Happy Birthday Rahm

Rahm Emanuel's fiftieth birthday is not until November 29, but the gay community has been working hard on his gift, and is in the process of delivering one hell of a present. Just at the moment when the White House was starting to sweat over its failure to follow through on promises to let gays serve openly in the military, the gay community took its foot off the gas pedal. Sure enough, as soon as we stopped pushing, the White House stopped listening.

Consider what President Obama told Anderson Cooper on July 13. When asked why he would not sign an executive order suspending the gay ban, he responded that he wants to ensure that, "we are not simply ignoring a congressional law. If Congress passes a law that is constitutionally valid, then it's not appropriate for the executive branch simply to say, we will not enforce a law."

Obama's talking point echoed the claims of gay activists who for weeks had been arguing that an executive order on gays would circumvent the will of Congress. As explained by a new "don't ask, don't tell" truth squad, this reasoning is incorrect. Congress passed a law known colloquially as "stop-loss" that gives the President authority to suspend any law related to military separations during national security emergencies. Gay activists well understand that an executive order would be consistent with Congressional statute, but they have continued to suggest that an order would be an end-run around Congress.

A new Palm Center policy analysis, to be released this week, shows that our community's efforts to block an executive order have taken the heat off the White House. The analysis, Self-Inflicted Wounds on "Don't ask, Don't Tell": How and Why the Gay Community Took the Pressure off the White House, explains why the proposal for an executive order first followed by legislative repeal later was starting to unlock the political stalemate in Congress until our community undermined it.

Why are some gay and gay friendly activists, journalists and politicians working so hard to block an executive order? Some are motivated by a heartfelt concern that any discussion of an executive order derails legislative efforts to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law. (Our forthcoming policy analysis questions the plausibility of such reasoning in depth). Others, however, seem more motivated by parochial concerns such as the desire not to offend a White House that clearly does not want to sign an executive order.

Regardless of their motives, the consequences of their efforts have been quite sad. Three, in particular, come to mind. To begin, gays have undermined the national security argument which took a decade to establish in the public's mind. Part of the reason to sign an immediate executive order is that the military continues to fire badly needed talent such as Arabic linguists. John Shalikashvili, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said that the ban undermines national security. President Obama has made this claim as well. In disavowing the need for immediate action, and given that the prospects for quick legislative repeal seem slim, the gay community cedes any sense of urgency about the need to protect national security.

In addition, gay efforts almost certainly have contributed to declining media interest in the issue. Here is a June 8 clip from the Rachel Maddow show which illustrates the typical tone of media coverage when the agenda focused on the executive order idea: "Well, since he [Obama] has been a 'fierce advocate in chief,' has he repealed the 'don`t ask, don`t tell' policy? No. Has he pushed Congress to repeal the policy? Not really. Has he hit the pause button on investigating members of the military to ferret out who`s guy and who`s not? No, he has not. Has he used his stop-loss powers to put a hold on dismissals of people under the policy? No. No, he hasn`t. In fact, as commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces, 'president fierce advocate' actively still is firing people from the U.S. military because they`re gay."

Once it became clear that Obama could end gay discharges with the stroke of a pen, the tone of media coverage shifted immediately from "isn't it terrible to fire gay Arabic linguists" to "why isn't Obama doing anything." And it was this shift that made Rahm Emanuel sweat. Roughly half a dozen times, Press Secretary Gibbs was grilled as to why the administration would not sign an executive order. On more than one occasion, the tone of questioning approached outright mockery. Gibbs said that the President would not sign an executive order because he wanted a more durable solution. One journalist responded by noting that Harry Truman integrated the military on the basis of race with a 1948 executive order and wondered if our policy of racial integration in the military is "durable." More and more people started to call for a two-step strategy starting with an executive order and followed by legislative repeal.

Since gay opponents of executive action have started to achieve more traction, however, notice what has happened to media interest in the issue. A Lexis-Nexis search of major print and broadcast media and blog posts reveals that in the 106 days between the presidential inauguration and the first mention of the executive order idea on May 7, the media mentioned "don't ask, don't tell", on average, 5.6 times per day. In the 68 days between the introduction and President Obama's July 13 (misleading) remarks about his unwillingness to sign an order, the media mentioned the policy 19.1 times per day. In the ten days after those remarks, the media mentioned the policy only 11.4 times per day. As the gay community took the heat off the White House and failed to hold the President accountable for misleading remarks, media coverage tapered off (and the tone of media coverage softened as well).

