President Obama and Gay Rights: Forgetting the Lessons of the Campaign
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.
Aaron Belkin: Obama Is Timid Because Progressives Are Timid
What can we expect from a President who presides over a relatively conservative public, whose party is fractured by a fundamental contradiction, and whose legislative agenda is held hostage by Ben Nelson?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
At this point, I am so angry and disillusioned that I have decided to start supporting Republicans for the first time in my life, and here is why. I am a second class citizen, and probably always will be. The changes eventually coming will come too late for me. However, I make a very good living. Those against gay people seem to skew more toward the poor and uneducated (not counting the Limbaughs and the like who get rich off this demographic).
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.
Honestly Nathaniel. You are way off base. Presidents like Lincoln and Johnson didn't stick their necks out for the disadvantaged because it was the right thing to do. They did so because the time called for it--the civil rights movement forced Johnson's hands because people who SAW the degradation and suffering heaped on black folks who demanded their rights by marching and sitting in, by boycotting buses, etc. are the ones who were responsible for the legislation being written and signed. And Lincoln was also a pragmatists, he needed to beat the south and one of the ways to do it was to outlaw slavery and deprive southerners of able bodied men to support their war. Courage in hindsight does not mean these actions were taken to HELP black people they were taken to PREVENT more bloodshed, RETAIN power and move these topics off the front shelf.
I did not vote for Obama or McCain because I knew he was all slickness and no substance, when will the gay community learn.
Tim Kaine of the DNC and President Obama will learn in 2010 and 2012 what FIERCE means.
A fierce apathy towards spineless faux allies is consuming me.
Have to admit Bush was more honest towards the gay community. Clinton and Obama will pamper and make nice for the votes. But like Bush, all in all don't really give a damn about gay issues. May seem odd but I think Cheeney and his daughter might be the way to go. I think in an interview on gay marriage, Cheeney had the most down to earth things to say.
White Gay Inc. really need to stop blaming others -- people of color in CA and now Obama -- for their own failures. White gays just didn't see the world changing around them fast enough and all those old, racist startegies that they employed to put for a very white gay agenda is now backfiring. Gay marriage was never a priority for LGBT people of color and even many white average gays. But, white, rich gays who run these racist, gay orgs keep shoving their agendas down the throat of everyone and keep losing. Wake up to a new reality, White Gay Inc or it is time for average gays to diss these so called white gay leaders, their bloggers and organize on their own for issues which affect our bread and butter.
I have made this argument before. I have never had a conversation over the with a Brother or Sister where that topic ever came up. The Black "homophobia" that everyone is an expert on has never come to the fore either. There is a certain community where extreme attitudes are the norm, but it is not of this soil, I;m sure you know whereof I am speaking.
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.
I am sick of White Gay Inc. and the toms and janes they get to parrot their causes.
You have said nothing but the truth!
I agree with you. I often wonder what is going on in their minds. How desperate are these white gays? "Log Cabin republicans" is as close to an oxymoron as one can get. If you are gay why would you want to be a part of a party that is anti gay?
It is as if these guys are not playing with a full deck. Or that being white is more important than common sense. Who wants to belong to a party that wants to make your very existence illegal?
Log cabin republicans rail at what Obama isn't doing fast enough for them for gays while claiming to proudly be part of a party that would like to outlaw homosexuality. What has the republican party ever done to benefit gays?
White Gay Inc, huh? Yeah.
@coloredqueer
I seriously doubt you are EITHER
I have to admit I semi-agree with you. White male privilege doesn't cease to exist because you're gay. I don't agree that all white gays are racist however, nor all gay organizations. Still if gay folks really want change, we have to be the change. That means organizing. That means protesting. That means not waiting for someone else to do it. Get involved and stop sitting on the sidelines pointing fingers.
The article raises some highly perceptive points. However, I think some of the people commenting are focusing too much on the technicalities of what Obama promised, as opposed to the issue as a whole.
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.
