The White House, the Gays, and Lessons to Learn

It's important to learn lessons from the things we do so that we can do better the next time around. There are many lessons the White House can take away from last Wednesday's announcement about benefits to gay Federal employees. Monday morning quarterbacking is far easier than governing, so this analysis is meant with the intention to help the White House get it right the next time, the time after that, and the time after that and...Get my drift?

Lesson #1: Understand your audience. Amid growing criticism from the LGBT community, quietly spreading the word of a pending 'major announcement' in order to quell unrest raises the bar. If you are not going to be able to meet expectations, it's a bad idea to suggest that you will, especially among a constituency sensitive to being let down. It's just setting you up for failure and a higher volume of criticism.

Lesson #2: Don't get blindsided by your own Administration. While it is understandable to be sensitive to the Bush Administration's over-politicization of the Justice Department, having an overreaction of giving no oversight is a mistake. Doing so sets you up for instances such as the DoJ brief on a lawsuit challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, where they compared marriage equality to incest, among other things.

That brief became the standard by which next steps were judged. It was a standard the White House could not possibly meet with Wednesday's announcement and will take some time to make reparations for. Instructing DoJ to run legal briefs by the White House Counsel's office, if for no other reason than to know what's in the pipe, would give the White House much-needed knowledge in order to act upon.

Lesson #3: Don't overstate. Honesty and frankness, while not always popular, will help avoid criticism. Selling something as more than it is invites criticism. Having properly characterized the action being taken from the Administration would have prevented certain criticism and also lessened the perception that the announcement was far from meeting expectations.

Lesson #4: Get the messaging right. This episode was wrought with confusing and complicating points. First, the issuance of a Presidential Memorandum instead of an Executive order began a distracting side conversation that immediately began to undermine the announcement.

On further investigation, I found that the Office of Personnel Management is actually changing Federal regulations and has drafted and published them to the Federal Register. That is an accurate portrayal of what happened and would have avoided many of the confusing perceptions in the discussion about it.

Lesson #5: Optics matter. They also need to match the rhetoric and the reality. Part of the anger surrounding this announcement is that the White House was trying to claim credit for more than they were doing. (See Lesson #3.)

Oval Office ceremonies are a big deal; they are often used to sign landmark legislation. While a positive step forward was certainly made with this announcement, it is a small step when compared against the large number of changes that need to be made to erase each instance of discrimination that currently exists in the Federal code of laws.

The event was staged straight out of the 90's and, with the changing of the characters, could have been President Clinton signing the executive order banning discrimination in the administration of security clearances. The standard practice to give 'official' approval of 'the gay community' is to place leaders of gay rights organizations and gay elected officials behind the president. For a president that built the largest grassroots movement in the history of our nation, such a visual is disrespectful at best.

Since the action was most important to Federal employees, a more appropriate venue would have been at OPM addressing those employees about the changes being made. It would have shown that the White House understood those that were affected by the announcement and avoided criticism that it was suggesting the scope was broader than it was.

Lesson #6: Staff matters and hearing what they have to say is critical. There is a perception that the Obama Administration lacks sensitivity to the LGBT community. This can be easily addressed by empowering staff to address this within the White House and to a diversity of people on the outside. This may, and likely does, require that staff abandon traditional thinking about the gay community.

Major changes to both the structure and mindset of the LGBT community have occurred in the past two years. Having staff that not only understand that, but also embody that change will help to ensure that the White House takes them into consideration on future decisions affecting the gay community. Without new perspective, mistakes may continue and that is something the Administration can't afford to do.

Follow Lane Hudson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/tlanehudson

Comments

[KriTiKiT]

It's those in the DOJ, they are bush left overs.

I have never known freedom.

my life has seen violence and hate.

But my life and my citizenship is not a mistake.
generations and 6 flags later
I was born on this soil, a doctor cut me from my mothers womb.

I was brought here by your ideals and indoctrination, so what are you going to do.

