Gays To Obama: "If Not Now, When?"
My first choice of a headline for today's column was "Obama's Gay Honeymoon Over," but then I thought better of it. President Obama is currently trying to placate a group of supporters who are not in a mood to be impressed right now with mere incrementalism. Gay rights supporters, quite rightly, are now asking Obama point-blank: "When are you going to make good on all those promises you made to us on the campaign trail? How long are we supposed to wait?"
Barack Obama, while campaigning, made some pretty concrete promises to this group. Lane Hudson of the Huffington Post digs out Obama's own words to gay rights activists, which show how specific Obama was in saying what he would do. Obama was for repealing the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA), repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) in the military, and (in his own words) promised to: "use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws."
That was then. This is now, and some gay rights leaders are expressing their anger that Obama has done virtually none of that, and that Obama is even moving backwards on some of their issues (like using offensive language to defend DOMA in court). This is on top of a mixed bag of symbolic outreach both to gay rights groups (for photo-ops, such as including a gay group in the Inaugural Parade, or the White House Easter Egg Roll) and those against gay rights (Rick Warren speaking at the Inauguration itself).
But all of a sudden, not just a photo-op, but an actual fundraiser is in jeopardy. The Democratic National Committee scheduled a fundraiser (during Gay Pride Month) for next week. And after the latest disappointment from Obama (the brief filed in the DOMA case), people are apparently deciding that now isn't really the time they feel like writing checks for the party cause.
Because of this impending snub, President Obama decided it was time to act. So today he rolled out a very lukewarm expansion of benefits to gay federal employees. This was seen as pretty insulting to some, which is why this issue will likely even more contentious in the next week (leading up to the fundraiser). John Aravosis, writing in Salon, sums this attitude up nicely:
Tonight, President Fierce will try to make amends by signing either a memorandum, a directive or an executive order, directing some federal agencies, but not others, to provide some benefits,but not others, to some gay federal employees, but not others, at some undisclosed time in the future. (And the benefits may reportedly go away when Obama leaves office.)
First problem, federal agencies already have the right to provide these benefits to gay employees -- and several, including at least one DOD agency, do. Second problem, the administration can't tell us exactly which benefits they're talking about and for which employees.
That's because this was all hastily thrown together after the incestuous and pedophilic gays nearly brought down a Democratic National Committee gay pride fundraiser scheduled for next week. A gay blogger got hold of the event's guest list and published it, and once D.C.'s gay paper, the Washington Blade, announced that it would be staking out the entrance to the event with camera and video, the $1,000 a head attendees started dropping like flies.
In other words, the only reason we're getting anything: The gay ATM ran dry.
They've got a point. Nobody likes feeling used, or feeling like they're just getting lip service when they were promised real change.
Obama, of course, is walking a tightrope here. He definitely learned from Bill Clinton the mistake of doing anything on a contentious issues like this too early (in fact, it was the same issue, which is how we got DADT in the first place). But that excuse has pretty much reached its expiration date for Obama. Because the political reality is that -- especially for contentious issues -- there is a very small window for presidents to get things done. This is conventional wisdom in Washington, and although it may not be one hundred percent true, there a lot of truth to it. Presidents get one year, basically, to get anything done.
Because next year is midterm election season. With every member of the House and a third of the Senate up for re-election, politicians become timid about handing their opponents issues to beat them up with in television ads. In other words, not much gets done. And certainly not a lot of "hot button" issues will be tackled.
The year after this, presidents start their own re-election campaigning. If they have gone against odds and picked up seats in Congress, then they may have a second shot at big issues. But usually midterms offer a mixed result at best, and at worst a loss of seats in one or both houses. Meaning most presidents start looking to the middle of the road at this point.
And the fourth year of a first-term presidency is campaign fever, where not much gets done at all due to everyone playing politics all the time.
In other words, while things can get done in the final three years of a presidency, it's rare -- usually change (especially when it's a big change) happens during the first year of a presidency. And Obama is approaching the halfway point to his first year.
