The “Lavender Scare” was a period in American History wherein “thousands of homosexuals were investigated, interrogated, and dismissed by government officials and private employers” (Friedman 1105). More broadly, the Lavender Scare was marked by the characterization of homosexuality as morally corrupt, predatory, and synonyms with untrustworthiness. This characterization was then weaponized against government officials and other private employees to discredit their legitimacy and oftentimes, push a particular agenda. The Lavender Scare is closely related to the “Red Scare,” as the latter was fueled by the growing tendency to delegitimize individuals by labeling them as “communists.” Over time, this fear expanded beyond political affiliations to encompass a wider range of behaviors deemed subversive, eventually targeting homosexuality as part of this broader definition of “communist behavior.”
The smearing of Senator Joseph McCarthy’s credibility reveals that the general population—at least indirectly—connected homosexuality with communism. Both anticommunism and homophobia were used to justify discrediting and delegitimizing political figures in the name of protecting public safety and national security. While communism was viewed as outright traitorous against the country, homosexuality was perceived as a sign of untrustworthiness, moral weakness, and vulnerability to manipulation—traits that were considered indirectly subversive to national security. In the case of McCarthy, the accusations of him being homosexual resulted in the belief that he was “really controlled by his underling” and was thus a weak and suspect leader (Friedman 1120). The portrayal of McCarthy as homosexual was particularly damaging to his credibility due to his public image of masculinity, toughness, and ruggedness. This image, after having been accused of being a homosexual, eventually came to be viewed by the American public as a hollow facade, undermining his authenticity and further fueling perceptions of his untrustworthiness. The national security state that developed during the Red Scare breed distrust and suspicion that enabled individuals to accuse each other of homosexuality in much the same way they accused each other of being communist.
I do not think that sexual innuendos are as frequently used in politics today. The normalization of queerness has contributed to more direct language being used to discuss it. For instance, during the 2020 presidential election, Pete Buttigieg openly identified as a “gay man.” Subsequent news media discussed the matter with no need for innuendos or euphemisms. His husband and family were also discussed using direct language. While he faced criticism and homophobia, rooted in the association of queerness with femininity and weakness, both the media and the public were able to discuss his sexuality directly, without resorting to coded language. Additionally, I think that as the acceptance of homosexuality grows, the weaponization, or “outing,” of people as homosexual carries less weight than it did during the Lavender Scare. While openly queer individuals in politics can (and do) face severe backlash, I have not seen it as being used as a targeted tool to the same degree as it was during the Lavender Scare.
Will Wright 