What the Gay Boycott of the DNC Can Do
There is a gay boycott of the Democratic Party afoot, and it has the potential to turn into something that leads to real change in American politics. I'm not selling hope here, but I can't help but feel it when I see the momentum gathering behind AMERICAblog's "Don't Ask, Don't Give" campaign.
What is most exciting? The places this campaign could go.
It is nothing new to complain about the two-party system in the United States. While many countries give voters four or five or more options at the polls, Americans are forced to decide between a centrist party with conservative social views or a right-wing party with outlandishly offensive social views. Fiscally, there is often more overlap than difference between the two parties (both, for example, act as if lowering or freezing taxes is a productive strategy in the fight against poverty).
But, for gay voters, the two party system is particularly offensive. Republicans are outwardly horrible on gay issues and the bulk of the gay vote will, automatically, go to Democratic candidates. There are no alternative candidates ready to take a stand for equality and thus, there are no consequences for Democrats when they fail to promote the equal rights agenda.
So, AMERICAblog has decided to use fundraising as a method of coercing the Democratic Party to pay attention to its loyal supporters.
It's a scary thought: taking dollars away from the not-so-bad guys only helps the really bad guys on election day. But the boycott has its timing right and that might make all the difference in this fight: there is still an opportunity for the Democratic Party to take concrete strides towards eliminating the legal discrimination against LGBT Americans before the campaign dollars really matter. If they show progress, the boycott (or the "pause" in fundraising as AMERICAblog calls it) will end.
I think the freeze in fundraising is a great idea. I also think the problem with the gay rights agenda in Congress has more to do with the political system than the particularly spineless nature of most Democratic representatives.
Threatening the fiscal base of the Democratic Party is an important tactic. But threatening their voter base by floating a truly liberal candidate in districts with close races would be an even better strategy. Have someone run on an equal rights, populist platform with support for social services and equality under the law and see how quickly the Democrats start racing around for ways to fold in the left vote they have ignored for so long.
Ralph Nader tried this and managed to strike fear into the heart of major political parties for many years to come. Let's play on this fear. Pause the donations to the Democrats, yes, but perhaps redirect that money to a campaign for plurality, for choice and for political competition. It will, at least, get their attention.
Follow Emma Ruby-Sachs on Twitter: www.twitter.com/EmmaRubySachs
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
It's not just the gays who should be boycotting the democratic party. The democrats are betraying all of us and have now shown their true colors as the wholly owned lackeys of Wall Street "bankers," insurers, defense contractors, and other big business interests. I have never knowingly voted for a republican, and now I won't be voting for any democrats either. It's long past time to demolish the freedom-strangling two-party system that benefits only the ultra-rich at the expense of everyone else.
I have to agree with many other posters that GLBT organizations can be generally ineffective. Sometimes I feel that they have been absorbed into the beltway soup. They, just like most other political organizations, are in this for their jobs and the money.
Sometimes I ask myself: Do the GLBT organizations really want to affect change? These are some big groups with lots of people making money from our cause. What if we DID get everything we want - full equality and rights? Our "leaders" would no longer be needed. They'd finally have equality, but they'd also be out of a job. In their thinking is it really in their best interests to actually achieve our goals? Or just play the D.C. charade and keep on raking in our money?
I know these are harsh thoughts and questions. In general I support all of our national organizations and causes, as well as the DNC. But from here on out I don't think I'll be volunteering my time or donating my money to any of them until we start to see some kind of real results.
I am one of many straights who believe in gay rights, even though lack of them does not impact me personally.
A funding freeze might be the short term answer but the real answer long term is to break up the two party system. Who decreed that the USA has only two parties to choose from anyway? (That is a genuine question as I am a British immigrant here.)
In Britain we have 3 major parties to choose from. In the recent German elections they had all of 5 serious parties to choose from.
As a minimum the USA needs 4 parties:
* A nutcase right wing party
* A serious center right party
* A center left party
* A progressive, genuine liberal party
It looks like the tea baggers have "bagged" the nutcase right wing party already. Great! Let all the GOP extremists join them and allow the GOP to become a sensible opposition party again.
