To a degree that has caught even longtime advocates off guard, the substantive debate about whether to end "don't ask, don't tell" has rather suddenly been resolved. The impassioned statement by Adm. Mike Mullen, the first sitting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to call for an end to the ban, reflects a sea change in military culture that some have been expressing for years: the young, professional troops of the U.S. military simply don't care that much if their unit mates are gay. In 1993, Bill Clinton, Gen. Colin Powell, and Sen. Sam Nunn were confronted everywhere they went with angry troops demanding to be reassured that gays would not be allowed to foist their lifestyles on their pristine fighting force; but this week Adm. Mullen was so taken aback by the silence of troops in the wake of his call for repeal that he raised the issue himself in recent conversations, prompting crickets from service members and a change of subject to matters far more pressing to them.
Even ten years ago, "don't ask, don't tell" was already considered a joke by a new generation of enlisted personnel. By 2000, according to former Navy JAG Rear Admiral John Hutson, "Things had changed so considerably, that I think 18- and 19- and 20-year-olds were just laughing at us because we didn't understand what they were thinking." Hutson, who was an advisor to the 1993 Military Working Group that helped create "don't ask, don't tell," shared these reflections with me for research I conducted for a book about the policy. By century's end, he said, "young people had so dramatically opened up to the idea of working alongside openly gay people that us crusty old farts protecting them was just a joke."
As always, some troops will grumble about lifting the ban; but the majority say in polls that they are comfortable around gays, and they already know that they serve with them in their units. These are inconvenient facts for the far right and their efforts to cast reform as a dangerous risk to the military, rather than a simple act of replacing a failed policy from a bygone century with a recognition of twenty-first century reality. And so Sen. John McCain, once a war hero who cast himself as a straight-talking reformer, has been reduced to parroting the lame talking points of the religious right in an attempt to sound strong on traditional values and national security in his upcoming primary.
Yet despite the military's move to relax and soon do away with "don't ask, don't tell," repeal in Congress is in grave peril. This is so even though the much-vaunted supermajority in the senate is not necessary to repeal the current policy. As Sen. Carl Levin, the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee explained to his colleague, Sen. Joe Lieberman, an amendment to repeal the policy can be added to the must-pass Defense Authorization bill, which would turn the tables on the "no-to-everything" Republicans: the amendment would require a supermajority not to pass, but to remove, meaning that in order to keep the ban in place, the GOP would have to block the entire Pentagon spending bill, publicly undercutting the military.
True, the military brass have tempered their support for repeal with a call to study the issue just long enough to get beyond November elections. But as Servicemembers United has outlined in a memo, legislation for repeal does not have to wait for the study results because the issue at hand is not whether, but how, to end the ban. Legislative repeal could accommodate the Pentagon's requested timeline for further study, while locking the fact of repeal into place by the end of 2011.
So what's the hold up? President Obama has said he will work with Congress "this year" to lift the ban. (Sen. Levin could put repeal into the Chairman's mark, but it's not clear he has the incentive to do so.) But Obama has also said he'd like Congress to take the lead. Sound familiar? In an interview in 2009, Obama finally acknowledged that this very same tactic with healthcare was a mistake: "I, out of an effort to give Congress the ability to do their thing and not step on their toes, probably left too much ambiguity out there, which allowed the opponents of reform to come in and to fill up the airwaves with a lot of nonsense." Sure enough, despite momentum toward repeal of the gay ban, the airwaves are beginning to fill with balderdash about openly gay service leading to a draft and, horror of horrors, government endorsement of tattoos.
So why on earth would the President take the same failed tack with reforming the gay ban? Why not put real teeth into his promise by telling the Pentagon to put repeal in the Authorization bill? Probably because this champion of a "new day" in politics continues to suffer from the Democrats' longtime aversion to taking the lead on gay rights, out of fear that culture warriors will exploit their position--never mind that Democrats lose more power by appearing bereft of principles and deliverables than by appearing to support equal treatment. And it probably doesn't help that the famously risk-averse Rahm Emanuel carries personal scars from his tenure as a young Clinton staffer when that president was burned by his own failures on this issue.
It's also not helping that the gay community has too often given the President a pass on leading on this issue. Yes, Congress has to pass repeal to get this law off the books, but that process should begin with Obama telling the Pentagon to put repeal in the Authorization bill. And for that to happen, gay groups will need to let the White House know that the status quo is not acceptable. Bloggers this week called for the President to take the lead, but also focused their attention on the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the most powerful gay rights group in the world, which has been accused of championing repeal publicly, while privately assuring the White House that it can continue to go slow. Some feel that HRC would rather fundraise for several years on the illusion of momentum than actually help to achieve repeal. If HRC wants to disabuse the community of that suspicion, it will need to ensure that its prized access to Washington power is used to have a real impact, rather than to enjoy that access for its own sake. One reasonable option would be to publicly tell the President that it will not endorse him for re-election if he does not secure repeal in his first term, a promise that Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he believed the President would keep.
