The Hubris Of LGBT Rights Organizations

I have complained before about the mindset of the Democrats who want the LGBT community to fork over money and votes yet never have the audacity to ask questions or demand something back in return for their cash and votes. Sadly, many of our LGBT organizations are not a whole lot better and when they aren't treating their rank and file supporters with thinly disguised condescension, they are giving away the store to fair weather politicians without holding their feet to the fire. One sees it at the state level - e.g., Equality Virginia in my home state - and at the national level typically in the form of the Human Rights Campaign that likes to think that it speaks for the LGBT community when in fact it often does not. An example? HRC has come out and endorsed Obama for the 2012 presidential contest. Never mind that HRC doesn't even know who the GOP standard bearer will be. Talk about flushing any semblance of being a non-partisan organization down the toilet. In addition, the clear signal to Obama and company is that nothing more need be done to lock up the LGBT vote. Pam Spaulding correctly takes issue with HRC's hubris in a blog post entitled "HRC endorses Obama for re-election; message: open the gAyTM and get with the program." Here are some highlights:
*
Again, this illustrates that if HRC is on board, the assumption is that entire LGBT community is stepping in line by default. Is it "Groundhog Day", a case of waking up and starting the same day over and over with these folks? HRC no more controls the community than blogs do, as we've seen before, it's just that the institutions seek credibility through our Beltway orgs.
*
Also, what is the point of doing this now? I don't recall HRC endorsing in the primaries when it was Hillary vs. Obama, for instance. And how about Republican presidential candidate Fred Karger, is he a non-starter? It just seems odd for an allegedly non partisan org.
*
John Aravosis also rightly is peeved with HRC's hubris and believes it sends Obama a strong message that nothing need be done to solidify LGBT allegiance. He equates it to "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" He's 100% correct and it ticks me off that our self-anointed "leaders" feel they can speak for us without any consultation or consensus. Here are highlights from John's comments:
*
Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free?
*
The Human Rights Campaign, which likes to tout itself as the nation's largest gay rights organization, today endorsed Barack Obama for president in 2012. Which pretty much leaves the President no reason to do anything that he perceives as controversial for us at least until 2013, if he gets re-elected. The news that HRC is endorsing him comes on the heel of a rumor flying around town that a very senior HRC official is being talked about for a senior position in the White House (because White House relations with the community weren't on thin enough ice).
*
While an eventual endorsement of Obama by HRC is inevitable, expected, and fine, there's a dance that's expected where both sides get something. And the expectation should be for gay rights advancements, not appearing at your dinner or giving you a job. (HRC may be the only folks in town worse at negotiating than the White House itself. )
*
HRC clearly hasn't learned the lessons of the first two years of the Obama presidency. You don't get anything for being nice to the man (well, anything of substance - I'm sure that HRC dinner invite is now locked in). If anything, he looks down on people who are nice to him. The only thing this President respects are people who stand up to him. The President didn't finally start moving on DADT, and finally stop defending DOMA, because HRC was nice to him. He did it because this blog, GetEqual, Dan Choi, the larger Gay Netroots, and a very few organizations like Servicemembers United and SLDN stood up to the man.
*
Sadly, there are few organization on the left who do stand up to President Obama, and that's why so many of the President's promises to the left have been broken or unfulfilled.