:)
This article is spot on. The ease with which the Obama administration has distanced itself from the gay community is breath taking. I must say that I didn't expect it. Somehow he seemed, and we were told by his fervent supporters that he was a unique politician who would not stand for injustice. The truth is, that he would be out leading the charge if the vote in Maine had reversed by 6%. It is easy to lead a charge when those who follow are already believers. What is more difficult, of course is to educate and enlighten the electorate that has been confused and misled by the lack of truthful information on gay marriage. I am deeply disappointed in Mr. Obama, and as things stand, intend to do my own "Going Rogue" routine on him. I will be voting for a third party and refusing to vote for any politician who has not spoken in favor of at least equal rights for the gay community, and this would include the Congressman from our district who is also happy to accept our money, and is "almost" in our corner, but "not quite." Congressman Mike Thompson, a likable and pleasant enough man who lacks courage. If a Republican wins as a result, I don't care. At least i know where they stand. Giordy
"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..." LOL. The GOP hasn't even caught up with evolution!
I thought that on the campaign trail, both Obama and Clinton were not proponents of gay marriage. So how is he waffling by not speaking out on the Maine vote? I think gay marriage supporters would rather he stay out of it than speak out against their cause in Maine. He has been known to influence voters you know.
Amazing the attacks here and the highlights of "black" in some of these comments. It is true that victims identify with their (preceived) oppressors. Where was your outrage with President Bush and those teaparty crowds that want no part of your world and don't mind stating this fact? I suggest you guys think about talking to and putting pressure on your states elected officials as Barney Franks suggested instead of putting all the weigh on the POTUS who is being attacked also.
You assume - incorrectly - that we haven't been in touch with our local and state officers as well.
Here is why patience is not a virtue and progressives should NOT be patient...
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.
You don't even understand the history you are talking about. The REASON they were thumped is they did what you just said. The pro dem feeling after the Kennedy assassination presented a unique moment to jam everything through right away. And it cost them. Let me be even more frank, you don't care who wins in 2010, but you should. It should be the single burning thought in your head every single day. Because putting up gay rights bills and losing, which is what would happen now unless the white house burned every ounce of capital it possesses and maybe losing even then, is part of what happens with a senate that isn't quite over 60 for one party. Let me explain. In Jan Ted Kennedy was dying and Byrd was sick and Franken hadn't been seated. So we started with 56 senators. If you try and jam social change before policy change in that situation you lose both. Second. By the time we got Al Franken we also had Specter, something Biden told the President was going to happen in Jan. That sounds like 60 in June but Ted Kennedy was very ill and it was only 59. It wasn't until sept that we even had 60, after Ted Kennedy passed away. So no matter how much you want to pass a bill, no matter how angry you are, math trumps anger. You can't get to 60 without getting to 60. Add to that we have 8 conservative dems.
You are missing my point AMAZINGLY.
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.....
Medicare----Broke
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..
That self sufficiency thing is the biggest fraud going. No one is self sufficient when the law itself dictates that a segment of the population is not allowed to participate in what the majority population takes for granted. That medicaid and medicare fall on hard times is not the fault of those for whom the programs were implemented. it is one thing altogether to put something in place, another to maintain it, particularly in terms of its original intent.
So Malkin's point holds.
I was wondering if anyone would make those points. Thanks.
The president is doing everything to be your “fierce advocate”, he has continue to mention you in every big speech he has given, i.e. NAACP 100 anniversary, Sen. Ted Kennedy farewell, speech given to school kids, HRC campaign Obama big gay speech, gays at the white house, Harvey Milk awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, an have included gays in the census. That is what a “fierce advocate”does; by continue to shine a light on your issue.
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.
Oops...non-g@y right *supporter*...
I agree with with you, but Remember it's not all gays who lie about Obama's record, so please don't generalize.
Right you are, although we're a major minority on this blog.
Gay rights advocates have the wrong strategy. Every time they lose another vote, in another state, on gay marriage they weaken their case.
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.
Amen. They don't have a good strategy. But hey they will continue to blame the black community for them not having their rights.
