*
Unfortunately, too much of the debate seems to be about Andrew - or outright personal attacks on him - rather that the root issues behind his comment: does HRC currently represent the entire LGBT community or mostly a wealthy few; does HRC in essence lie about the size of its membership; has HRC been too reluctant to push politicians for real action and become co-opted by the Democrat Party - to list only a few?
*
As I have stated before, I am no fan of HRC as it currently operates. When it comes to aiding those out in the trenches, from my experience, HRC is generally missing in action. The prime example that I have mentioned before is a case now on appeal here in Virginia that involves Timothy Kaine's Executive Order 1 (2006) that allegedly protects Virginia state employees from employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. Throughout this case Gov. Kaine has done NOTHING to enforce compliance with the Executive Order by those HE appoints to state agencies, boards and departments. When first asked for assistance, the HRC response was that it had a good relationship with Gov. Kaine and did not want to be involved in anything that might upset him. Later when the notice of appeal from the Circuit Court level was noted, I was contacted by HRC which wanted all available information so that it could assist. I've never heard back from HRC to this date.
*
As for members, HRC according to well placed sources, uses a byzantine system for calculating members. Even though I have not donated a penny in years, I am most likely still counted as an HRC member. The result is a fraudulent membership count that allows HRC to market itself as representative of all elements of the LGBT community. In reality, HRC represents the small number of large donors and those well heeled enough to purchase tickets to its endless fundraiser dinners. If as much effort went into lobbying Congress as seems to go into organizing dinners, ENDA would be passed by now and DADT would likely be repealed. And let's not forget the arrogance and condescension that Solmonese has exhibited towards rank and file LGBT Americans. Pam Spaulding takes a good look at this behavior:
*
HRC's Solmonese: dinner attendees 'more politically aware', have 'better sense of what's at stake' - Those are his words, not mine. Joe Solmonese said them to CNN's Don Lemon in an interview on Sunday that hasn't received much play, and there are some interesting nuggets that reveal more about thinking inside the org than he probably meant to share. It's rare to see the whole diversity/class/power dynamic that vexes the LGBT movement opened up since it's a third rail topic that tends to give some with privilege a case of defensive agita. It's likely this unintentional level of candor won't be seen again any time soon.
*
A couple of things are quite notable. Lemon asks about the diversity issue within HRC. Solmonese can't answer that question without either fibbing or going down a really uncomfortable path, so Joe chooses to answer the question in terms of paid membership, so he can reference the multitude of small dollar donors. Those donors weren't at the dinner, nor are they in leadership positions or on the board of the advocacy org. The real boo-boo, however, is the claim that the crowd attending the annual dinner is more politically engaged, more boned-up on the issues, and even more incredibly, know more than you folks out there -- living in places where you have no rights whatsoever -- about what is at stake.
*
By raising the value of the attendees as "the players" who know better, he's essentially confirming all of the worst stereotypes. Those skeptics outside of the LGBT sphere who saw that non-diverse audience that night are even less likely to support LGBT issues.
*
Our movement needs to address how our largest LGBT organization can represent the reality of LGBT America, because its representative just let everyone know that in HRC's reality, the right mix - the most effective mix - of people in the LGBT equality movement attended that annual dinner. I'm not sure how the rest of us rate other than as a small dollar GAyTM. Maybe Joe will tell us the next time he's on the air.
*
HRC COULD be a wonderful organization that does great good for the LGBT cause. But it is NOT that kind of organization at present. The first step is a change of leadership and I agree with Andrew Sullivan that the resignation of Solmonese would be a good first step. I'd also suggest hiring people more committed to the cause who do not need obscene salaries to supposedly fight for the rights of all of us. I want a palace coup at HRC, not its destruction.
No comments:
Post a Comment