So now it's a bad idea, for you, as you fight beyond our childhoods.

make me pay more, you belittle me out of my community.

you turn my family against me...
all because the devil's fear grips you.

[superstition]

How about lesson #0 -- Follow the Constitution. Do your job

Because homosexuality is a sexual orientation and isn't a disorder, gay people are scientifically equal to heterosexuals, making all heterosexism irrational. Because the 1st Amendment prohibits theocratic (religion/­unscientif­ic) law and the 14th Amendment prohibits hierarchical citizenship (gays have the same rights, no matter how popular they are) -- it's a constitutional necessity to oppose all forms of discrimination. That includes DADT, DOMA, civil unions, gay marriage bans, and the like.

It's time for our politicians and judges to do their jobs. They all have the duty to uphold the Constitution, not the option.

[bannorhill]

They did do their job. They argued from ruled cases in existing law to support this case. That is their job.

They could not find one case in Federal Law where DOMA was ruled unconstitutional.

[superstition]

Another tiresome and specious argument. The Constitution trumps everything else. The Constitution, as written, defies DOMA utterly.

All of your posts are based on the irrational idea that gay people aren't gay. The fact that gay people are gay gives them the same rights, including the right to have their marriages legally recognized.

Gay people are gay. Gay people are gay.

[toxicbrainpoison]

No they havent done their job. Homosexuality is no longer a criminal offense. The supreme court ruled in 2003 and deemed those laws unconstitutional. When anti miscegenation laws were repealed, mixed race couples were given their full rights. Men and women are equals under the law, and marriage laws should reflect that equality.

[Brian Baker]

Lesson #7 - Don't take the GLBT community's vote for granted. If Democratic administrations do nothing to change the socio-political climate for the community, they are not distinguishing themselves from Republican ones, and that is risky. Eventually we start thinking with our socio-economic hats on, and just start voting on lower tax and small government issues, or not vote at all. Several years ago I was having a conversation with my mother about Bush v. Gore in the context of differences in their Supreme Court appointments - length of 'term' and impact on society - the whole shebang. She said something to me - "What difference does that make if there are no laws to judge?" For some reason, I am recollecting that conversation from years ago more and more lately. Hmmmm.......

[livinCalDemtbubble]

The above suggestions assume that the Obama Administration and DOJ didn't get it right. I think they did exactly what they intended to do, with the results they expected to get. They see us, the GLBT community, as having no options but supporting them. Therefore the can toy with our feelings, beliefs, expectations, values, whatever they want to, with no consequence. Mr. Hudson, in politics it is often true that what you see is what you get, I've got it and they are getting nothing more from me. I will only support those candidates and elected officials who are unequivically and passionately supportive of GLBT civil rights, and put that above "pragmatism", "getting re-elected" etc. Obama is my President by law, but not in my heart.

[LintLass]

I really don't think it serves *any* strategy to let people try and divide us out of the Democratic party. There's applying pressure, and then there's simply attacking. It doesn't *help* us to get upset that the President of the United States is a politician, we just have to call him on stuff that are harmful.

Of course there's a strategy. It's about *time* we had a President who can strategize. But we also need to have proper *leadership,* Toward the *goal* of what's the real promise of America: True equality for all. The born rights of LBGT Americans to that equality may not be so easy to bring about, politically, as a simple decree, but it also shouldn't be forgotten that the various ways in which we're denied that equality aren't 'things we want straight people to give us,' ...they're the birthright of all Americans.

Things which undercut that notion, including getting too cynical about the politics and the people involved, aren't helping.

[Lynwood Walker]

How do you know he can strategize outside of getting elected. Don't confuse elections for governance. What is his secret strategy behind Health Care or the stimulus.

[LintLass]

Because it's clear his intelligence isn't compartmentalized between 'getting elected' and 'getting results.'

I think his strategy on health care is that people want it, and the moneyed interests that are supposed to provide it are blowing the same smoke as ever, and not getting people health care.

