As
Politico is reporting the effort to repeal
DADT has stalled and
The Palm Center blames major LGBT rights organizations for the debacle.
Andrew Sullivan is even more brutal in his assessment and urges LGBT Americans to stop giving money to
HRC - a tactic I largely agree with since I believe
HRC is more concerned with promoting itself and finding government jobs for its self-anointed movers and shakers. Here is Andrew's analysis in a nut shell:
*
“a network of gay and gay-friendly individuals and organizations worked to derail the possibility of a suspension of the ban." Can you smell the Human Rights Campaign? It's that unique blend of cowardice, careerism and fantastic amounts of money that usually tips you off.
*
Sadly, I agree with Andrew. The grass roots of the LGBT community is ready to push for real change but our self-appointed "leaders" are not. They prefer "access" and cocktail parties that stroke their egos - meanwhile real people are being drummed out of the military daily as they sip their gin and tonics and cosmopolitans. It is beyond frustrating and pathetic. Like so much in politics, the only thing these folks truly understand is money - when the ATM is turned off, they listen. Until that happens it is business as usual. Here are some highlights from Politico:
*
[T]he Palm Center, a California think tank working to end the ban on gays in the military, blames Washington gay rights activists and their allies in Congress for dropping the ball on repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
*
The center has made the case for pressing President Obama for an executive order ending the ban on gays in the military, arguing that those facts on the ground -- gays openly serving -- would be irreversible, and could be followed later by Congressional action. But other gay rights advocates, led by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network and Human Rights Campaign, and members of Congress like Rep. Patrick Murphy have argued that a legislative repeal should be the primary goal, as an executive order could be reversed by a new president.
*
Many people seemed to agree that the two-part strategy would make political and operational sense. Once gays are allowed to serve openly and legally, it will be impossible to put the toothpaste back into the tube. Operationally, there is no way to force gays back into the closet. And given that 75 percent of the public favors open gay service, it would be unwise politically for some future Republican President to try to reverse the order.5 Indeed, when former President George Bush tried to reverse one of Bill Clinton’s executive orders mandating equal treatment for non-military gay employees of the federal government, he could not get away with it.
*
As the two-part strategy continued to generate real heat on the administration, however, the gay community has taken its foot off the gas pedal. The chorus of gay and gay-friendly activists, journalists and politicos calling for an exclusive emphasis on legislative repeal has grown in recent weeks, and as opponents of the two-part strategy made their case with increasing fervor, the media’s criticisms of the administration have softened, and a senior administration spokesperson has again started to use conditional language as to whether “don’t ask, don’t tell will be repealed.”
*
As for the Palm Center report, here is a sampling of the criticisms of the gay rights organizations:
*
This policy analysis begins with an explanation of how and why some members of the gay community have worked so hard to stop putting pressure on the White House, and then outlines an opportunity for how to get back on track. In particular, it (1) explains the strategic misperceptions of those who seek to focus exclusively on legislative repeal including the flawed notion that the legislative strategy alone can work; (2) describes the consequences of efforts to block consideration of the two-part strategy (executive order first, legislative repeal second); and (3) suggests why a renewed emphasis on a two-part strategy is the most effective way forward.
*
Those who endorse an exclusive focus on legislative repeal seem to believe that if the gay community works hard enough, we can force conservatives to support MREA. But there is little logic to their position. Consider several obstacles. To begin, 75 percent of the public already supports open gay service, yet conservatives in Congress continue to oppose the bill.8 There is little additional room for public education or shifts in public opinion that could cause conservatives to change their minds.
*
Although Congress is not a pressure point, the same cannot be said of the White House. Those who favor an exclusive emphasis on legislation seem to appreciate neither the extent to which the President, not Congress, is vulnerable to accusations of hypocrisy, nor the opportunity to generate media coverage which shines a spotlight on the chasm between candidate Obama’s pledge to lift the ban when he took office, and President Obama’s unwillingness to sign an order even though he has acknowledged that the ban harms national security.
*
Discussions of hypocrisy become particularly salient when the gay community can combine them with fresh data, studies and stories which underscore the costs of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” For example, new data documenting increased discharges of Arabic linguists would generate important media coverage in and of itself.
*
Every ounce of activism directed towards the exclusive legislative strategy as opposed to the two-part strategy enhances the ability of the White House to invoke its old pass-the-buck defense which was so effective for the first few months of the administration, before the two-part strategy was raised in public. Calling for an exclusive emphasis on legislative repeal is perhaps the greatest gift gay rights groups could give the White House. And it’s a slap in the face to service members like Lt. Dan Choi, whose careers are in peril right now.
*
Sadly, at the very moment that discussion of the two-part strategy started to disable the political stalemate surrounding “don’t ask, don’t tell”, some gay and gay-friendly activists, journalists and politicos have let up pressure on the White House by resisting executive action, and insisting on an exclusive focus on legislative repeal. Consider a number of misleading and inaccurate claims that have been circulated. One often-repeated claim is that the administration does not have the legal authority to sign an executive order and that doing so would constitute an end-run around Congress. This claim is incorrect. In 1983, Congress passed 10 U.S.C. § 12305, known as the “stop-loss” law, which allows the President to “suspend any provision of law” related to military separations during national security emergencies.
*
Some members of the gay community have provided Washington with reasons to continue discriminating, and their actions have had the effect of softening the pressure on the White House and allowing the President to again use his pass-the-buck strategy. As a result, momentum has been lost and the inertia that characterized the period before the introduction of the two-part solution is returning. Four consequences, in particular, deserve mention.
*
In addition, the community’s misleading claims have become a talking point for the President of the United States. When asked whether he would sign an executive order last month, President Obama said that doing so would circumvent the will of Congress, and that he is constitutionally obliged to enforce Congressional statute.18 This argument, which ignored his now-well-established power of “stop-loss,” was first articulated and then repeated extensively by members of the gay community itself. The community provided the President with a misleading talking point to explain why he will continue firing service members for being gay, and almost no one held him accountable.
*
If a unified community held the President accountable for his recent, misleading remarks about why he will not sign an executive order, redirected the national conversation to the two-part strategy and demanded immediate executive leadership as the first step in a multi-stage effort to lift the ban, we would maximize the chances for unlocking the stalemate in Washington and again see momentum toward an outcome that has been elusive for more than fifteen years.
*
I find it most depressing that some of the major gay rights organizations seem to care more about "maintaining good relations" than they do about concrete results. As they say, the squeaky wheel gets the oil - we need a full court press to create as much squaking as possible.
It seems thatat last some are realizing that a case involving employment discrimination based on sexual orientation is actually pending in the Virginia Courts - i.e., Moore V. Virginia Myseum of Natural History. I received an e-mail from a Richmond radio station seeking an interview. Here are highlights:
