Connect with us

News

Homophobic Author Fears ‘Noted Homophobe’ Will Be Carved on His Gravestone

Published

on

Essayist Joseph Epstein has recently expressed the fear that “Noted Homophobe” will be carved on his gravestone. The fear is not without justification.

As he nears the age of 80, essayist Joseph Epstein has recently revealed that he fears that what will be carved on his gravestone are the words “Noted Homophobe.” The fear is not without warrant, for his long and productive career has been shadowed by persistent charges of homophobia.

Obviously, Epstein would prefer to be remembered as a distinguished man of letters. He has credentials to claim such a sobriquet, though they are somewhat less compelling than one might think, considering that he has published more than 20 books.

He taught in the English Department at Northwestern University for almost 40 years, but while he possesses an impressive cache of erudition, and was apparently a popular teacher, he never earned a Ph.D. and has published no original scholarship.

He has written some fiction and for many years edited the Phi Beta Kappa magazine, The American Scholar, but he is not distinguished as either a creative writer or editor. Most of his books are either lightweight, gossipy musings on topics such as snobbery or ambition or friendship or they are collections of essays originally published in magazines.

As an essayist, he has earned acclaim in some circles. He has even been–preposterously, in my view–described as one of America’s greatest essayists. His essays cover a wide variety of subjects, and are uneven in quality; and not everyone appreciates either the predictably right-wing talking points expressed in most of them or the arch and condescending style in which they are typically composed. Although he has written some impressive essays, mainly on literary subjects, a great deal of his prodigious output is, alas, hack work.

Homo/Hetero

Epstein’s reputation for homophobia rests principally but by no means exclusively on a notorious essay published in Harper’s Magazine in September 1970, ““Homo/Hetero: The Struggle for Sexual Identity.”

A rambling, often incoherent, highly subjective meditation on homosexuality, the essay, for all its flaws, exhibits an energy absent from most of Epstein’s work, which probably indicates that it is deeply felt and expresses honest (though repugnant) emotion.

In it, the author, in the hyperventilating hyperbole of an Old Testament prophet, portrays gay people as a doomed, utterly foreign “other.”

They are different from the rest of us. Homosexuals are different, moreover, in a way that cuts deeper than other kinds of human differences–religious, class, racial–in a way that is, somehow, more fundamental. Cursed without clear cause, afflicted without apparent cure, they are an affront to our rationality, living evidence of our despair of ever finding a sensible, an explainable, design to the world.”

Among the most objectionable remarks in the 10,000-word polemic is Epstein’s solemn declaration that “If I had the power to do so, I would wish homosexuality off the face of the earth.” He went on to explain, “I would do so because I think that it brings infinitely more pain than pleasure to those who are forced to live with it, because I think there is no resolution for this pain in our lifetimes.”

He also confessed, “There is much that my four sons can do in their lives that might cause me anguish, that might outrage me, that might make [me] ashamed of them and of myself as their father. But nothing they could ever do would make me sadder than if any of them were to become homosexual. For then I should know them condemned to a permanent niggerdom among men, their lives, whatever adjustment they might make to their condition, to be lived out as part of the pain of the earth.”

Reaction

The article, published only a year after the Stonewall riots, sparked a great deal of indignation and anguish on the part of gay readers and prompted a famous sit-in at the offices of Harper’s Magazine on October 27, 1970 by members of the recently formed Gay Activists Alliance. The sit-in is often considered an important moment in the early gay liberation movement.

The most positive result of the irresponsible publication of Epstein’s ugly phillipic was that it stirred author Merle Miller, who had himself once been an editor at Harper’s, to come out publicly. He declared over lunch with some New York Times colleagues, “Look, goddamn it, I’m homosexual, and most of my best friends are Jewish homosexuals, and some of my best friends are black homosexuals, and I am sick and tired of reading and hearing such goddamn demeaning bullshit about me and my friends.”

More than that, he agreed–with understandable trepidation–to counter Epstein’s piece with an article for the New York Times Magazine.