John Aravosis makes this point much more succinctly:
When, Mr. President, will be a good time to set my people free? When will the leader of the free world get a breather, a presidential timeout as it were? (And I thought this was the administration that could walk and chew gum at the same time.) Are we really to believe that 2010, a congressional election year, will be any more timely than today? Or 2011, the beginning of the presidential primaries? Or 2012, with a congressional and presidential election? There is quite literally no time like the present.
Gay rights is not the only issue on which Obama's voice has been conspicuous in its absence. There are other groups in the Democratic base that are beginning to wonder the same thing: "When, exactly, can we expect to see that change you promised us?" And while it is true that Obama has had a lot on his plate so far, and has dealt with (and is dealing with) gargantuan issues that have been festering for years, these issue-advocacy groups know that the more time that goes by without presidential action (or even public support) for their issues, the less likely it is that anything is going to get done on them.
This frustration is natural, and at some point in the first months of a president's first term, the honeymoon with the public usually comes to an end. But Obama is a victim of his own oratory power. People really did believe all that change he was selling. And, while the gay rights issue is currently boiling over in public, it is not the only issue on which people are beginning to wonder when all that change is going to appear. As more and more groups start asking "If not now, when?" Obama is going to have to start actually delivering more of that change we can believe in, or else we're all going to stop believing... and more importantly (to the political classes) -- stop donating.
Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
If Democrats plan to become more timid in 2010, does that mean they simply won't show up?
So far, they won't back gay rights, won't end the war in Iraq, won't pass comprehensive health care, and won't do anything to stem global warming. The only thing Obama has accomplished this year is passing massive bailouts for Wall Street and nominate a right-of-center woman to the Supreme Court for a 30 year term, further pushing the court to the right.
It seems that America's choices are between George W. Bush and Calvin Coolidge.
I simply took my business elseware. I was living in Oklahoma often called the buckle of the Bible belt. Gays could be legally discriminated in employment and housing and I was personally the recipient of such discrimination on numerous occasions and they werent even subtle about it. The environment is so toxic to gay people that I had to take my family out of the cesspool of daily hate speach and open hostility.. I know you say, I just left the mess for someone else to fix. But I tried, I was even political. The United States is in the Third World when it comes to gay rights and the way everyone is acting that is not going to change any time soon. I took my education, my creativity and skills for the benefit of a society that recognizes my rights as an equal citizen as a gay person and even as a foreigner. I dont think that Americans are that open to the idea of even equal rights and protections in employment and housing for gay people, what does that say about a country. Am I saying to you to move out? I did. Why pay my taxes to a country that doesnt even protect my basic human rights to work or housing. Since Ive been in Denmark, Republicans, Bible thumpers and Gay rights bigots have barely crossed my mind. Im studying Danish and Im making a new life in a country that recognizes my complete human rights.
Dear Chris,
i appreciate your post.
I think it is time to let those who ask for LGBT support to begin to actively work for our equality.
I think that the "wait" argument has been played for too long. I do not believe it anymore.
The insulting DOMA brief was a precipitating incident for me. That woke me up. The argument that equality for LGBT was too expensive was odd, to say the least. I have paid quite a bit in taxes over the years as a second class citizen.
Thanks
THE EXPLANATION ABOUT NOT BEING MORE ASSERTIVE ABOUT GAY RIGHTS HAS TO BE THAT OBAMA FOUND A NEW REALITY ONCE IN OFFICE: LIKE CLINTON, HE HAD NOT BEEN IN THE MILITARY AND IT IS A SEPARATE REALITY, ONE THAT CAN BE DECEIVING AND POINTS TO A BASIC WEAKNESS WITH DEMOCRATS' AND LIBERALS' UNDERSTANDING OF POLITICS.