I agree with what you said the only issue I see between the Civil Rights movement of the 60s and the Gay Rights movement of today is that the court system is much more conservative today than when brown v board and loving v VA were decided, and I am fearful that a conservative Supreme Court would not find gay marriag a civil right.
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.
And look what happened when we did do it through the courts. It's also an issue of which courts are used and when.
I disagree, not with your comment about strategy, the LGBT strategy is awful. But with the desire to fight this in court. The LGBT community does well in state court becuase the state isn't using the federal strict scrutiny laws. They are ruling instead on the constitution of the state itself and they rule that gay marriage is legal. Mostly. But as soon as you get to federal court the LGBT community loses because the discrimination on sexual orientation, as sick as this sounds, is both legal and constitutional. The supreme court ruled in the early to mid 80s that there were specific protected classes of people, based on things like race, disablement, mental and physical, sex, ethnicity, religion, veterans, (and two others I can never remember off hand) They also specifically said something like, sexual orientation is specifically not included and then they gave some bs reasons why. My point is that this ruling is still in force, it is why DOMA and DADT are legal and constitutional. It is why an employer can fire you for being gay and can't fire you for being black. Why a catholic school can throw out a girl they suspect of being lesbian in middle school but they can't throw out a black person. The strict scrutiny (suspect class) rulings make doing things like that, discriminating based on a protected enumerated class illegal. It is a crazy catch 22 but that is why it is more complicated to unwind these laws.
That is a flawed argument. The Supreme Court is not an unbiased body. History has shown that it is made up of people just like you and me. Some are fair and honest, others are racists, religious bigots, in it for the money and power, and some have been bought and paid for by the people who got them the job.
Should you doubt this, witness the bonehead decisions you have gotten from the Court. Dread Scott, comes to mind for me. Think for yourself, stop accepting the legal reasons given by those who purport to know legally why the Court ruled as it did.
Stop accepting the excuses the judges use to justify their self-serving decisions. For example the ones who claim they are pro states rights; meaning what they don't believe is given to the federal government by the constitution belongs to the states.
That only works until a states right disagrees with their self serving want. For example states rights justice Scalia became a federal rights man so he could make Bush president.
Agreed, and less continuing to refer to equality as a political game. It may amuse the mainstream media and the far right bigots to talk about "playing to the base," and "special interest groups," but it trivializes this great civil rights issue. We aren't talking about a game; we're talking about the real lives of real people who live with us and all around us -- and they matter.
Straight people need to advocate for gay rights, put pressure on their elected officials at all levels and never let up.
As a gay man I am so tired of hearing about how it's always someone elses fault for gays not getting our rights. If you notice these complaints always seem to come from white gay males. I find it interesting that these so called gay leaders are so quick to blame others when the blame lies squarely on OUR shoulders....Obama is not MLK, he's not a civil rights leader, he's not Jessie Owens, he's not MJ or any other magical ne.gr0 white gays seem to think he is.
We have to cultivate our OWN civil rights leaders. Instead of trying to figure out why a majority of Americans are not responding to our message it seems like all we do is look for other parties to scapegoat. For prop 8 it was black people, nevermind that the gay community does absolutely NO outreach to minority communities. Now it's Obama, nevermind that he has never supported gay marriage, if he would have only made a speech we would have won in Maine.
We first need to learn how to cultivate a civil rights movement, and that begins with having more that just white men whining about what they want. The gay rights movement needs to be more inclusive of black, hispanic, asian, and female members. We need to feel like we're invested in this too, and maybe we can help teach you how to come off sympathetic, because right now all America sees is the bitter b!tch club.
Amen!!
It takes no effort to blame blacks and it works. You get your base all riled up and when nothing works u blame Black man again. EASY
That is what pisses me off as a minority. Blame the blacks for everything along with hispanics. White men will continue to blame blacks for their ills. The more you blame blacks for you not having your rights the more you turn us off. Enough of the bullshit of blaming minorities because you don't know how to get your act together. Blacks have always been the scapegoat.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