Recently my partner and I were planning our honeymoon. We had at first thought about going to Maine for the week and staying at a great B&B on the coast. After the vote we decided not to go to Maine and give 8% of about a 1500 tab to the state. While we realize not all Maine voters are anti-marriage equality: civil rights issues are truly decided by economics rather than moral values. We are writing to Maine businesses and legislatures to let them know that if your state decides it wants to repeal marriage equality -- that is its right -- but don't expect any visitors to support the state economy when given a choice between another state that does recognize marriage equality.
During the Montgomery Bus Boycotts it was money that forced change. It would be nice to agree with the American myth that they bus owners just saw the error in their ways -- but it's all about the dollar. The racist drivers still drove the busses, but they couldn't tell you where to sit based on color.
We need to really carefully screen and critique how we as a LBGTQ community and its allies spend our money. It will bring political change much faster than simple letters to Congress.
well said.
My whole life I've heard criticisms of people who don't vote. They are universally described as apathetic, which implies that they don't care who gets elected. I have maintained that most aren't voting because they don't want to lend an air of legitimacy to our farce of a system for selecting a president. We are not given a candidate which is acceptable, so we vote for none. If the ballot had "none of the above" as an option I think you'd be surprised how many more voters would show and how often that choice won a plurality of votes.
I myself am not gay, but I have a younger sibling who is. He was the most unhappy of people until he admitted it and settled down with his spouse. What in the Universe is wrong with that picture? Nothing, and to prevent people, by legislation, from being happy within their own skin is a sin against life itself.
I agree with Americablog's approach, and have sent donation solicitations back to the DNC with a note letting them know that until they start producing they don't get a penny, and any donations will go directly to progressive candidates anywhere. The wallet attack is the most effective campaign against ANY repressive agenda - quit buying their product and the retailer feels the pain. I don't feel that this is sending the votes to the Reeps, but it definitely lets the Dems know that that they are on probation.
The only behavior that needs to be legislated is predatory behavior. Of any kind.
So, AMERICAblog doesn't get everything its way. so they're taking their ball and going home?
It is arrogance like this that is causing those of us who are sympathetic to the cause of gay rights to re-think their support.
Read this, and get back to us:
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-doma.html
That was my first reaction too, but after reading the article, I tend to agree with it. The 2 party system has become entrenched by design and its killing america. We need a populist party (altho I think we need a third party to represent the middle class and working class not another fringe/special interest group.) Of course the one area where the Dems and Reps function completely bi-partisan is election laws meant to stifle the emergence of a third party. An emerging party can expect to spend its raised funds answering law suits instead of spreading its message, and so it will die without its candidates even making the ballot. Courts will even force them to defend against identical lawsuits from each party separately in order to further dilute the new party's resources (all the judges are from the 2 party gang) However anything that gets people to abandon the 2 major parties would be a good thing.
Just another example of "where else are they going to go?" Every time progressives ask for support of gay rights, support of the right to choose, the condemnation of torture or the public option, they are told that they are being disloyal in asking for what they were promised when they campaigned and supported Democrats.
Let the Blue Dogs fend for themselves. Progressives have had to for long enough.
You either believe in eqality or you do not.
The irony is that allowing this crack in the constitution, people who feel that they "deserve" rights will find that their rights can be easily taken away and eliminated. Or I should say those who take their rights for granted... and yet are indifferent or actively hate those groups who are "set apart" from rights because they are not, well, what? what about those people like gay people means that they should be "outside"... If they can and are law abiding, tax paying citizens then why do you think YOU are so special? Huh? If some Americans can be denied rights because of hate, not law, well I think you could be next.
You know it, deep down because you see it. You are really not protected as much as you think you are.
I wrote to them months ago after the DOJ briefings came out. I withdrew from the DNC and went Green because they support FULL equality.