Liberals and Democrats will have to overcome a basic blind spot in their thinking and so far Obama administration is learning fast. While it seems that Democrats are the party of the majority, the popular masses, etc., the question arises as to why they fail to hold on to power unless the elitist Republicans mess things up. If gays feel let down as they say, they have a valid grievance, but they will prevail eventually.
The bigger issue is whether Democrats will split over issues like this or whether they can find ways to persevere. Experience says they will and Obama will find a way to apologize and explain how it is not as easy to change things as it seems. This type of difficult explanation may be the hardest thing to get across.
There are tough issues ahead: Congress will not pass enough decent laws, foreign countries will not cooperate and instead create problems (N. Korea, Israel, Iran), deficit problem, unemployment and so on. Obama will have to create atmosphere that Americans believe in long term change, be less emotional, less impulsive, more patient, more hopeful.
OBAMA NEEDS TO FIND A WAY TO APOLOGIZE TO GAYS, BUT HE IS TAKING THE RIGHT APPROACH TO GO ALONG WITH THE MILITARY. IT'S SAD THAT GAYS ARE NOT WELCOME IN THE MILITARY. OBAMA LEARNED THE SAME HARD LESSON THAT CLINTON DID, THAT SUPPORT OF THE MILITARY IS A LOT MUCH CRUCIAL THAN OF GAY PRESSURE GROUPS.
Assuming to Obama did make specific promises to promote gay agenda, and he is now backing down in the light of experience in White House about the reality of politics, especially that there is very small but intense support for gays, the dilemma is how to explain the facts of life to gays. The problem is that the media is always on the prowl for controversies, so even a candid and honest explanation, that there is really not that much support in the government, the military or Congress for changes in policy, would make things even sound worse. The gay issue is very emotional and has to simmer like a broken love affair.
Chris,
May we for once not be doormats. Just once can we not be doormats who go back for more when they wipe their feet on us?
We have to boycott the DLC-LGBT fundraiser. If we don't, what does it say about us individually and our self -esteem and pride? What does it say about us collectively on the 40th Anniversary of Stonewall?
It's clear from these crumbs, which even these we wouldn't have gotten without the fundraiser falling apart, that money is the only thing the beltway ultimately cares around or understands, because money, not votes is seen as actual power.
We cannot let this DOMA brief go without an accountability moment. It's a betrayal and nothing less than that. There was no requirement to file a brief. There was certainly no requirement to file a brief that invokes incest and pedophilia. I don't care what "standard procedure" is. Some of the worst evil on the planet is carried out in the name of "standard procedure". The SS guards in Nazi Germany were just following orders. People who bought and sold slaves were just following standard procedure. Throwing us in prison for being gay was standard procedure, that is if we were lucky enough not to be tortured and killed.
Part 2 Did you see all of Murdoch's mainstream media outlets today? They are calling Obama weak, and ineffectual, more of the 'the honeymoon is over' and 'people do not trust him on the economy' business. So, you ask, what does that mean for everyone demanding that he pay attention to their issue first? It makes it less likely that he will be able to get the things done that they want. You want President Obama to take care of an issue for you? You get behind him, you help him to be able to help you.. you make his administration actually strong enough to take on the dead weight of the neocons and the GOP and move the agenda forward.
The point here is that in protesting that he isn't doing exactly what everyone wants, whenever we want it, we are chipping away at his ability to do anything at all. Did we learn absolutely nothing from the last eight years? Bush got away with every criminal act he committed, his administration lied and distorted and spun every situation and said they didn't need to care what what the majority of Americans thought and they did whatever they wanted... and why was that? Because his base stood solidly behind him, giving him 100% support all the time. Rupert Murdoch created a whole new 24 hour a day propaganda network to promote Bush and all his policies all the time... 100%. He didn't have to care about what anyone else thought because he had the power of his supporters propping him up. We finally got rid of him, and his criminal cabal, and the majority of Americans got together long enough to support Obama and make him president. But the minute he was sworn into office, we started acting like spoiled children. Every time a group says.. well, he isn't doing what we want, exactly the way we want it done, so we are not supporting him.... engaging in the worst sort of blackmail... the GOP is howling with laughter, we are doing their bidding for them.