Miller’s article, “What It Means to Be a Homosexual,” was published on January 17, 1971. In it, Miller detailed his life-long struggle with his sexuality, and explained the difficulties of coming to terms with one’s sexual orientation in an exceedingly hostile social environment. “I dislike being despised,” he wrote, “unless I have done something despicable, realizing that the simple fact of being homosexual is all by itself despicable to many people, maybe, as Mr. Epstein says, to everybody who is straight.”

Miller’s humane and heartfelt article was, as Craig Kaczorowski has noted, “a landmark piece of journalism,” one of the most widely read essays of the decade. The New York Times received over two thousand letters in response–more than the newspaper had ever received for a single article. Fueled by the anger Epstein’s essay aroused in him, Miller’s article was, as Emily Greenhouse observed, in its most basic sense a response to the bullying embodied in “Homo/Hetero.”

Miller’s essay was expanded and published later in 1971 as a bestselling book, the groundbreaking On Being Different: What it Means to Be a Homosexual. In 2012, Penguin Classics republished On Being Different with a foreword by Dan Savage and an afterword by Charles Kaiser.

(Dan Savage discusses On Being Different here).

The republication of On Being Different brought new attention to the odious essay that inspired it, and that may have prompted Epstein’s concern that on his gravestone would be carved “Noted Homophobe.” In a brief piece called “Go Google Yourself,” which was published soon after the reissue of Miller’s book, Epstein revealed that in Internet comments he had recently been called such epithets as “hack,” “deeply biased,” “bigot,” and “homophobe.”

“Homo/Hetero” was also excoriated by such writers as Gore Vidal in his 1979 essay “Sex Is Politics” and David Ehrenstein in his 2002 review article “Sexual Snobbery: The Texture of Joseph Epstein.”

But as a Daily Kos posting in 2012 pointed out, Epstein largely received a “free pass” for the genocidal homphobia expressed in “Homo/Hetero” as he blithely proceeded onto a successful career in publishing.

It is doubtful that a writer who proclaimed a wish in 1970 that any other group of people than gays be eradicated from the face of the earth would remain welcome in the mainstream media. However, Epstein’s “fag-baiting” probably aided his career as he moved more and more into the neo-con circle of Norman Podhoretz and his wife Midge Decter. Decter, Epstein’s editor at Harper’s and the chief defender of “Homo/Hetero,” would go on to publish her own notoriously homophobic essay, the despicable Commentary article “The Boys on the Beach” (1980), which Vidal brilliantly eviscerated in his 1981 essay “Some Jews and the Gays.”

History of Dissembling

As Paul Morton has noted, “Epstein never discounted his essay. He never gave a full-throated defense of it either. Most of his voluminous magazine work has been reprinted in book-length collections. ‘Homo/Hetero,’ whether due to his own or his various publishers’ preferences, has not.”

Epstein has referred in print to the essay on only a few occasions, and in them he blatantly mischaracterizes it and implies that others have misunderstood or misrepresented it. Cumulatively, these references constitute a tepid kind of apology along the lines of “I’m sorry if you have taken offense at something I didn’t say.”

In 2002, for example, Epstein acknowledged in an interview with Tim Rutten in the Los Angeles Times that “Homo/Hetero” is “an essay that has followed me around.”

He insisted, however, that “It was not meant to be an attack.” Rather, he alleged,  the problem with the essay was not its content but the politicized reaction of readers: “in 1970, the subject of sexuality suddenly became politicized. Once that happens, all textured thinking goes out the window.” He added, somewhat plaintively, “I hope I don’t have a reputation as a homophobe, which is really a stupid word.”

Epstein’s fullest discussions of the essay came in 1985 and 2015, but they are buried in the midst of discussions in which he tellingly casts himself as a victim of political correctness, apparently seeking pity for having been maligned by “professional gay liberationists.”

In a 1985 New York Times Magazine essay entitled “True Virtue, in which he attacks “virtucrats” (i.e., those liberals who believe in their own moral superiority), he recounts an incident in which a reporter for Northwestern University’s student newspaper allegedly telephoned him to ask whether it was true “that you once said that you’d rather your sons be murderers or dope addicts than homosexuals.”

