What Kind of Boss Does Barack Obama Want to Be?

President Obama runs a big shop. He has thousands of employees under his charge. We often think about him in the 'leader of the free world' category but for the purpose of this exercise, I'd like you to think of him as an employer.

What kind of employer should the President be? What kind of employer do we think our newly inaugurated USA CEO wants to be?

We have some hints. I think we are learning that he is prides himself on outreach to folks of all political stripes (regardless of outcome). The political term for it? 'Egalitarian.' He is not new to this as I have come to learn. I had a fascinating email exchange with a friend who worked with him on the Harvard Law Review. "Barack was infuriatingly evenhanded." He sent this note to me after our President-elect selected Rick Warren to offer the inaugural invocation. It was meant to give me hope.

But now I believe it gives me a clue. A clue that could be strategically valuable as the gay and lesbian community learns how to be what I call "constructively impatient" with this new president.

Maybe it's time to look at our struggle for equality differently. Let's try to understand President Obama's "frame" and in so doing 'reframe' our own message.

Historically we have presented ourselves as citizens who are not treated equally under the law and we have outlined the various "issues" we face. There are even buzz words, catch phrases - ENDA, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Gay Marriage, and so on.

But what if we look at the frame of an egalitarian who is a CEO with thousands of employees. I have a sense that being a good and fair boss is important to President Obama. You just get that sense that he encourages folks to try to head out of work a few minutes early to catch a school play. I mean, he sets that example -- he's taken his kids to school a few times already.

Now take the next step with me. Let's look at fairness in the workplace. If you reminded President Obama that Brian Bond, David Medina, Fred Hochberg and the hundreds of lgbt government employees could be fired solely based on their sexual orientation because his "company" does not offer that protection to all employees, how would he feel?

If we reminded him that as Commander in Chief, he has thousands of "employees" in the Armed Forces and that a subset of those employees not only could be fired based on sexual orientation, but actually ARE fired routinely for acknowledging their sexual orientation, how would he feel?

If we made a list of all the Fortune 500 CEO's that are way ahead of him on this subject and have been fully inclusive employment non-discrimination policies for years and years now, how would he feel?

Maybe, just maybe, it's time to reframe the discussion. Instead of talking about the rights and protections we deserve, let's instead put ourselves in the shoes of the guy who will make the decision.

And think for a minute about how that kind of approach might play out with the American public. Instead of "Gay and Lesbian Americans are not treated equally under the law and we've got to change that," (a completely true statement and yet a political hot potato thanks to those who have effectively positioned the debate as one focused on 'special rights'), try this hypothetical soundbite:

"As part of my role as President of the United States, I am also a CEO of an enormous operation with responsibility for thousands of employees. In that role, I am committed to making the best hires and creating the best environment I can for everyone who works here - from the White House chef to the Secretary of State. In this, I am no different from the CEO of any public company. Americans deserve the best from their government and so we will work hard to hire the best and give them the tools to be successful. I will ask people to work hard and I will make sure that this work environment will treat all employees fairly, regardless of gender, race, religion. And sexual orientation. If that policy is good enough for CEO's of Fortune 500 companies, it's the right one for my employees as well."

And with that, in comes Employment Non-Discrimination Act and out goes "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

You have to admit. You could hear him saying something like that, couldn't you?

Comments

[FearlessFreep]

"Instead of talking about the rights and protections we deserve, let's instead put ourselves in the shoes of the guy who will make the decision."

Notice that it isn't up to Obama to put himself in the shoes of a GLBT person.

[OhioObamaVoter]

Good subject... interesting perspective. Too bad so many challenges are challenges at all. It seems that equal rights was "decided" with and by the Constitution. Why is it even a challenge for our President, our government, at all? Why is it necessary to reframe the discussion? Some of us seem to comprehend it already.

