How does Obama the President compare to Obama the candidate on gay rights? It's no secret that GLBT advocates have expressed disappointment and frustration with decisions by the White House to avoid pressing for gay rights during the first year of the administration. No executive order to halt the discharges of gay troops; no bold leadership on passing non-discrimination legislation; no mention of a ballot initiative in Maine to reverse marriage equality that might have made a real difference in the loss there Tuesday. We helped elect him with our votes, money, and time because we were promised change. But in our lives as GLBT people, that's not what's being delivered.
And now we're in a pickle. Most gays are progressive and support the broader agenda of the Obama presidency of economic recovery, health care reform, action on global warming, immigration renewal and more. If we withhold our votes and dollars in the future, we'll contribute to conservative gains that will derail our own aspirations. Indeed, even otherwise progressive Americans have rolled their eyes at complaints by the gay community about Democrats' failure to deliver on gay equality. Some think we're a selfish special interest willing to put our narrow agenda above the good of the whole.
Of course, gays are not a special interest like the insurance industry, real estate brokers, or even teachers' unions or farmers, who are all generally seeking money or special concessions from the government. We are simply people who are reminded every day, by our very existence, of the right action that's required of a just society, and the wrong that's perpetrated against us as we are proactively denied the exact same rights as our fellow citizens.
This is why, while I don't begrudge President Obama's decision to seek buy-in from the center as part of his wish to transcend old divides, I do reject his insistence on including gay rights as part of what he needs to avoid to achieve success. Perhaps more to the point, it is becoming clear that the extreme risk-aversion that prompts Democrats to avoid backing gay rights is not only morally wrong but politically unwise.
Political types tend to spend their time arguing over two important debates (among others): first is whether politicians should play to their base or woo the center; second is whether policy action comes through appeals to ideas or only through pressure on the self-interest of politicians. The past year, and particularly this week's election losses in Virginia, New Jersey, and Maine, speak to both. By failing to deliver to the liberal base, the current Democratic leadership on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue dampened voter enthusiasm and turnout, helping prompt losses that are both real and symbolic. And stay-at-home, would-be voters of the left showed Democratic leaders through the pressure of non-support that they value progressive policies and will not necessarily support leaders who don't prioritize them.
Some, of course, will see the election losses as part of a conservative backlash against a Democratic Party that's moved too quickly toward the government activism of unreconstructed liberalism. They will say that going to bat for gay rights would be even more toxic. Never mind that lifting government bans on military service (which is overwhelmingly supported by the public, and even my a majority of conservatives) and marriage for LGBT people would be about as conservative an action as you can take--getting government out of the bedroom and off people's backs. The risk-averse will find almost any action too bold.
But that's never been the Obama team's philosophy. "Political calculation and risk aversion really have to take a back seat," said Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, six weeks into the new administration. It echoed a sentiment he shared during the campaign and in his new book about the centrality of risk to ongoing victory: "We are always better off on the high wire." Plouffe's point is that bold, new, and risky departures from the status quo are part of the recipe for success not just in an election but when governing too.
Sure enough, those presidents who are both remembered by history and who won more than one term in office--from Jefferson, Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt to FDR, Truman, and Johnson--have been those who stuck their necks out to fight for the rights of the vulnerable.
Gay rights are coming. Support in polls among young people is through the roof, with upwards of 90% of young people supporting full equality. This, too, is a lesson Democrats must learn, as they could lose a generation of new loyalists among young people if the GOP catches up to them in their support for gay rights--a prospect that may not be so unthinkable in coming years since the GOP can only survive if its moderate and young wings win control in the current intra-Party war.
What will determine success for the Obama presidency? If it remembers the lessons of its own campaign philosophy: often the high wire is also the high road to victory.
So, one year after the election, what do you think Candidate Obama would think of President Obama? Tweet your response (our Twitter hashtag is #OneYearLater), or post it in the comments section.
Actions speak louder than words. No other president has issued a legal document comparing us to pedophiles. Obama's excuse was that he has to uphold the law as written. How slimy! It doesn't answer what he did or how he did it. He is NOT requiredby law to proffer an amicus brief, and is not bound by custom to do so, either. Nor is he compelled to support the law if an amicus brief is issued. He is free to oppose it. Slimy. Then, Attorney General Holder says "See? We said (in another brief) that we disagree with the law." Except that was one lame sentence in a very well-written brief OPPOSING gay rights. Slimier still. In a third case, the Attorney General calls a federal court ruling "a recommendation" that the OPM is not bound by. A ruling is a recommendation??? Not even Gonzalez was that lawless. Slimier, even still. And apparently Obama supports him because he has never challenged Holder on anything DOJ has done.
