge in the biggest charade of all — American electoral politics. I know how the abstract comfort of civic duty can seem like an easy substitute for the nervy pains and pleasures of gay life. And in other, more mundane ways McGreevey’s story rings familiar. He grew up in the working-class Irish and Italian Catholic town of Carteret where my parents owned a dry cleaners; it’s entirely possible that I pressed the 30 identical white starched shirts that were his uniform and mask. I spent nights at the Woodbridge Mall choking down the petty, casual homophobia of the citizens of the city of which he was once mayor. I am, in other words, predisposed to be a sympathetic listener. But in “The Confession,” his heavily hyped, putatively tell-all memoir, Jim McGreevey comes off as so fake, so unctuous and so thoroughly unlikable that by the time he writes that “on November 7, 2001, I won the election for governor of New Jersey by fourteen points,” I could scarcely believe it was true.

I am apparently not alone in this response. Despite advance excerpts that ran in the New York Times and New York magazine (home of ghost writer David France) and an appearance on “Oprah” that contributed to strong first-week sales, McGreevey’s confession has been greeted with either indifference or derision. Indeed the only quarter in which “The Confession” has been well received is among the leaders of gay rights organizations, many of whom are thanked in the acknowledgments for “making me understand my own struggles in a larger context.” These groups are so desperate to star-fuck anyone lightly lavender that the largest of them, the Human Rights Campaign, recently bestowed its Visibility Award to ‘N Sync’s Lance Bass and his partner Reichen Lehmkuhl. That he is still disliked, except by those marginal and needy enough to embrace him, will surely displease the governor. As he tells us early and often, nothing satisfied him more than identifying “the people who were most prone to dislike me” and making it “my business to win them over.” He adds, “I’d always preferred to bring my detractors close.” And so here he aims to please a disgruntled public with a mixture of self-exposure, conspicuous contrition, tepid dish and newly realized wisdoms about homosexuality or ethics.

He fails on all these counts. “The Confession” is peppered with short quotes and allusions to Spinoza, Stravinsky, Maya Angelou, Armistead Maupin, Allen Ginsberg, Kant, Dostoevski, Seneca and Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl to whose ordeal McGreevey outrageously compares his own. Each is meant to augment some sort of introspective observation turned object lesson. “If any good comes from sharing my story, I hope I can inspire others to open their doors and reveal whatever is hidden there so that their own true beauty shines through,” McGreevey writes with false modesty. The premise that one would take instruction or inspiration from a man who rose to the top of the crookedest state in the union and then gave his lover a $110,000 a year job advising on matters of homeland security, for which he was clearly unqualified, is an insult to the reader.

All the more so because one gets the sense that, despite the self-flagellation and abundant apologies to his ex-wives, former colleagues and supporters, McGreevey is not all that repentant. His chapter titles “How These Things Happen,” “Becoming a Born Leader,” “How One Lives in Shame” and “What a Divided Self Can Do” smack of resilient pride more than examined humility. Early in the book he recounts a childhood game: Local boys would catch frogs, drown them in tar and then stomp on their dried corpses, releasing what must have been a very satisfying “pop.” McGreevey helped catch the victims but says, “I don’t think I joined in the stomping party, that day or thereafter.” Though this anecdote is intended to demonstrate the need for an appreciation of “the value of life,” it also functions as a recurring trope throughout the book. Jimmy McGreevey watches; he is in the mix, but always somewhat apart from the “scene of the crime.”

So “The Confession” skims across the muck, from frog genocide to hard-drinking nights at Jersey strip clubs to cruisey Atlantic City conventions full of horny young wonks to the notorious back rooms of Jersey’s pay-to-play patronage system where unelected party bosses trade endorsements for lucrative state contracts. All along McGreevey casts himself as a voyeur, a bystander, at worst an unwilling participant. He drank only sips of wine on special occasions or shots of vodka when campaigning in Russian neighborhoods. When offered a “snort of cocaine, piled on the tip of a tiny spoon” at an “SNL” cast party, he replied, “I put people in jail for that during the week.” He made sure people saw him balling young, female campaign volunteers and oozing out of go-go bars, but only to maintain the facade of his heterosexuality (a ploy he’s especially proud of). He remained scrupulously within the letter, if not spirit, of campaign finance laws. And finally, when his political aspirations demanded the kind of money and backing that only corruption can afford, he delegated. Indeed, the list of besmirched former McGreevey allies is long, but he takes care to name names and heap scorn and pity only on those already indicted, like real estate mogul Charles Kushner who hired prostitutes to seduce his brother-in-law and then sent the videotape to his own sister.