In response, he claimed that he could not after 15 years “recall all that I had written in that essay,” but described its argument in terms that bear little resemblance to the actual work. Epstein in 1985 pretends that “Homo/Hetero,” the tortured exploration of his own fevered attitudes toward homosexuality, was merely a dispassionate study arguing the unexceptionable premises “that the origins of homosexuality remain for the most part a mystery; [and] that, with the exception of a small number of extraordinary people, homosexuality has brought much grief to its practitioners.”

Despite his faulty recall, he indignantly told the reporter, he “was, nonetheless, quite certain that I could not have said that I would rather have my sons be murderers or dope addicts than homosexuals, and this for a simple reason: I believe no such thing, nor have I ever believed it.”

Although in fact the reporter’s description of what Epstein said in the essay is far more accurate than Epstein’s misleading characterization, he goes on to make an implied threat against her: ”I am fairly certain that I never said any such thing,” he tells her, and adds, chillingly, “. . . I would be grateful to you if you didn’t print that I did, unless you find proof of my having done so. I hope you will consider very carefully before you do such a thing.”

Epstein apparently believes that the anecdote illustrates how he has been victimized by an aggressive reporter who carries with her “the stink of virtue” and is drunk on her sense of moral superiority. Actually, however, it reveals him bullying a young woman who asked a perfectly legitimate question.

Surely it is a fair (if not inevitable) inference that a man who has written that “nothing [his sons] could ever do would make me sadder than if any of them were to become homosexual” would rather have his sons be murderers or dope addicts than to be gay.

I suspect that the incident never occurred, or at least did not occur the way Epstein reports. Rather, the anecdote is likely fabricated or embellished in order to allow Epstein to respond to his critics and to rewrite the history of the dicey essay that has shadowed his reputation all these years. He makes the essay sound so dull that very few people who did not already know of it would make the effort to find it and read it.

In his 2015 essay entitled “The Unassailable Virtue of Victims,” another screed attacking political correctness and affirmative action, Epstein again portrays himself as a victim.

This time he describes “Homo/Hetero” as a benign, even sympathetic, consideration of the problems faced by gay people: “In 1970, some 45 years ago, I wrote an essay in Harper’s on the subject of homosexuality. The chief points of my essay were that no one had a true understanding of the origins of human homosexuality, that there was much false tolerance on the part of some people toward homosexuals; that for many reasons homosexuality could be a tough card to have drawn in life; and that given a choice, owing to the complications of homosexual life, most people would prefer their children to be heterosexual.”

This description of “Homo/Hetero” cannot but be a deliberate prevarication, designed to obfuscate rather than to clarify. The essay is anything but a sympathetic account of the difficulties faced by gay people. Rather, it is primarily an exploration of the author’s deep-seated repulsion at the very idea of two men having sex.

Indeed, in “Homo/Hetero” Epstein asks, “Why can’t I come to terms with it?” He posits all sorts of reasons for his repulsion, including fear of the latent homosexuality in himself and a possible envy of homosexuals’ alleged evasion of responsibility. He admits finally, with an honesty utterly foreign to his 2015 prevarication, “I cannot get over the brutally simple fact that two men make love to each other.” This statement is not only the very thesis of the essay, but it is also practically a textbook definition of homophobia as a psychological condition.

Not content with simply lying about the 1970 essay itself, in 2015 Epstein then proceeds to whine about how “Homo/Hetero” has negatively affected his reputation: “Quotations from that essay today occupy the center of my Wikipedia entry,” he complains bitterly. “In every history of gay life in America the essay has a prominent place. When I write something controversial, this essay is brought up, usually by the same professional gay liberationists, to be used against me.”

He adds: “That I am pleased the tolerance for homosexuality has widened in America and elsewhere, that in some respects my own aesthetic sensibility favors much homosexual artistic production (Cavafy, Proust, Auden), cuts neither ice nor slack. My only hope now is that, on my gravestone, the words Noted Homophobe aren’t carved.”

Inasmuch as Epstein had not heretofore ever given any indication of having taken any pleasure that “tolerance for homosexuality has widened,” and, as far as I know, never himself did anything to promote tolerance for gay people, it is startling that he would think that his newly alleged support for tolerance should cut either ice or slack.

Homophobia at The American Scholar

In fact, “homo-unease,” as critic Jeet Heer has characterized Epstein’s approach to gay writers such as E.M. Forster, has been a hallmark of his entire career, whether in his snide condescension to writers or in his self-proclaimed antipathy toward gay and lesbian studies.