In listing all the things that Obama has to tackle in lieu of his keeping his promises, I would like to point out something. First of all, he was aware of all these issues when he sought the job. Let's not make excuses. Second we mustn't become the battered wife who forgives her husband's broken promises and accepts abuse becuase he works so hard and pays the bills and he has so much stress until its ok that he beats me, lies to me and let's me down. It's the same analogy. Voters are entitled to a return on their support. Stop all the excuses!!!! And another thing, as a black man I can tell you that President Johnson could not have in any way succeeded with his agenda without the tremendous efforts of Kennedy, King, and all those other tireless civil rights workers who had worked for years to bring about change and also something now easily forgotten but very important to keep in mind was the fact that the US was under the extreme scrutinity of the rest of the world in its contest with the Soviet Union. This was a defining factor because the US didn't have much choice in terms of controlling the perception of others if it had acted in any other way. At the end of the day, government does what's best for itself and Obama is gaining points with the greater majority for coming up short towards a very undesirable and vulnerable minority.
It seems to me that everyone wants President Obama to solve all of the issues of this country in a few months. He was left with a banking system that was falling apart, stocks crashing, the Iraq war and many other problems from the previous administration. On one hand he is being accused of working on too many issues and on the other not enough. Everyone needs to calm down and give the President time to solve some of these issues. I don't know about you but I feel healthcare if one of the more important issues.
The problem with people today is that they want everything NOW. None of us know whether or not he is working on this issue in the background. To repeal DADT/DOMA it has to go through the House and Senate. Hopefully you all know that it is not going to be a cake walk to get it approved.
All I'm saying is give the President time to resolve some of the current econmic problems and work on getting healthcare passed.
If you want to remind President Obama of his campaign promises, write him a letter.
Johnson did all that cause in the 3 years John Kennedy was in office he set it up so Johnson could do it. Let's not get it twisted. All Johnson was doing was finishing out Kennedy's agenda. And on that note, Kennedy did not even speak about the black civil right movement for the first 2 years he was in office.
You are correct, sir. It's unfortunate that, at times, these situations get taken out of context.
HuffPost's Pick
President Lyndon Johnson took office on November 22, 1963. He had to contend with the Vietnam War, the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and the Cold War, Communist China, Fidel Castro, Israel and the Middle East, the Ku Klux Klan, defiant Southern Democrats and Republicans, anti-war protests, civil unrest, and riots in the streets, but he got the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 bill passed within eight months of taking office.
Johnson was in the White House just over five years. Apart from the Vietnam War, which was his undoing, he accomplished perhaps the most ambitious domestic agenda in U. S. history with his Great Society legislation that included:
-- Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin
-- Food Stamp Act of 1964
-- Higher Education Act of 1965
-- Social Security Act of 1965 (Medicare/Medicaid)
-- Voting Rights Act of 1965
-- Freedom of Information Act of 1966
-- Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
-- Bilingual Education Act of 1968
-- Fair Housing Act 1968
-- Gun Control Act of 1968
He accomplished this progressive agenda with major advances in civil liberties because he had the guts to push for them - in spite of Republicans and Southern Democrats, of whom he said, upon signing the Civil Rights Act, "We have lost the South for a generation." He knew he would lose them, but he did it anyway because it was the right thing to
My last sentence was truncated. It should read:
He knew he would lose them, but he did it anyway because it was the right thing to do. That takes guts.
AWESOME POST!!!!!!!!!
Bravo!!!!!!
See Chris Weigant's Profile
evekendall -
Excellent point.