[Stefano]

A fine post. It really shouldn't be too difficult for anyone to understand, private companies cannot legally discriminate by gender and orientation, but somehow the government can get around it? While Obama has not been perfect on this issue, I bet he sees it the same way. The time has come (long ago) that your community is treated equally. It fascinates me how concerned people are with your lifestyle. My heterosexuality doesn't seem to be affecting your lifestyle, why would I think yours would affect mine (except that I hate seeing any person's rights restricted) The whole thing seems like a total no brainer to me, no discrimination, equal rights for all. Who could argue against that???

[SD Indy]

Actually companies can and discriminate based on orientation. Many states don't have anti-discrimination laws based on orientation. Many private corporations have anti-discrimination policies, but if the state where they are incorporated don't have anti-discrimination laws, then the company can violate its own policies.

[daffey]

Interesting, but probably won't work. At the end of the day, America isn't a fortune 500 company, nor should it be treated as such. Fortune 500 companies, after all, care about things like world views, philosophies, morals, ethics, culture, etc., insofar as it helps them achieve a profit. A country is more than the GNP. As a result, there are moral and ethical and philosophical and religious (or non-religious) viewpoints that undergird and define a society that are far more important than any financial bottom line that a F500 company sweats over. Thus, as interesting as this is, any attempts to approach the topic in question in this manner would run head-first into the comprehensive reality of society, culture, and civilization. As yesterday's liberals gain increasing levels of influence and authority in our culture, and realize that notions of tolerance, diversity, and challenging authority are no longer as fun when you are the one establishing the agenda of the day, it will be difficult to base an argument for this on the idea that America is just another corporation looking at the bottom line.

[camper65]

The person making the decisions is George Soros through Rahm Emanuel!! ( How does it feel to have your own tactics used against you? Better get used to it.)

[tmike78]

Joan I am new to Huff and I just want to say that this piece was a breath of fresh air. This gets down to the basics of what our country was founded on and formed on. Human freedom and human happiness, dignity, integrity, so on and so fourth. It saddens me when I think of the last 60 years of civil rights struggles of minorities, woman, homosexual men and woman, the rites of children, the rites of all of us as citizens. This is a good step in the rite direction. Send this to his office and lets get back to the foundation of the Constitution of the United States of America. All men and woman under the eyes of god are created equal!

[earlyautumn]

After the past eight years of the worst kind of management one could imagine ("Heck of a job, Brownie") , it is refreshing to see in President Obama someone who is not only skilled, but unusually modest about it.

This is a very gifted person. He intelligently seeks out information, can analyze and make rational decisions, write well, speak well, and exercise remarkable control in order to foster good relations. And he is ambitious, after eight years of the lazy man in the White House.

I find that his greatest weakness is that he does not quite understand the enormous support he has among the people, and he tends to try too hard to placate the other side in order to win them over. He needs them not.

President Obama must realize that he is dealing with an opposition party so bereft of creativity and ideas and ideals, that they must rely on the approval of a misfit such as Rush Limbaugh for their direction. Yes, Rush has a large audience, but it is minute compared to the number who enthusiastically voted for the president.

Let's hope that he will have the courage and confidence to step forward and end the war in Iraq, do something about the out-of-control military machine which is destroying our economy, and face the reality of the failure of the "war on drugs".

[tmike78]

Amen!

[ignoranceequalsfear]

Brilliant Joan!

I hope you sent a copy of this to his office!

[JinChicago]

if the lgbt community had thought this up in the 80s, they would be home by now. very good post

[AntiSocialite]

I've got to hand it to you Joan, this is one of the best ideas I have heard in quite a while. I think I learned some time ago that the key to making political headway is correctly framing a debate. Honestly, the first I noticed how much more adept the Republican's were than the Democrat's at it, but this is wonderful. The thing I love the most about it is that it is very hard for the party claiming to want to run government more like a business to mount much of an attack on.

Peace

[blaqntelligence]

I'm not gay, yet this article stopped me in MY tracks.
Excellent, thank you.

[omo]

Finally, a voice of reason. Alternatively oriented people have been so enmeshed in their own issues for so long that it does seem to be very difficult for them to put themselves in someone else's shoes.

[sixfour27]

I can see from your former posts that you are able to put yourself in others shoes -NOT!
And gays having opinions on anything seems to bother you.