Indeed, he has boasted that during his long tenure as editor of The American Scholar, from 1974 to 1998, during an era in which gay and lesbian studies came to maturity within the academy, he published not a single article about the field. Moreover, as editor he ostentatiously refused to allow authors even to use the word “gay,” insisting instead on the more clinical “homosexual” to refer to gay people.

Epstein was eventually fired as editor of The American Scholar. Not surprisingly, in his account of his firing, he yet again portrays himself as a victim of political correctness, of “not being sufficiently politically correct.” It is true that many members of Phi Beta Kappa complained repeatedly of his disdain for gay and lesbian studies, women’s studies, Black studies, and other progressive trends in the academy, as well as of his ban on the word “gay.”

These complaints no doubt influenced his firing, and justifiably so. But inasmuch as the readership of the journal plummeted from more than 40,000 at the beginning of his tenure to fewer than 25,000 readers (with an average age of 55) when he was removed, I suspect that the loss of readership, along with his inability to attract younger readers, probably also contributed to the decision to replace him.

In any case, Epstein’s prejudices severely limited his effectiveness as editor of a journal devoted to Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “ideals of independent thinking, self-knowledge, and a commitment to the affairs of the world as well as to books, history, and science.”

Conclusion

There is a great deal of irony that Epstein, who sneers at President Obama as an “affirmative action president” and regularly ridicules a “culture of victimhood,”  nevertheless so consistently portrays himself as a victim. His credibility as a critic of the culture of victimhood is about as strong as Bristol Palin’s credibility as a spokesperson for abstinence.

In a 1989 essay entitled “The Joys of Victimhood,” however, Epstein did say something pertinent, or at least something that is certainly applicable to himself:  “People who count and call themselves victims never blame themselves for their condition.” For all his whining about how he has been victimized as a result of being labeled a homophobe, it never seems to occur to him that he has only himself to blame.

Although I have no idea whether Epstein has actively fought against equal rights for gay people (or simply supported Republican politicians who did), his assumption of the mantle of victimhood for himself actually connects him not with the groups he routinely mocks for their purported obsession with the wrongs they have suffered–Blacks, gays, women, Latinos, the handicapped, et al.–but with the homophobes who fought so hard against marriage equality.

They too have a penchant for portraying themselves as victims of gay bullies and of a changing society in which they are often seen as bigots and haters. Like Epstein, they view themselves as victims of “political correctness” because their beliefs in the innate inferiority and “otherness” of gay people are no longer considered acceptable in polite society.

The claim of being persecuted for not being sufficiently politically correct is a familiar tactic of right-wingers, who want to escape criticism for their racist, anti-feminist, or homophobic speech and beliefs. It is an attempt to divert attention from the actual substance of an issue or event. Rather than acknowledging the wrongs they have afflicted on others, they wrap themselves in the mantle of the persecuted and pretend that they are the ones who have been mistreated.

Just as faux patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, so whining about the burdens of political correctness is the standard complaint of the racist, the misogynist, and the homophobe.

I do not know how Epstein will be remembered or what will be carved on his gravestone. But I find his predicament in regard to “Homo/Hetero” both satisfying in a karmic sense–as a fitting punishment for a particularly cruel act that hurt a great number of people–and profoundly sad because it was entirely self-inflicted and could have easily been remedied had Epstein been a different kind of person, one less paralyzed by his sexual insecurities and more empathetic toward others.

Even now, if Epstein really wanted to escape the scarlet H of homophobe, he could forthrightly apologize for the damage that “Homo/Hetero” did and cease misrepresenting it as something other than it is.

Ultimately, Joseph Epstein is a sad case, not because he may suffer the indignity of being described as a “Noted Homophobe” on his gravestone or anywhere else, but because he lacks the insight and courage to accept responsibility for his own actions.

 

 

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

2024 Fundraising Fail: Trump Took in Less Money After Declaring Run for President Than Before

Published

on

Donald Trump, the candidate who in 2015 vowed he would self-fund his presidential campaign, only to turn his White House run into a never-ending fundraising operation, is having trouble raising money.

“I don’t need anybody’s money,” Trump said when he launched his campaign in June of 2015 – despite quietly accepting over $14 million in the months after.

The ex-president, under numerous criminal investigations and facing civil court cases, now is “strapped for campaign cash,” NBC News reveals in an exclusive report. The embattled and disgraced one-term president who remains his party’s top choice, took in less money in the six weeks after he officially launched his third attempt to enter the Oval Office than he did in the six weeks before his mid-November announcement.

Trump is now revamping his fundraising machine and hiring a new company, Campaign Inbox, “to solicit the small-dollar donor set.”

READ MORE: ‘Ran a Bribery Center Blocks From the White House’: Comer Mocked for Claiming No Evidence of Trump Influence Peddling

The former president had built a massive fundraising database but decided to launch in November, which puzzled many experts. Some believe he did so in an attempt to evade any possible Dept. of Justice prosecutions. Even as far back as July those who know Trump predicted he would not only run for president again but launch his campaign early – to try to escape justice.

All this points to Trump returning to Facebook, if only to revive his “cash-strapped” campaign.

“Almost 50% of Republican donors log in to Facebook every single day,”Republican digital fundraising consultant Eric Wilson told NBC News, citing data from a survey connected to a nonprofit group he runs. “So if you are not able to reach those donors, you’re just at a huge fundraising disadvantage.”

Image: Shirley Preston/Shutterstock

Continue Reading

News

Criminal Charges Against Trump Possible as Manhattan DA Presents Grand Jury With Evidence in Hush Money Probe

Published

on

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has empaneled a special grand jury and prosecutors are now presenting evidence against Donald Trump in their revived investigation into hush money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels and one other woman during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Calling it “a dramatic escalation of an inquiry that once appeared to have reached a dead end,” The New York Times reports the Manhattan DA is “laying the groundwork for potential criminal charges against the former president in the coming months,” and says it “a clear signal” that Bragg “is nearing a decision about whether to charge Mr. Trump.”

Among the witnesses testifying is David Pecker, “the former publisher of The National Enquirer, the tabloid that helped broker the deal” with Daniels.

READ MORE: $1 Billion Campaign From Group ‘Linked to Staunchly Conservative Causes’ Will Try to ‘Redeem Jesus’ Brand’ in Super Bowl Ads

Prosecutors have also contacted members of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, and have subpoenaed phone records and other documents that could provide evidence.

But The Times notes that a “conviction is not a sure thing, in part because a case could hinge on showing that Mr. Trump and his company falsified records to hide the payout from voters days before the 2016 election, a low-level felony charge that would be based on a largely untested legal theory. The case would also rely on the testimony of Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former fixer who made the payment and who himself pleaded guilty to federal charges related to the hush money in 2018.”

Cohen broke with Trump and in 2016, “made the extraordinary admission in court on Tuesday that Mr. Trump had directed him to arrange payments to two women during the 2016 campaign to keep them from speaking publicly about affairs they said they had with Mr. Trump,” The Times reported in 2018.

The payments were made “for the principal purpose of influencing the election” for president in 2016, Cohen testified.

He was sentenced to 36 months in prison.

“Days before then-President Donald Trump left the White House, federal prosecutors in New York discussed whether to potentially charge Trump with campaign finance crimes once he was out of office,” CNN reported on Friday, citing a new book from CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig.

But they “decided to not seek an indictment of Trump for several reasons, Honig writes, including the political ramifications and the fact that Trump’s other scandals, such as efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and the January 6, 2021, insurrection, ‘made the campaign finance violations seem somehow trivial and outdated by comparison.'”

Award-winning journalist and author Brian Karem tweeted: “As someone who worked extensively with [Michael Cohen] on the book ‘Revenge’ I can say this: Facts show that the MOST dangerous criminal case against Donald Trump could be made by the Manhattan D.A.”

Read The Times’ full report here.

This article has been updated to include Brian Karem’s tweet.

Continue Reading

News

$1 Billion Campaign From Group ‘Linked to Staunchly Conservative Causes’ Will Try to ‘Redeem Jesus’ Brand’ in Super Bowl Ads

Published

on

From electric vehicles to cosmetics, and even the word “mummy,” there is a lot of rebranding going on.