[ez duz it]

Lesson #1: Understand your audience is fundamentally tired of being treated both as the “unwanted step-child” and a “cash cow” of the Democratic Party.

Lesson #2: Do not get blindsided by an Administration that promises to overturn DOMA and DADT then DEFENDS both before Federal and Supreme Court.

Lesson #3: Do not overstate that Democrats in Congress and the President want equality for LGBTs --when they really do little more than lip service to our cause.

Lesson #4: Get the spin right. Congress and the White House are working diligently to give the impression they are “fiercely advocating” for us when they are really doing little of substance. Happily, LGBTs are learning the difference between an Executive Order and a Memorandum and are willing to do something about it.

Lesson #5: Appearances matter. LGBT “leaders” and President Obama get to have their symbiotic photo op. In turn, these leaders and the President can turn to constituents and tout “progress,” despite nearly all evidence to the contrary.

Lesson #6: President Obama is seen as a shrewd politician whose rhetoric supports LGBT people and is playing us like a fiddle. Solution: Let President Obama’s actions match his words.

[johnsopinion]

Why? The gays don't.

A good friend, and he is gay, has presented a perplexing aspect
to the 'equal rights' problem.

His perception is that: whenever GLBT's have a demonstration or
parade, what he sees on the news is that what they are actually
doing is showing the entire world how different they are to the rest
of the world. A parade or demonstration is an opportunity to show
the world how they "want to be," presenting gay life as a perpetual
Mardi Gras.

GLBT's do these things, especially the Pride parades, in the hopes
of attaining the "same" rights as heterosexuals!
Show the world how "different" you are in the hopes that they will
see you "the same" as everyone else. How smart is that?

The world really doesn't care what you want to be in the bedroom
anymore than you care what they want to be in their bedrooms.
To gain sympathy for your cause, you will have to show them 'how
similar' you are to them, that you are just people who happen to
have a different sexual preference.
Try dressing the same as the people you are trying to convince
and create floats with meaning, not color variety!

Being 'gay' is NOT an identification, unless you want it on your
drivers' license.

Like it or not, GLBT's defeat their purpose and that responsibility rests
with them, not with the President and not with the rest of the world.

[JakeMontero]

interesting point of view. I really don't care how GLBT folks act in parades. It does, however showcase their differences -- something that may work against being accepted as 'just like you' … evern though they really are.

[toxicbrainpoison]

We are not criminals, we are citizens and we deserve to be treated as equals. I see a lot of weird straight people too, but we all deserve rights.

[BenCarver]

You write as though the administration simply needs a little help in their public relations department, and all will be made well. As much as I want to share your concern that all the White House needs is your consulting help, I don't.

This wasn't a case of bumbling public relations by people who didn't realize what they were doing. This administration knew that they were giving us peanuts as a pay-off, knew that the oval office photo-op was a joke, knew their messaging was misleading, and isn't about to apologize for their brief because it isn't politically necessary. Every move was a political calculation made by people doing the barest minimum to keep our support without supporting us or hurting themselves. They knew they would upset many people in the gay community, but they did it anyway because they knew most gays (and straights) would buy their song and dance, and that the few sharp queers that didn't would be marginalized into those that continue to give Obama the benefit of the doubt (at best), and those that play the "at least he isn't a republican/other issues are more important than my equal rights" card (at worst).

Few gays remain to speak the truth to power that promotes real change. You missed an opportunity to speak for those people. Consultant FAIL.

[azdouglas]

I have to agree with Ben. It may be a better thing that we have Obama instead of someone like Bush--but remember that above all Obama, and his administration are politicians. And, as Ben said, everything they do is a political calculation. They don't respond to us because they don't have to. I'm tired of waiting for my civil rights. If not now when? If not in 2009 with a Democratic President and Democratic Congress--then when? Did Martin Luther King or Ghandi wait for a "politically expedient" time? If we aren't being heard then we need to STOP supporting Obama. We need to support socially progressive candidates (no matter how unlikely they are to win) who support us! Support them, and speak truth to power. Do not continue to abdicate your self-respect to Obama and his apoligists.