Finally, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen has again resorted to using conditional language about the gays-in-military issue, saying he would weigh in "should this law change," rather than "when" it is repealed. He is the first member of the administration to use conditional language in months. Again, almost no one in the gay community or the media, and certainly not the major gay rights groups, held him accountable. It is hard to imagine that Mullen would have resorted to his old use of conditional language if gay groups had continued to pressure the administration to sign an executive order

Every ounce of activism directed towards the exclusive legislative strategy as opposed to the two-part strategy of executive action first followed by legislative repeal later enhances the ability of the White House to invoke its old pass-the-buck strategy of explaining inaction in terms of a lack of votes in the Senate. Calling for an exclusive emphasis on legislative repeal is perhaps the greatest gift gay rights groups could give the White House. Happy birthday, Rahm.

Comments

[KidHollywood]

Its a well know fact that HRC and other organizations have had closed door meetings with Obama and other ranking Republicans to "discuss" strategy. They discuss but then THEY DON'T TELL.

I meant DEMOCRATS in the above. Forgive me I am just so pissed.

[KidHollywood]

There is a major stall going on thats not only being orchestrated by The White House and the Dems But also has the blessings of our craptastic ADVOCACY Organizations, Gay Inc. Its a well know fact that HRC and other organizations have had closed door meetings with Obama and other ranking Republicans to "discuss" strategy. They discuss but then THEY DON'T TELL.

Lets take DADT. Obama won't sign an Executive Order freezing Discharges because he wants it to go through the legislatur­e.. Gillibrand pulls her freeze on discharges admendment. suddenly because she BELIEVES she doesn't have enough votes and settles for Congressional Hearings that will drag the process out until well after the 2010 Congressional Elections. Hastings was PRESSURED from fellow Dems and The White House to drop his admendment that would cut off funding for discharges thus making it impossible for now. Over 69 Percent of Americans polled believe that DADT should be repealed. Thats a HELLUVALOT of support. But The White House and Congress doesn't want to push any vote on it before the 2010 elections so they are stalling. And HRC and others are going along with them. With almost 70 percent support of the American People why in the world is HRC wasting time, money and resources on promoting a tour to go around the country to "change the hearts and minds of the American people" BECAUSE THE HRC AND GAY INC. ARE IN ON THE STALL . Plain and simple

[mergina]

Perhaps there should be a don't ask don't tell for masturbating in the shower, or for heterosexuals who are more prone to rape. The entire wretched policy stinks.

[EvaDee]

Why 'happy birthday rahm'? why is rahm in the title and end of this article?

[PinkoPanther]

I think the author meant to indicate that gay activists are making it easy on Rahm Emanuel (the chief of staff) to deflect gay rights... thus being like a big early "birthday present" for the guy in charge... It's not clear that he's making that analogy exactly, so your confusion is understandable.

[metalborg]

So let us say he does sign it. It doesn't change Prop 8 or change laws about gay marriage. What it might do is start a political firestorm that ties up the President . Any substantial improvement in gay rights will need more than a presidential order. The military was integrated in 1948 but the average African-American saw no change on the civilian front for another 20 years. You have to pick your battles. Personally I think gay marriage rights should be pushed forward before DADT repeal.

[ipresumelikely]

You base your opinion on what?...th­at because it happened to Bill Clinton 15 years ago it will happen again? 73% of those in the military think DADT should be repealed and 70% of general public. This is a no brainer for Obama.

[AngryCitizen]

The facts are plain: There is a law that gives the President the authority to "stop-loss" gays from being discharged from the military. The President can legally sign it. The President can still move forward to repeal the law. The President refuses to do so. Obama is just another politician who got what he wanted from us and has dumped us. We've all had dates like that at one point in time, but at least then I enjoyed the first part.

[GodBlessAmerica]

No, that wasn't the intention of stop-loss and you know it. Actually exercising power with that interpretation would certainly bring both a lawsuit and discredit to the administration.

[GodBlessAmerica]

I disagree that an executive order would be proper. Although Congress was more than happy to let Harry Truman take the heat for racially integrating the armed forces, that was Constitutionally suspect too.

Citation: Constitution, Article one, section 8: Congress shall have the power to RAISE and SUPPORT armies ...(and) provide and maintain a Navy.