Of this wild trip, from Nixon-loving Catholic schoolboy to Democratic kingpin of the Soprano state, McGreevey is sanctimonious in the way that only reformed sinners and former addicts can be. And, of course, since the quickest path to public rehabilitation is to declare you have an addiction, McGreevey now views his life through the fuzzy gauze of the 12-step program. He claims to have been an addict all along; he was hooked, not on drugs, drink, sex or gambling, but simply on “being central in the world, to being accepted and adored in the way that celebrities are adored — by strangers, in abundance.” In other words, he is an egomaniac. He shies away from this word because to use it would call into question his motives for “confessing” in the genre of best-selling autobiography. But once the signal clichis of addiction recovery begin to make their way into the book, McGreevey’s halfhearted apologia and barely submerged defiance begin to make sense. How can you be sorry for actions over which you “have no control,” for a life you did not quite live? You accept them with serenity.

As for the promised seedy sex scenes — of blow jobs in adult bookstores, Parkway rest stops and YMCA swimming pools — they are tame and unrevealing. Mostly McGreevey denigrates these furtive acts as “sinful and unhealthy” and “immoral and ugly,” although he does mention finding a “mysterious and soothing” liberation behind a hedgerow of an abandoned Washington synagogue he frequented three times a week during law school. But because gay life did not square with the values of his Catholic upbringing and his outsize political ambitions, he fabricated another “sick-making existence,” at first with chaste women who were his beards, then with his first wife, Kari Schutz, with whom he fathered a child. When that union failed, he married Dina Matos, who was in the hospital following the difficult birth of his second child when he took a young Israeli employee named Golan Cipel to his bedroom and made what he calls a “boastful, passionate, whispering, masculine kind of love.” (In a recent interview, Cipel claimed that the two never had sex on that or any other occasion.)

This is stomach-turning stuff, not in the least because McGreevey clearly still gets off on how far he was able to push the boundaries of the closet. At the height of his career it spanned the whole state. Openly gay aides (including his chief of staff and his communications director), Republican opponents, radio shock jocks, state troopers assigned to his protection and snoopy newspaper reporters, who cheekily took to describing Cipel as a “sailor” and a “poet” (he was in the Israeli Defense Forces and had written a few verses as a child), all knew or suspected. If he did not deceive them all, he at least beguiled and intimidated them into silence for almost the entirety of his first and only term.

Throughout his account McGreevey forces an analogy between life in the closet and life in politics. But because the inevitable conclusion — that he was a closeted homosexual because he coveted power — is both contemptible and predictable, he effects a curious reversal: He took refuge in power because he was a closeted homosexual. “Looking back,” he writes, “I wonder if avoiding intimacy wasn’t the real reason I worked so many late nights.” And, “The harder I worked, the less I thought about sex, or heard the whispers of my heart.” Ruminations like these cast his whole political career as a sort of side effect of his internalized homophobia; he is the victim who became prince because, he would have us believe, he had no other choice. By the time the whole plot winds up to its familiar denouement — Cipel was pressured into resigning after which he concocts a bizarre extortion scheme that ultimately forces the governor to resign — McGreevey has broken faith with the reader so often that his account of the affair, which Cipel claims was limited to two incidents of sexual harassment, fails to entirely sweep away lingering suspicions that parts of the story remain untold.

“The Confession” hit bookstores as other news about closeted gay men made front-page news. According to a study by the New York City Department of Health, one in 10 men who claim they are heterosexual have had sex with a man in the past year. Though so-called straight men were not in fact the main focus of the study, which examined condom usage among gay-identified men, it was this footnote that exploded onto the tabloids and chilled the blood of would-be Carrie Bradshaws across the city. Add this statistic to Oprah’s sisterly warning about men “on the down low,” the cautionary tale of “Brokeback Mountain” and now McGreevey’s sad sack story, and one has veritable sex panic centered around the tragic but still menacing figure of the late homosexual.