Bowing to anger from right-wingers and conservative commentators, M&M’s decided to rebrand the decades-old multi-colored candies after outrage over its latest addition, purple, and its new “spokescandy,” also named “Purple.”

“Roughly a year ago, Mars Wrigley updated the look of its M&M’s characters, announcing an initiative to make the mascots fit a ‘more dynamic, progressive world.’ As part of these changes, the company introduced new designs of some of M&M’s characters and wrote weirdly elaborate backstories for others. Most notably, the company made the green M&M less ‘sexy’ by shortening her legs and replacing her high-heeled boots with sneakers,” Vox Media’s Polygon reported last week.

Fox News personality Tucker Carlson infamously has waged war on the “woke” spokescandies, declaring at one point, “M&M’s will not be satisfied until every last cartoon character is deeply unappealing and totally androgynous.”

Fast forward to now: Actress and comedian Maya Rudolph is their new spokesperson, although the “spokescandies,” perhaps after some additional rebranding, will be returning in a new ad on Super Bowl Sunday.

Which brings us to the rebranding of another icon: Jesus Christ.

He too will be part of the Super Bowl Sunday ads.

READ MORE: Trump-Aligned Christian Nationalist Group ‘Taps Into Unholy Well’ That Threatens Democracy

Over the next three years a $1 billion mostly-dark-money campaign – which reportedly will include funds from billionaire right wing anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ funder David Green, the founder of Hobby Lobby – will promote Jesus in ads, including during the Super Bowl on February 12. Those two Super Bowl ads to “to redeem Jesus’ brand” will cost $20 million, Religion News Service reports.

The campaign to promote Jesus includes $100 million in ads declaring “He Gets Us,” from “the Servant Foundation, an Overland Park, Kansas, nonprofit that does business as The Signatry,” RNS adds.

The “donors backing the campaign have until recently remained anonymous — in early 2022, organizers only told Religion News Service that funding came from ‘like-minded families who desire to see the Jesus of the Bible represented in today’s culture with the same relevance and impact He had 2000 years ago.'”

But the full list of donors remains unknown.

“Jason Vanderground, president of Haven, a branding firm based in Grand Haven, Michigan, that is working on the ‘He Gets Us’ campaign, confirmed that the Greens are one of the major funders, among a variety of donors and families who have gotten behind it.”

READ MORE: Pelosi Attack Video Release Leads to Criticism of Musk, Right Wingers Who ‘Trafficked in Homophobic Conspiracy Nonsense’

In a Washington Post interview last year, Vanderground “said Christians see their faith as the greatest love story, but those outside the faith see Christians as a hate group.”

But rather than try to convince self-identified followers of Christ to act as Jesus would want, right-wing interests are spending $1 billion to convince others of what Christianity is supposed to be about.

“Our research shows that many people’s only exposure to Jesus is through Christians who reflect him imperfectly, and too often in ways that create a distorted or incomplete picture of his radical compassion and love for others,” Vanderground told The Washington Post. “We believe it’s more important now than ever for the real, authentic Jesus to be represented in the public marketplace as he is in the Bible.”

Some are not impressed, and are more-or-less asking, “What would Jesus do?”

“They are latching on to this touchy-feely, conveniently vague, designer Jesus,” podcaster, author, and secular activist Seth Andrews told RNS. Andrews “poses the question of what Jesus would think of the amount of money spent on the ads. Would he prefer that the money be spent on ministering to people’s physical needs or making the world a better place?”

READ MORE: McCarthy Sat for an Interview With Trump Jr. – One Bragged About an ‘Illegal’ Act, One Wished His Dad Would ‘Show Some’ Love

“Or would he say, no, go ahead and spend $100 million to tell everybody how great I am?”

On-air, CNN said, “at first blush, it can all read like a stand against radical right-wing politics and related divisiveness,” but adds that “some are calling this a ‘right-wing stunt for politics.'”

“‘He Gets Us’ is funded by anonymous donors acting through a Kansas non-profit linked to staunchly conservative causes,” CNN’s report (video below) notes, saying it “raises alarms for some skeptics.”

Watch CNN’s report below or at this link.

Image: Romolo Tavani/Shutterstock

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.