MICHELANGELO THE ANTI-GENIUS: An amazingly bad Michelangelo Signorile column today in the "New York Press." Signorile weighs in on the assassination of gay, right-wing Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn. After chiding American conservatives for "pretending" to be knowledgeable about Dutch politics, Signorile proves he's just "pretending" to be a serious opinion columnist:

It is clear, however, that the American definitions of right and left do not apply in the Netherlands, and these American conservative pundits know that, though they are playing fast and loose with the terms. (American newspaper reporters could be more precise with the terms as well, and perhaps should describe someone like Fortuyn as a politician "considered by many in the Netherlands to be right-wing" than to simply label him as such within the American context.)

I'll agree that American definitions of right and left may not apply in Holland, but American newspaper reporters, along with most of their colleagues in Europe, invariably labeled Fortuyn far more harshly than "someone who might be considered right-wing." "Extreme right," "far right" and "fascist" were among the kinder epithets, and it's clear they were labeling him within the context of Europe's neo-Nazi movement. Those comparisons bordered on slander, and that's why Fortuyn's death struck such a chord with American conservatives. No matter how nuanced their views, they've been labeled as neo-fascists far too often over the past 40 years. Next, Signorile reduces the sweep of American conservatism to pat responses on just three social issues:

In America, right-wing after all usually means antiabortion, antigay and having "zero tolerance on drugs." But in a country where there isn’t any considerable religious right–where gay marriage is legal, abortion is not an issue and you can buy weed at the counter in a cafe–left and right mean very different things.

I guess the libertarian drive to legalize drugs doesn't fit into Signorile's definition of "right wing." Neither, it seems, does a commitment to free markets and individual rights. (Sorry. My damn false consciousness is seeping through again.) But Signorile's worst sin comes next, when he betrays a shocking ignorance of 20th-century European history:

In much of Northern Europe, where homosexuality has been far more accepted for far longer and has been met with little political resistance, you can even be gay and be a right-wing fascist (just like Ernst Rohm, Hitler’s SA chief in the Nazi Party, was). So trotting out Fortuyn’s homosexuality as proof of anything is relatively meaningless.

Signorile must be one of those high-maintenance columnists who refuses to allow his copy to be edited, because he certainly could have used an editor here. Ernst Rohm may indeed have been homosexual, and it's rumored that others in Hitler's inner circle may have been deeply closeted gays. But even high school students know the Nazis sent thousands of European homosexuals to their deaths in concentration camps. Indeed, they were among the first groups rounded up when Hitler assumed power. Has Signorile forgotten that the little pink triangle he might wear as a source of "pride" is the symbol the Nazis forced homosexuals to wear in the death camps? It was the equivalent to the yellow Star of David that Jews were forced to wear. It's amazing that a writer so interested in the gay experience could have forgotten about that. But the real thrust of Signorile's ignorant rant is aimed at American conservatives, who will soon be rounding up...American Muslims! (And gays, too, I'm sure.) Fortuyn merely provided the example:

It seems to me that the conservatives’ interest in legitimizing Fortuyn–to the point of getting down on their knees for a Dutch backroom cruiser–is in the service of elevating the entire issue of regulating and barring Arabs and other Muslims, and perhaps even rounding up such people here. When the dirty bomb goes off, this is the repressive direction conservative pundits are going to go (and it’s not inconceivable that in these times fearful Americans won’t be as receptive if not more so than the so-socially conscious Dutch). Fortuyn is their dress rehearsal.

How much more can you twist the facts? Fortuyn was fearful of the influx of radical Muslims because he felt that they would present a threat to a great many things the Dutch hold dear -- the rights of homosexuals and women, for example. (There's ample evidence that this fear is well-founded, too much to be listed here.) Why that doesn't concern him is a mystery to me. Signorile then goes on to compare American religious conservatives, who think his sexual orientation is sinful but would still break bread with him and pray for his soul, to Islamic fundamentalists, who would throw Signorile from a tall building or topple a stone wall onto him or behead him for his Tom-of-Finland-on-holiday-in-Rotterdam quickie. Nowhere does Signorile acknowledge that "antigay religious extremism" is unpopular with most Americans, including big segments of what he no doubt considers the "monolithic" American right.

Signorile is entitled to his bizarro-world opinions, a free-speech right that 98 percent of American conservatives would support. I just wish he'd express them in an intellectually honest manner.

UPDATE: Taki writes about Fortuyn and political labeling in Europe.