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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-doma.html
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.
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.
Yeah, be careful what you wish for, you won't get it no matter how much it's promised to you.
J
But I'll give to a progressive who challenges them in a primary. And I'll give to a Green in the general election.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.