Which is not to say, then, that Congress should not act. A Florida Congressman was on tv last night rather persuasively stating that several gay (or thought-to-be-gay) servicemen were being discharged despite their Arab or Farsi or Afghani (I forget the proper term) language skills -- therefore irrationally limiting our national defense and security. Curiously, I remember reading something similar from Mr. Conservative himself, Barry Goldwater. I just agree that the ball is properly and firmly in Congress' court.

[Dynamohum]

I kept bringing the executive order up on this site and kept getting attacked quite heavily and excessively so I stopped to save my own sanity. I signed every petition on the subject. What else, pray tell as a gay citizen should I have done?

[GodBlessAmerica]

Push your Senators and Congressman. As I stated in my Post, an executive order would be, well, out of order.

[IrishMale]

As sad as it is, Prop 8 and its appeal has shown us that the US is still not willing to embrace gay rights. It will be a long, tough battle and like the marijuana debate, Obama is simply not in a position to make sweeping change without finding himself discredited by the opposition. He has 3 1/2 years to get done what he needs to do. Look at where he sits. Right now he's got a clear majority in the Senate, a totally hopeless GOP, an issue (health care) with a clear right and wrong choice, and he still can't put his foot down. He can't push through a bill to give basic health care to 40 million Americans, and you want him to stop what he's doing and give a crap about LBGT rights? He should have the perfect, once-in-a-­millennium storm of Democratic influence and support and he still can't get things done.

We wil get rid of DADT and DOMA. It will happen whether Obama does it or not. Obama needs to focus on the important things that night not happen, before he focuses on the important things that will happen eventually regardless.

[JoeSchmuk]

Yea, and just like the outmoded and destructive drug policies, tell that to those whose lives are irreparably damaged and destroyed.

[johnnynyc]

Is the author suggesting Obama declare a bogus national security emergency?

[AngryCitizen]

Bogus? I would say that in the time of war, having a shortage of translators on our side, DOES constitute a national security emergency.

[robbep]

not really. if this was a national security then we in the states wld be asked to sacrafice to assist those fighting our wars, this has not been the case. I agree that gays shld be allowed in the military. The military is a federal job and denying a group of citizens bcz of their sexual preference is unconstitutional. Why not take a case to the supreme court? Rahm is about Rahm staying in power. He will jerk his supporters in a newyork minute if he calculates that it is in his bst interest. To him the gays, unions, progressives, etc. are all pawns to be used to obtain his goals.

[S1m0n]

This one issue on which there is no ambiguity: the White House is firmly in the wrong, and the president's failure to act on the clear promises he made both before and after his election is inexplicable. The gay community has every right to be furious; every one of their accusations are well founded. WTF does this administration think its doing?

[marignymitch]

They pulled legislation Tuesday that was aimed at killing DADT. That's what this administration is doing.

[Cool-headed]

Wow... a politician who does not keep his campaign promises. That's unheard of....

[disgusted48]

He's a sagitarian? didn't think they made them that obnoxious. and of course gays should be allowed to serve in the military. Whoever is brave enough to defend this country, have at it.

[PlaceboStudman]

What is it going to take for us in the LGBT community, outside of the activist groups, to get off our duffs and actually do something to show our displeasure, anger and frustration over the administration (and I include congress in that) lack of active lobbying on this issue?? If Obama wants to be the perpetual Campaigner­-in-Chief, then we need to pressure him to campaign for the repeal of DADT and DOMA. As it is, he is already threatening to veto the defense bill which congress added the hate crimes bill to as an ammendment. We must do something, and we must do it now. We can not sit back and passively watch as this administration continues to mimic the last administration, by doing things they want TO us, rather than doing things WE want FOR us.

We must act, and we must act now. I hope someone stages a protest at the white house and on the steps of the Capital building during the march in October.

If we do not do something to show the administration that we are serious, and that they need to become serious about this issue, then I will be forced to wonder whether we really want let alone deserve these changes in social consciousness

[thromulese]

This “fierce advocate” actually defended DOMA by equating gay marriage to incest.

That is not lack of action that is actively doing the exact opposite of what Obama promised. A homophobic bigoted preacher gave the invocation at his inaugural, and he has met privately with the leader of the cult that helped pass prop 8 in California. If he is a “fierce advocate” it is AGAINST gay rights, not for them.

Not only is Obama NOT a fierce advocate, he is not even a passive advocate.

[Manx]

Obama's excuse that he doesn't want to ignore Congressional laws doesn't hold water. He has ignored both domestic and international laws regarding torture that occurred during the Bush administration, saying that he wants to move forward, not backward. All for political expediency.