[johnsopinion]

All things considered, and I mean that literally, I agree.
The sexual preferences of everyone and their right to
live and enjoy those preferences without any struggle
whatsoever should be right at the top of the list of
priorities for any new President!

[lawyerfan]

Ghandi and MLK didn't have to get reelected. They also didn't have to juggle a hundred different issues and answer to a hundred different constituencies. I'm disappointed at Obama's seeming shift away from many promises he made during the campaign - not only regarding GLBT issues but on Gitmo, Afghanistan, health care reform, torture, etc. But he is so much more responsive, intelligent and humble than Bush was! He is at least willing to take the heat, answer the critics and accept responsibility for his decisions. When did the "Decider" ever admit to making a mistake?
Cut him a little slack for being less than superhuman. In the long run, he's bound to be a better bet for reform than the alternative would be. He doesn't have to placate the hard right. So he only gives lip service to the GLBT community right now. What past president even went that far? It will undoubtedly take a "shrewd politician" to accomplish meaningful change that won't evaporate when the next republican president takes office.

[Brian Baker]

Agreed. What I do not get is the electoral strategy in waiting. If Obama thinks he can wait 3.5 years to do anything, I think he is mistaken, and the impatience from the left could bubble over at the wrong time. If you agree with that premise, then the best time for him to do anything is actually right now. That way, any waves caused have a couple years to subside, or more likley, be distracted from by some other thing(s) to talk about. If they are seriously concerned about losing a swing state or two 3 years from now, when they won 375 electoral votes last time, I think they are missing the boat....and the window of golden opportunity.

[SugarBare504]

I think in four years if Obama doesn't meet our needs, we need to pressure the DNC to maybe put Barney Frank in some kind of leadership role.

[marsglow]

This country could do a lot worse than Barney. He is so admirable.

[JakeMontero]

Great - here come another depression.

[lawyerfan]

Guess what SugerBare? Barney Frank IS in some kind of leadership role, and his influence there is every bit as significant as if he were appointed undersecretary of GLBT relations in the Obama administration or chair of the DNC committee on GLBT issues. He just happens to be focused on other issues in his current position.

[BarryS]

Time for Barney to Just Say No to Obama's agenda if Obama can't give Gay people soemthing in return. How about ending DADT in the next military appropriation bill: end discrimination or no more money. It's actually quite easy since supposedly the annointed one is anti-DADT.

And for DOM, the unconstitution anti-gay, biggotted act: add it to some budget bill i.e. to the bill that pays for congress.

[toxicbrainpoison]

Even Howard Dean is speaking out against the discrimination. This si a civil righst sisue. Even the black panthers fought at Stonewall.

[mwarrior5]

As I read, listen and learn, I don't understand how members of the Gay community can say that President Obama is not listening, acting or understanding want "WE" went.
If the real issue is a one group in this case (the gay community) seeking equal rights/civil rights, seeking to be recognized as full members of American society. Then the President is right on target . Much like when African-American fought to be recognized as full members of American society. I think one must understand that before African-Americans where African-Americans we were know as “cattle” we were “owed” by others, less the human. African-Americans had to fight to become members of America this did not take 20yrs or 50 years,but over 400 years .Like most fights for social change there are steps forward and many set backwards.
If and when the Gay community is to share in what other members of our society have fully we must teach a society to open its mind, learn and grow into accepting that “equality” and the “pursuit of happiness “ is a right, not a” given” right and that it takes time.
I believe that the Gay community must understand that the recognition we are fighting for we may or may not be achieved by us. I’m not asking that we wait another 20 years, I am saying, Right now right here at this time and this place Obama has placed are our cause front center of the American.

[Brian Baker]

Excellent point. However, do not underestimate how long gays have been shunned, persecuted, executed, etc. That time frame is also measured in hundreds of years.