I also wrote a letter to Obama and the DNC and told them that this gayTM is broken until at least 4 major bills are passed. 1 down, 3 to go. I also explained how hard I worked for Obama and told him that I will not work for him next election either.
I haven't decided if I'm donating to Sestak yet or not. He's for our rights...but kinda dodgy on marriage and such. Arlen Specter won't get a cent though.
We all need to do this and we need to all Vote and donate to the Green Party if we want it to work.
Final thought I guess. If Pat Murphy loses in the PA 8th after walking the DADT bill through congress... no one will fight for your causes. No one. Not even if they believe those causes are right. Pat Murphy is where all of this boycotted money should go. Pat Murphy should have 10 million dollars for a house race. He should have access to 20 more. That is how you make a statement. But I'm with you, it is your cause and your call to make.
We have no idea how the fund raising is going to go for 2010. It could be a pre 2006-08 cycle, meaning corp donations and standard money grubbing. Or it could be like 2008 small donations and lots of them. Until we know there is no telling how this is going to work out big risk medium sized reward. But the LGBT community is pot committed now. They have to pull this off. Otherwise why listen to them about anything.
There is an old saying we all know, "be careful what you wish for you might actually get it." The one I like better is "when the gods wish to punish us they give us what we ask for."
Anyone who has watched the health care fight has to realize that we don't have the votes for systemic radical change. Anyone who has watched as 31 ballot initiatives have pass outlawing gay marriage that we don't have the votes for DOMA. I mean it is a fairly straight forward reality. I don't think we even have the votes in the house. So the point of the boycott is to push the DNC into what, bringing up bills we can't pass. You don't get fifty bites at this apple. This is win or go home time and if you push the DNC is to getting your bills out there and they fail it will be years before there is a second chance.
I'm sure all of us wished for the DOMA briefs, the DADT brief, the pressuring of Alcee Hastings to withdraw his amendment to stop DADT, the continued firing of troops for being gay (hundreds so far and counting by our "fierce advocate"), and on and on.
Yeah, be careful what you wish for, you won't get it no matter how much it's promised to you.
If you think you have the votes have someone you trust try and bring the bill up. But people who agree with you keep saying you don't have them... maybe you should find someone you trust and get them to handicap it for you. I think the swing district dems and there are about 30 of them, are going to vote no on DADT and about 70 or 80 dems vote no on DOMA. Now you can pretend that you will be able to pass either bill through the house but I don't think you have the votes. My numbers are gross generalizations, find someone you trust as a community and let them handicap it for you. But I think we're coming up short. For me, my advice... if pols are for sale, buy them. But that is just me.
J
That's why it's important to seek out and support Democratic primary challengers. I won't give to the party. I won't give to the Campaign for America. I won't give to anyone who supports a health care bill that makes it so that woman cannot purchase insurance that covers abortion by gaming the marketplace.
But I'll give to a progressive who challenges them in a primary. And I'll give to a Green in the general election.
"taking dollars away from the not-so-bad guys only helps the really bad guys on election day"
Not-so-bad guys? The Dems have done no better than the Republicans on gay issues. I wish people would quit pretending they are supporting the Dems because of their stance on gay rights issues rather than because of their left-wing political views on other topics. The Dems have been no better than the Republicans at the national level, at all, and it has been that way since at least the Clinton years.
I mean that is flat out untrue?
Only if you are dumb and blind. At least you can qualify for Social Security.
LGBT people can be a powerful voting bloc in the upcoming off-cycle and Presidential election cycle, as well.
In the 2008 Presidential election, about 66.8 million voted Democrat and 58.3 million voted Republican.
If, by the most modest estimates, LGBTs as well as families and friends committed to their causes comprised 3% of the electorate and voted Democratic, then 3.7 million of us contributed to Democratic victory.
If 5% of “us” turned out to vote Democratic, then 6.3 million of us contributed to a political shift in the country.
The Democratic ticket could have even been the beneficiary of 12.5 million LGBT-supportive voters.