No one has bashed us this hard where it counts - the court. And I don't give a damn about soaring rhetoric when it's false.
Obama's presidency has been reduced to juxtaposition of his words against his governance.
And he was somehow surprised about Massachusetts. Maybe he isn't as smart as I thought he was. Or maybe, he thinks the American public is dumber than it is.
These are the people hurt the most by Republican policies. These are also the people who have hurt me the most in my life. Therefore, by voting Republican, I can at least hurt some of these people and their families. Even if both my partner and I lost our jobs tomorrow, we could live comfortably for at least 10 years, so I'm going to vote for the party that will end unemployment benefits, cut health care, deport illegals (and give their families a taste of what gay people experience every day), etc.
A fierce apathy towards spineless faux allies is consuming me.
Those conversations were of all the things that Black people talk about. While not speaking in absolute terms, I don't know of any Black church that would turn away anyone for their sexual preference. They might be bent on trying to "fix" things, but you can't "fix" what you turn away. There are extreme voices and attitudes everywhere but they are small and to each his/her own.
The end of your post is the central thesis of what was the Civil Rights struggle. Organize and bring the issues to the forefront. There is no point in constantly referencing or quoting Dr. King if one does not do what Dr. King and all those other great men and women did.
Fanned.
You have said nothing but the truth!
Obama has set out to fulfill the promises of his campaign, and no doubt he will continue to do so throughout his time in office; though at times it seems that LGBT rights are not given the attention they are surely due, this is more likely to be the time for change than if a right-wing party was in power.
The only thing to do now is campaign and hope that the future will be brighter and fairer. Luckily, LGBTQI groups have quite a bit practice in that area.
:)
In 1964, LBJ and a huge Democratic Congress were elected. In 1966, the Democrats were thumped as the GOP won huge in the elections.
BUT WHO CARES....in the two years in between, they passed:
Medicare
Medicaid
The Civil Rights Act
The Voting Rights Act
The War on Poverty
Federal Money for Education
etc. etc. etc.
I DO NOT CARE if the Democrats win or lose in 2010. If after the get elected, they do NOTHING in the hopes of getting reelected again, what is the point?
Can you imagine how changed this nation could have been if they had said, we'll take our chances in 2010, fixing the country is MORE important?
Cowards.
We have been so patient that the midterm elections may have already ended the chance for meaningful change.
I KNOW that is why they were thumped in 1966. And I still DON'T CARE....
WHY?
Because fourty years later we have...
Medicare
Medicaid
The Civil Rights Act
The Voting Rights Act
The War on Poverty
Federal Money for Education
etc. etc. etc.
Fourty years from now, what will people have from the 2008-2010 Congress, we shall see...BUT...I know what they might have had already if it were not for political calculation...
Health Care Reform
Climate Change Bill
Wall Street Reform
Lobbyist Reform
Huge Green Energy Push
Huge Stem Cell Push
Campaign Finance Reform
and I could go on and on and on.
Instead, we have the Democrats wetting their pants because Bob McDonnell beat Creigh Deeds.....
Medicaid----Broke
The War on Poverty-----Created government dependency that increased, not decreased the number of poor and created wider income gaps as people were encouraged to fail.
Money for Education----Yeah, that worked real well, failed inner-city schools, and a growing population of drop out.
Big government at it's best. Self sufficiency beats government dependency every time it's put to the test..
So Malkin's point holds.
Furthermore, he hasn’t ignored a key LGBT constituency. The president issued a memorandum last June extending benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees, right on the heels of Secretary of State Clinton’s offer of federal benefits to the same-sex of diplomats. And under the radar of most news wires and activists, a growing number of asylum cases for LBGT-identified individuals. He pushed and signed your hate crime bill and is quietly gathering votes to pass ENDA, DADT and DOMA (?). Now do your part by supporting the president by lobbying congress, senators at the local, state and federal level. Plus, go out and plead your case to the general public rather than sitting at your computer calling people names who has a different viewpoint. For the record, this is from a non-g@y rights support that could careless about this issue or anything g@y, but couldn’t let the g@ys continue to lie about this president record on g@y rights.
The civil rights movement laid out a blueprint for how to use the courts to win rights. Had civil rights for black americans been left up to a vote, we would still have Jim Crow.
More strategizing, and less complaining would be helpful.
But don't worry there are already 2 cases making their way to the SC and we should have a final decision in about 2 years.