[We-Are-The-Ones]

The No. 1 lesson the LGBT community should have learned with this debacle? Patience. Obama has been President for 5 months.

The NO. 2 lesson the LGBT community should have learned? Don't let HRC negotiate to have DADT so that other bills, e.g, hate crime, can be passed instead. Know who the leaders are and make these leaders are working on behalf of LGBT priorities.

The No 3 Lesson: Balance disappointment with actual fact, taking heed of all the pro-LGBT actions the President has taken.

[jcwtts1]

I am trying to figure out who is running the political arm of the LGBT organizations. Anybody have names for me to look up. I mean, at some point someone has to get a group together that actually knows what the heck they are doing.

[rainbowblue]

HRC: Joe Solomonese (sp?)

He's the big one. He's also the biggest sellout.

[azdouglas]

Joe is the biggest sellout--he can't wait to be Obama's lapdog. We can do better than that.

[jcwtts1]

While I appreciate the tone of the piece and goal I think the author is missing the point. The white house did exactly what it wanted to do. Let me frame it for you. A token shove in the direction of LGBT issues, but nothing that changes the game. The use of a couple of short pops on LGBT issues before the announcement and then right after with a meeting at DOJ and the White House, where the LGBT community will be told, we are doing what we can, wait. Whether the LGBT community is happy is irrelevant, nothing short of a repeal of DADT and DOMA will begin to make them happy so why try. What Obama is doing, and this ties into Optics, is he is using the "unreasonableness" of the LGBT community against them, while shoring up the youth vote and the pacifying more conservative leaning independents. He tried, he gave you some things, he even met with organizations, again, in an attempt to try and work out issues. But the LGBT community was "unreasonable," unable to be reached short of a complete capitulation to their demands. See how that plays. He wins and does what he was going to do anyway, incrementally, move towards the LGBT positions. In other words, you got part of it right in that you saw what happened, but you didn't get why and what and you missed the point. Which is why Obama is winning and you guys are losing.

J

[azdouglas]

Well of course that was the point. And it was obvious. We're just tired of the political calculations. And, the whole point of "unreasonableness" is that it isn't unreasonable, civil rights are not "demands"--they just are. It isn't a matter of winning or losing--although clearly it is for Obama--but rather a matter of justice and decency. It is also a matter of what it means to be an American. Maybe President Obama should retake his constitutional law class--it might help to remind him that "happiness" and "capitualtion", or waiting for his approval, are not part of the constitution.

[wonketteRAWKS]

How do feel about Obama's Stonewall celebration for the upcoming Monday. Apparently, it is not being announced...only invites being sent out. Seems it's on the down-low. Yet, another photo-op.

[We-Are-The-Ones]

It is being announced . . . all you had to do was read the Huffpo write up on it and read the whole article.

But ignorance is bliss, I guess.

[oafishcad]

Truth is I didn't support Obama (or Hillary) in the primaries. I thought either one would govern from a more conservative view than I wanted as my President. I did work for, give money and my vote to Obama for President. So far, I was right in my original analysis of Mr. Obama. If, in 4 years he still has not fulfilled most of his promises, I will take my money, work and vote elsewhere. I think it's pretty arrogant of the Democrats to assume that there's only 2 teams and we have to play on one or the other. We can take our vote and go home.

[azdouglas]

Exactly. The twenty first century will find more than arrogant Democrats in control.

[JakeMontero]

right, you will take your money else ware and vote democrat in the end.

[dsws]

"the DoJ brief on a lawsuit challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, where they compared marriage equality to incest ..."

No it doesn't. http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/06/22/12331

[oafishcad]

Are you really going to try and say marrying children isn't the same as sexually abusing children? The brief compared gays marrying to an adult marrying a child. That is the fact. It is an insult no matter how one looks at it.

[LiberalChrisFromEurope]

It's about a marriage to a 16-year old, not a child.