Paranoia, Persecution, and Politics Fueled by Sexual Innuendos

The Lavender Scare can be described as a period of moral panic about members of the LGBTQ+ community, specifically those identifying as gay or lesbian, holding roles in the United States government. What started as panic among the public quickly transformed into active repression against homosexual people. Specifically, thousands of federal government employees lost their jobs because of their sexuality, which came to be known as the “Lavender Purge” (Friedman). The Lavender Scare can be seen as a parallel to the Red Scare, which was a period of anti-communist persecution. In the case of the Red Scare, the general public was encouraged to be on the lookout for communists because the United States government said they posed a large threat. The idea that communist ideology could be anywhere, and even those you least expect could support it, was enough to cause extreme panic about the state of our national security. In the same sense, during the Lavender Scare, homophobic ideology spread as the government pushed beliefs that homosexual individuals were “morally weak” and therefore susceptible to being “Fellow Travelers” (also known as communist sympathisers) and threats to our national security. In the late 1940s, when the Lavender Scare was starting to ramp up, most homosexual individuals were not open about their sexuality. This drew an even deeper connection between homosexuality and communism, as they both were strongly associated with secrecy and suddenly placed under immense public scrutiny.

Senator Joseph McCarthy, known for his strong anti-communist and homophobic campaigns, ended up being a target of sexual smear during the Lavender Scare himself. At the beginning of his career in Washington, McCarthy worked hard to ensure that his persona was that of a rugged, independent, manly politician. However, because of his connection to Roy Cohn and David Schine, accusations of McCarthy engaging in “homosexual behaviors” began to spread. These accusations and questions about his sexuality were used to undermine his authority as a government official. In a time when homosexual individuals were regarded as communist sympathizers, this was a detrimental turn in McCarthy’s public image. Ironically, according to his own rhetoric, homosexual individuals were morally weak, posed a threat to national security, and didn’t belong in the federal government.

I think that sexual innuendos are definitely still used in politics today. One relatively recent example involves President Donald Trump, who took to social media several times while on the campaign trail to attack his opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris. Even after people in his own party urged him to avoid personal attacks on Harris, he reposted misogynistic media that implied Harris’ political advancements were solely a result of sexual favors. These posts referred to Harris and her former relationship with the mayor of San Francisco, which mirrors how McCarthy was put on blast for an alleged relationship with Roy Cohn. In both instances, sexual innuendos were used by political opponents to undermine not only an individual’s legitimacy in the federal government but also their morals. Another instance of sexual innuendos used in current politics is the immense backlash former president Joe Biden faced for selecting Rachel Levine, an openly transgender doctor, for assistant health secretary. Levine has faced cruel public attacks on her gender identity, some even going as far as to question her legitimacy as a doctor and public leader because she is transgender. This example illustrates the frightening reality that sexual innuendos are expanding to target even more groups as our knowledge of gender and sexuality evolves.