I’m curious why these men have become objects of such intense scrutiny, what it is they are expected to reveal? In some sense it seems that the late or reluctant homosexual figures as a proxy for other, more occluded anxieties: the eternal problem of men who cheat, the burdens of monogamy, the alleged homophobia of black and immigrant communities who have yet to become fully integrated into multicultural liberalism, which, once it has deigned to tolerate homosexuality, demands at least that it be fully known and marked. It is only in this context that I can allow Jim McGreevey a touch of sympathy; his is an impossible story to tell right. I wish, however, that he had at least tried.

Sex panic

Veteran AIDS activist and playwright Larry Kramer is still denouncing young gay men for spreading HIV through reckless sex and drug use. He needs to drop the angry-prophet pose and start talking to the people on the front lines.

  • more
    • All Share Services

Sex panic

AIDS activist and playwright Larry Kramer has a lot in common with the late Andrea Dworkin: a Manichaean worldview, a penchant for hyperbolic speech and dowdy dress, a murky relationship with empirical truth, a quixotic tribalism that manifests all at once as genuine love and venomous contempt for their respective kin — women and gay men. Like Dworkin, whose screeds against pornography were so laden with pornographic content and style that they were banned by the very anti-porn ordinances she helped author, Kramer possesses an uncanny ability to mime the putative object of criticism — in his case, homophobia.

To some, Kramer is a narcissistic gadfly whose passion for controversy and flagellation undermines the causes — AIDS and the gay movement — to which he so passionately devotes himself. To others, he’s a brilliant and misunderstood prophet who dares to speak the hard truth nobody wants to hear. Indeed, this is how Kramer styles himself, as a Cassandra in the desert whose warnings in 1981 about a mysterious, unnamed plague went unheeded, whose call to arms in 1987 to fight the criminal lack of funding for AIDS prevention and treatment rallied precious few, and whose current campaign — laid out in his new book, “The Tragedy of Today’s Gays” — to reinvigorate a gay movement he sees as “completely inept,” “powerless” and “disposable” will, he predicts, fall on the deaf ears of today’s “tragic,” “fucked up,” “blind” and “ignorant” gays who “richly deserve” their fate.

Anyone familiar with Kramer’s overheated polemics knows to take such fatalistic rebukes lightly, or at best as a kind of provocation. But why — this time around — do they come wrapped in such false modesty? After all, his early alarms about AIDS laid the groundwork for the Gay Men’s Health Crisis (GMHC), an organization started in his living room that has since become one of the country’s largest AIDS service providers. His 1987 speech at the Gay and Lesbian Center in New York sparked ACT UP, the radical collective whose spiky tactics are now imitated by activists of all stripes. Along with Tony Kushner — who generously blurbs Kramer’s book — he is one of the most celebrated chroniclers of gay issues in America. He publishes in the editorial pages of the New York Times. His autobiographical play-cum-jeremiad “The Normal Heart” continues to be canonized in classrooms across the country and was recently revived at the Public Theater in New York. A speech he gave shortly after the 2004 election in the Great Hall at Cooper Union — and which provides the basis for this new book — drew 700 rapt listeners and several hundred more were turned away.

Indeed, this public embrace of Kramer seems so at odds with his persona that it’s hard to explain. How can someone who’s such a self-professed pain in the ass to both the gay movement and the mainstream establishment receive such accommodation? Perhaps it’s because, as Naomi Wolf unwittingly hits upon in her introduction to “The Tragedy of Today’s Gays,” Kramer is a “humanist writer in the humanist tradition,” someone who “reclaims the language and consciousness of morality” and transcends “identity politics” to speak of “universal love.” Wolf intends these as compliments, but they might be considered indictments as well.