The problem is that professed proponents of repeal keep muttering that we will get repeal this year, without saying how. "There is a clear path to repeal," said an HRC spokesman this week, "and that's the one we're on." Many of us would like to know what that path is if it does not include demanding the President put it in the base bill. Because legislative repeal will only become harder after the 2010 midterm elections.
If President Obama is serious about lifting the ban in his first term, he should put repeal into the 2011 Defense Authorization bill. If the military brass can call for an end to the ban, and if Republicans Dick Cheney and Colin Powell can join them in supporting this step, surely Democrats and gay groups should be on the frontlines of pressing for real action.
An elected officials position on LGBT issues is non-negotiable. It does us no good to send letters, emails or make calls. The only thing we can express to them is anger or frustration. Their minds are NOT changeable.
During our 50 years of struggle/fight we have never changed a politicians mind about LGBT issues. There are only two solutions:
1. Replace the politician
2. Change the minds of their constituents.
Harold Ford is a very recent example of a Politician "changing" his mind. When Ford was in Tennessee (78% religious) he was against same-sex marriage. Now, with Ford in New York (48% religious) he now supports same-sex marriage. HE didn't change his mind - the polls did.
I raised the issue of ineffective lobbying because we keep sending people down that fruitless path. They simply end up more frustrated and less likely to participate in our movement. We are literally asking people to commit participation suicide.
We spend millions of dollars and we rarely make an honest and objective effort to determine the effectiveness of tactics, ideas and strategies. The one benefit of the BlogSwarm may be a better understanding of the effectiveness of HRC (or lack thereof).
When the administration took up health care I was willing to wait a but longer for them to free up some political capital for this effort. However, he's demonstrated that he doesn't expend political capital, he allows it to be stolen from him.
I'm sure he'd be just as happy to let this issue percolate until he needs to fill his campaign coffers for his race with Romney in 2012.
Homosexuals are currently able under DADTDP to enter the military and serve honorably -- as many do now -- in accordance with ALL military laws and regulations, not just the ones that homosexuals (or anyone else for that matter) choose to obey.
If homosexuals don't want to obey military regulations they shouldn't enlist.
It's that simple.
In a nutshell, this policy as it stands should be considered insulting to all the men and women of the armed forces who are professional enough to do their job instead of worrying about who is gay or lesbian.
It's essentially only a big deal to the people who don't directly have to deal with any of the consequences of the decision.
But he has to check with Donnie McClurkin and Rick Warren first and get their approval.
The time is now.
Believe me, when the military does this it will be SLLLLOOOOWWWW. It is not against gays, they just do everything slowly.
The Democrats are in charge now and ac t no differently than the Republicans did. Got a dime?
We had the death penalty a long, time ago. Then in the mid 1900's, it was repealed. Then after many years went by, a popular movement arose trying to get the death penalty back on the books. Well the reps and senators would all huff and puff about a death penalty (this happened while there was a Democrat Governor) and they tried 4 different times in 4 years to get the death penalty passed. They used the Governors veto as proof the Democrats had no place in our state. The people elected a Republican Governor next election who said clearly - I will sign the death penalty into law.
What happened? Over the next four years, amazingly, no death penalty bill made it to his desk.
It's like the minority screams about something and how they would LOVE to change it, but the mean old majority just won't let them. Then when suddenly in power they have to actually think about what they are saying and doing instead of just yammering from the safety of their inability to do anything - and suddenly a few campaign bullet points don't begin to cover the real complexities. Like when you are out and someone makes you mad and you tell your buddies to hold you back before you kick this guys butt - then they don't hold you back - uh oh.
Incorrect. In the latest survey of active U.S. troops (militarytimes.com), 51 percent of those surveyed don't want DADTDP repealed.
Is Frank insinuating that the repeal-averse troops are NOT professional troops? If they're not PROFESSIONAL troops -- as Frank limply asserts -- then what are they, UNPROFESSIONAL troops?
Also, Frank fails to elaborate: i.e., how much is "THAT MUCH?"
As for the rest of your comment. You are putting words in the authors mouth. Itis irrelevant
Meantime I subscribe to the don't ask don't give campaign. I will support candidates who are eager to represent the people, including gay Americans, but I refuse to support the Democratic Party's corporatist agenda.
Same goes for HRC. My money has better things to do than support its cocktail party agenda and obscene staff salaries. Plus it's in the financial interest of HRC to drag its feet. The longer DADT and DOMA are law the longer HRC can live the Washington high life (just send money, lots of it).