Claire McCaskill, the Democratic Senator representing my home state of Missouri, has thrown LGBT people under the bus. While Congress finally made it possible for President Obama to sign the Hate Crimes Bill into law, they have failed to overturn DOMA, DADT and ENDA.
Democrats won the White House by a mere 8.5 million in the ’08 election cycle!
They may want to be a bit more circumspect in how they treat us. In the mean time, I have written Senator McCaskill and the White House and let them know they will not receive a volunteer minute, dollar or vote from me until they act in MY interests.
One gay man is unnoticeable; 10 million LGBTs and their supporters is another matter…
Uhhh, a couple of things I guess, 2000 taught all of us that the popular vote is irrelevant. Which states did the LGBT vote, which split 70-30 by the way, carry for the dems. Which states did we win that we would have lost if the LGBT community stayed home. I mean they aren't talking about voting republican, they are talking about third party and staying home. So, for example if I say, if blacks hadn't voted dem and had stayed him the dems would have lost, PA, NJ, MD, VA, NC, OH, IN, IL, MI, NY, CT... and if Hispanics had stayed home or went the other way we might have lost Cali, NM, NV, CO, FL, or if women had stayed home we would have pretty much lost them all, what do you say we would have lost without lgbt support? See, I believe in the cause, I am boycotting with you, but this myth of national muscle is just that. A myth. Local muscle? Tons. State muscle? A lot. More than you think because you have a solid organization and access to national cash. But national muscle, the muscle necessary to push the President around? No.
That's why there was a hastily arranged cocktail party with photo op, the granting of non-benefits, an award for a safely dead activist, and the rest of the flurry of activity designed to save the Biden gay fundraiser after the DOMA brief.
Because the DNC has no interest in our money!
That's also why Mrs. Obama spoke of a civil rights struggle "from Selma to Stonewall" at the Waldorf Astoria for a 2008 gay fundraiser. It's why candidate Obama said he'd be our "fierce advocate" who would follow through with his strongly worded promises.
great comment. Thanks, I enjoyed reading it.
What a great idea. Split the dem vote and let the rethugs back into office.
You have got to ask your self, How much did the republicans do to advance the gay agenda?
If I were gay I would avoid this boycott like the plague.
But you're not...so you wouldn't really get it anyways.
Uhm, what Shawn said.
How much have the Republicans done to advance the gay agenda? The same as the Democrats. Nothing at all.
You are mad at the democrats because your rights aren't being established fast enough? Well watch them disappear altogether if you make it possible for the Republicans to take over again. (What, did you all forget the last eight years? During those years they wanted to make a constitutional ammendment making homosexual behavior illegal!) Follow the money and you will see who is behind making sure that resentment and discontent are being promoted, while every gain is either ignored or rejected as some sort of pandering. The GOP is following their SOP, divide and conquer. They know the only way they are winning any election these days is to distract and divide... you know the beloved idea of that "third party' they are making you believe in? Well, a third party is the only way they can win. They will not divide and vote third party, and you all know that.. they stay in lockstep with each other all the time, so you are weakening the only chance that the community has of actually achieving equal rights and you are dong it by following the GOP lead! How they manage to convince people to vote against their own better interests is a complete mystery, but they achieve it time and time again and this article and it's responses prove that better than anything I have seen lately.
you're right...concentration camps and beatings have only happened since Obama took office (very sarcastic)...
No, we've been waiting for hundreds of years.
Salem witch trials, we were burned too. Germany thew us into concentration camps. Just to name 2 things of the past...sooo
educate yourself.
What this would accomplish is to give a perhaps election tilting advantage to Republican candidates in districts where either party has a potential to win. As for running third party progressive liberal candidates in elections, that is an even more certain way to assure the Republican victory. I'm glad you brought up Ralph Nader. I’m not so sure that his candidacy struck “fear” in the Democratic Party. More like consternation and frustration. I am sure what it meant to the Republicans. Elation at winning the Presidential election of 2000 that they would otherwise have narrowly lost.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