Although Kramer claims several times in “The Tragedy of Today’s Gays” to “love gay people,” to think them “better,” “smarter,” “more aware” and “more talented” than other people, it quickly becomes clear that he doesn’t know a whole lot about them. He recycles the kind of harangues about gay men (and young gay men in particular) that institutions like the Times so love to print — that they are buffoonish, disengaged Peter Pans dancing, drugging and fucking their lives away while the world and the disco burn down around them. Sure, Kramer occasionally mentions a young gay man he finds laudable, like the playwright Jeff Whitty, who wrote a musical about plushy puppets finding themselves on the subway (“Avenue Q”). But really, must we all be marionettes singing the same tune night after night? In Kramer’s view, today’s gays are a lot like yesterday’s gays. “Does it ever occur to you that we brought this plague of AIDS upon ourselves?” Kramer asks in “The Tragedy of Today’s Gays,” but this rhetorical question is virtually identical to the invectives spewed by Ned Weeks, hero of “The Normal Heart,” in 1985. And now, 20 years later, according to Kramer, “You are still doing it. You are still murdering each other.”

It’s a shame that Kramer’s attempt to address young gay men ultimately devolves into the same pathological, self-destructive plot that has guided all of his writing on AIDS, for there is a glimmer of sympathy in this book that deserves consideration. Kramer writes that there’s “a big empty space” in young gay men’s lives; “America let these men who should have been your role models die.” So, according to Kramer, this “big empty space” leads today’s gays to “disdain anyone older who was there” and “condemn [our] predecessors to nonexistence.”

This generational rupture, overstated as it is in this book, hasn’t been fully addressed by the gay movement and AIDS activism, and it’s important that it is. Gay people don’t learn about gay sex and relationships in their families, and with the Bush administration’s assault on sex education, they certainly don’t learn about them in school. So the sort of cultural memory that Kramer wishes were there is vital, not only to acknowledge the devastating impact AIDS had on gay culture, but to fully understand how gay culture itself pioneered the safe-sex programs that significantly reduced HIV infection. This kind of historical reflection might also take into account the fact that today’s gays are the first generation to grow up entirely under the shadow of AIDS. It is fundamental to how we think of sex and gayness. But maybe we need a different kind of safe-sex message than the sort of fear-mongering that Kramer thinks so effective, since to fear AIDS is to fear our very capacity for sex and intimacy.

Sadly, Kramer doesn’t go there. For him, history and destiny are one and the same; time is circular. Would that this tendency were particular to Kramer, but anyone who followed the Times’ badly mangled coverage of the new drug-resistant “superbug” can find parallels not only in Kramer’s work but also in the sensationalistic media coverage of AIDS in the ’80s (see David France’s excellent anatomy of a panic in New York magazine). Both substitute actual compassion and understanding (never mind reporting) with a deeply familiar drama (“Tragedy” is no accidental title) of a doomed people whose pathological predilection for sin invokes the wrath of an angry God. This is a kind of “morality,” I suppose, but whether it reclaims or merely recapitulates the moral language that emanates from biblical fundamentalism is subject to debate.

The difference of course is that Kramer means well. I believe it when he says that he loves gay people, even as I believe that he reserves for them a special kind of scorn born of impossible expectations. Kramer is agitated about a lot of things: the election in which “60 million people voted against us,” the “cabal” of religious and financial elites who have seized this country’s public and political institutions and turned America into a “classist, racist, homophobic, imperial army of pirates,” the Bush administration’s $100 billion war on Iraq that has diverted much needed funding for AIDS and other humanitarian causes. But these political transformations — geopolitical and world-historical in scale, complex in nature — have a curious way of settling upon what Kramer deems the “murderous” behavior of gay men who “get hooked on crystal,” and engage in “endless rounds of sex-seeking” and “fucking without condoms.” He moves jarringly — sometimes within the same paragraph — from a recount of right-wing machinations to dire statements about how gays “shrank from our duty of opposition,” slunk off to “a disco, or to the Fire Island Pines or South Beach, or into therapy, or onto drugs” and are thus responsible for our own erasure “into nothingness.” “What do you do with yourselves all week long, seven days and nights a week, that amounts to anything really important?” “We stand here and let them do it!” “The Tragedy of Today’s Gays” is peppered with bolded sentences such as these, and each one is directed like a bullet at the souls of Kramer’s beloved clan.