-CW
I agree with Independent Together. And besides that, it would help if Obama actually had a CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT on his hands to hurry things up. He doesn't have that. He has a bunch of self-righteous arm-chair polliticking gay folks who want their civil rights the way one would order pizza. Well, it don't work that way. You have to fight for them---you know, the way all those folks in Iran are spilling out into the streets in protest; too bad we're having to watch that from the other side of the world. With the chorus of loud endless gripes and demands I hear about Obama you'd think one would be able to look outside their window here in the US and see the same. I'm impressed with the people of Iran. I'm impressed with their courage and conviction. I was at first very sympathetic with the gay cause. But not anymore. They've attacked Obama one time too many without lifting so much as a finger to aide their cause and demonstrate to the world that they are in it to win it. And that's too bad. Don't ask someone for something you aren't willing to do for yourself.
I understand the "parallel" you are trying to make with Iran, but there is ONE HUGE obstacle to organize something like Iran. Iran is a very SMALL country. Meaning the country's total size is roughly 636,000 square miles whereas the US is 281 MILLION square miles. And if you haven't noticed there have been several demonstrations, mostly in California, over the past 9 months. But don't let FACTS get in your way!
There is also a HUGE difference when you actually have 50% of the population protesting and the only protesters that show up in demonstration for LGBT rights are LGBT individuals. Less than 1% of the hetero population that supports our equal rights show up to our demonstrations - with the exception of our pride parades - then they simply LOVE us because we always put on a better show than heteros do in their parades.
Gay people would be perfectly patient with the lack of outcome if we saw any sign of a start. When do they start gathering votes to repeal DOMA, when do they start gathering votes (or even doing contingency planning) for ending DADT? And why did we wait this long even for symbolism? What congratulations did Obama offer when we won gay marriage in Maine? Or New Hampshire? Or Connecticut? His only response to our victory in Iowa was a silly joke. For that matter, did he even commiserate when Prop 8 passed? We weren't supposed to have to raise hell to get the White House's attention, and we weren't supposed to get Congressional victories when -- with no prodding from the White House -- Congress spontaneously gave them to us. Nobody should accuse gay people of a lack of patience. Some of us are young, some of us are old, but all of us have been waiting for equality our ENTIRE lives. No, it isn't a question of our impatience but of their inactivity. The DOJ brief on DOMA (so Bushian in every detail) was just the last straw.
See Chris Weigant's Profile
ducdebrabant -
While Obama never did support gay marriage, that can only really explain his silence on the Maine/Iowa/CT/NH/Prop8 issue.
But symbolism on repealing DOMA and DADT has been noticeably absent as well, which is much more disappointing. And the WH web site switcheroo was highly suspicious as well.
But the gay activists can show their strength right now by continuing to pull out of the fundraiser. That sends the strongest message possible in DC, and one you can bet will get noticed.
The next week will be interesting.
-CW
Chris,
For once, can we please have enough self-esteem to stand up for ourselves?
There will be hundreds of $1,000 a plate fundraisers before the next election. All nonprofits are suffering. This one time, redirect your $1,000 to something constructive. Don't throw good money after bad. Only when we were willing to withhold our money did Washington give a crap about our outrage.
If you need any further incentive to boycott next week's fundraiser, then click on the link of what Obama promised us and compare his feckless behavior over this legal brief.
http://obama.3cdn.net/36ddd2f5daac41cb21_rym6bxaax.pdf
Whether he was just a typical politician blowing smoke at us during our campaign or whether he's the cowardly lion who doesn't have courage now, either way he is not the "fierce advocate" he promised.
We should also boycott the DSCC and DCCC as well. Congress isn't returning our phone calls either and our "allies" are hiding under their desks lest we find them and ask them to keep their promises to us as well.
California gays have the luxury of two Democratic candidates for Governor who have shown they aren't just talk, they do action -- Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsome. Plus, the campaign to repeal Prop 8 will be on the ballot. Can we use our political campaign money for something that will actually benefit us? We can do better than worry about Barney Frank's or HRC's "access" in Washington.
I think finally instead of being afraid of the people who hate us Obama should be afraid of US. No money, no vote!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