At the point in Kramer’s essay where he really gets a full head of steam going, he cites a series of unsourced AIDS statistics, among them: “HIV infections are up as much as 40 percent,” “some 70 million people so far are expected to die,” and “there are now more than 70 million who have been infected with HIV.” The first is, if not an outright lie, a hyperbolic and misleading untruth. Kramer never does specify to whom, when and where this statistic refers, but according to a report from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that relies on limited data, HIV infection rates for men who have sex with men (the population Kramer is almost exclusively concerned about) rose 11 percent over four years (2000-03) after steadily declining throughout the ’90s. This rise, coupled with increases in syphilis and other STDs among gay men, has rightly concerned HIV prevention experts who are still debating what factors contributed to this spike. But in any event, Kramer’s “40 percent” increase is a gross exaggeration.

As for Kramer’s second and third statistics — the “70 million” who are “expected to die” and/or “who have been infected with HIV” — the context in which these two figures are presented would lead one to believe that Kramer is referring to the number of current HIV-positive people worldwide. But in fact the “70 million” who are “expected to die” refers to a UNAIDS projection for 2022 if treatment and prevention programs aren’t significantly ramped up — an alarming, but still avertable, possibility. The “70 million who have been infected with HIV” refers to the total number of HIV infections since the beginning of the epidemic, of which some 30 million have died. The current number of HIV cases worldwide is somewhere near 40 million, 95 percent of which are in the developing world, an indication of tremendous global inequalities in wealth and healthcare that Kramer never bothers to discuss. These loony and inflationary statistics are familiar territory for Kramer. In 2003, he published an Op-Ed in the New York Times that began with the claim that “50 million people around the world are going to die in a matter of days or months or at the most a few years.” Days? Months? Even a few years? These dire predictions have, thankfully, not been fulfilled — although too many people have died in the interim. But despite being taken to task by Andrew Sullivan for these factual errors, Kramer has only amplified them in “Tragedy,” and it speaks ill of the Times and Tarcher/Penguin’s standards that they ever made it to press.

But why quibble with Kramer over these numbers? Thirty, 40, 70 million — these are all holocausts. Any rise in incidence rate, or even stagnation at current levels, is troubling. That Kramer has printed these misleading statistics can mean only one of two things: either 1) after 25 years of AIDS activism he cannot understand simple epidemiological data; or 2) he has carefully and willfully manipulated these figures. Since the first possibility is too loathsome to bear let us assume the latter. Kramer’s intention then is to instill a panic in his audience, and indeed grandiose scare tactics are his preferred mode of address. Responding to reports of the new “superbug,” Kramer said, “You can never be scared too much. Fear is the only thing that seems to work in controlling people’s suicidal, murderous behavior.” I’ll leave it to HIV prevention experts to debate Kramer’s vision of “safe-sex education,” and simply point out another victim of Kramer’s casualness with truth: hope. “We have lost the war against AIDS.” “As of November 2, 2004, gay rights in our country are officially dead.” These kinds of proclamations, along with manipulation of AIDS data, are symptomatic of Kramer’s Cassandra complex; he conflates the very worst possible future with the uncertain present. So intent is he on being accurate prophet that one has to wonder whether Kramer really intends to provoke action at all. If the apocalypse has already happened, what’s a would-be activist to do?

In this sense, Kramer leaves largely unexplored what the relationship might be between the rightward political lurch and the state of AIDS politics and the gay movement. Analysis is not his forte, and besides, it would mean actually engaging the gay men and lesbians (women are conspicuously absent in Kramer’s book except as silenced “helpmates”) who do the kind of “backbreaking, grinding, unglamorous work” that he finds so commendable among the right’s foot soldiers. He might have mentioned, for example, how the Bush administration’s Department of Health and Human Services instituted new funding guidelines that make it virtually impossible to use federal funds for explicit prevention work among gay men, drug users and sex workers. Stop AIDS, a San Francisco community-based prevention organization that does exactly that, was one of the first groups defunded under this new mandate. But for Kramer to notice what happened to Stop AIDS or the dozens of other community organizations under threat would mean to surrender the rhetorical privilege he has so scrupulously hoarded. It would mean leaving behind the Cassandra routine and making contact with the “unglamorous.” “But I am so very, very tired of fighting with so few troops,” Kramer laments. And so, like a general who fails to notice that the war has long since moved on to new frontiers, Kramer keeps beating the drums and waiting for people to show up.

Continue Reading Close