Why Does Obama Use Executive Power for Everything But Gay Troops?
Under continued pressure from gay groups and those concerned with our national security, President Obama has refused to step in and halt the firings of gay troops, claiming it's "not appropriate" to use the president's "stop-loss" power "simply to say, 'we will not enforce a law.'" How, then, will the White House explain its recent use of presidential signing statements to do just that? According to the New York Times, the president has used signing statements -- which instruct officials to ignore portions of Congressional law -- five times to challenge nineteen provisions of federal statute, including a law restricting the use of U.S. troops in United Nations commands and a war spending bill that funds troops and U.S. operations worldwide.
These signing statements, when used by President Bush around 1200 times, were reviled by the Progressive community for usurping Congressional authority, and President Obama vowed during his campaign to use them with "restraint." Whether he has done so is debatable. But what's not debatable is this: A signing statement that tells executive officials to ignore Congressional law is a far more aggressive exercise of the president's power than using his stop-loss authority to allow willing gay service members to continue serving their country. This is because the stop-loss powers, unlike signing statements, have been explicitly granted to the president by Congress in a 1983 statute, 10 U.S.C. § 12305.
That means President Obama is willing to repeatedly use a controversial executive power which the American Bar Association has called unconstitutional while he refuses to use far less controversial executive authority -- and which is perfectly constitutional -- when it comes to "don't ask, don't tell." Why?
It's not news that politicians have long viewed gay rights as political losers. Never mind that some of us have viewed those politicians as moral losers -- it is something of a cliché that pressure groups call on political leaders to exhibit greater moral courage while their calls go unheeded because of fear the pols will lose their jobs. I have no wish to bang my head against a wall trying to make Washington into a moral place.
Opposition to gay rights by some Democrats is particularly galling because it's clear that many of them personally understand that gays deserve equality under the law. But what if Democrats' fears are not just cowardly but incorrect? What if the political risks of backing gay rights are hugely exaggerated? What if Dems, in fact, pay higher costs for appearing spineless than for backing the liberal policies that many believe in? Certainly a case can be made that this is why John Kerry lost the 2004 election, notwithstanding the now-discredited analyses that blamed the loss on gay marriage.
My boyfriend, who is in his twenties, believes the Dems risk losing a generation of young loyalists by failing to seize the mantle of gay rights before, yes, Republicans beat them to the punch. It may seem far-fetched today, but the GOP -- including John McCain's daughter, Meghan, and his top strategist, Steve Schmidt -- is quickly realizing that its survival depends on broadening its tent to include expanding gay rights, since growing tolerance of gay rights is a demographic inevitability.
Indeed, the fear and emotion that are clouding good judgment may be coming not from gays and lesbians impatient with the status quo, but from Washington types who are personally scarred by decades of Democratic weakness on national security issues and by the personal wounds of current White House staff who lived through Bill Clinton's disastrous effort to address the gay troops issue in 1993. This certainly includes Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who was a young Clinton staffer that year working on gays in the military, and whom the Advocate calls "one of the most risk-averse human beings in Washington" who "can never stop thinking about winning elections." It also seems to include some gay groups themselves, whose presence in Washington may be swelling the risk-aversion that other gay activists have avoided.
Finally, it includes President Obama, who appears to have absorbed an unfortunate -- and incorrect -- lesson from the Democrats' alienation from the military since Vietnam: that to earn the trust of the brass, the president must plead with the uniforms for a little R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Yes, Dems must win over the military; no, that is not done by having the president ask permission to act like Commander-in-Chief; it's done by showing the world that the president knows how to lead. Sometimes moral and political leadership really are one and the same. Ending the needless firing of gay troops is one of those times.
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
Everyone knows why. President Obama is heeding the screed from former Sen Nunn and former General Colin Powell about their "showe" fantasies. As if a US senator, or a US 5-star-general would ever share a shower stall.
Who cares that we cannot get enough [straight] translators to interrogate our prisoners. Once they are tortured enough, they'll learn English pronto -- right?
"President Obama vowed during his campaign to use ... [signing statements] with 'restraint
http://www
President Obama does not have to use his stop loss power to halt the dismissal of many gay and lesbian members of the military. Only the "Don't Tell" part of the Clinton compromise is statutory law. The "Don't Ask" and more importantly "Don't Pursue" parts are contained in Department of Defense regulations which the administration is free to change. For example, the regulations could be changed to require reliable information from two credible, independent sources, instead of only one, before a commanding officer can initiate an investigation. There is also considerable evidence that commanders are not complying with current don't pursue rules. A few court martial of homophobic field grade and general officers would do wonders.
Progressive Democrats need to face reality and understand the political nature of the world. If many of the party stopped being so idealistic, they wouldn't be so upset.
Look, there are many important things, and the repeal of DADT is one of them. But every presidential action is a use of political capital, which is a finite resource. We have health care right now; climate change; a transportation bill; Iraq withdrawl.
Don't you get it?! Its not like the President wouldn't want to do this. Simply, he can ill afford to. Politics is a world of priorities.
Yes, that means policy-makers have to weight whether health-care reform is more important than DADT. And yes, an iota of political capital spent on one is an iota not spent on the other. Political capital is zero-sum.
If the party could be more pragmatic we could do a better job of getting policies through. You can't do everything at once!
The arguement that gay America should just sit back and wait for equal rights is as unfair as the lack of equal rights.
If the shoe was on the other foot and rights were being withheld from another group, they would have the same instinctive reaction to demand equality as the GLBT communitiy is doing now.
We understand the political environment much better than most but we also understand that being quiet and patiently waiting GETS YOU NOTHING.
The pressure will stay on this President and this Congress to resolve the inequality that exists and insist that homophobic policies cannot exist in this country.
"We have health care right now; climate change; a transportation bill; Iraq withdrawl.
You had the ... right, because it will always be something else. Funny that despite all those things he twisted arms to get the Ledbetter act passed in his first, what, two days in office?
Obama didn't twist any arms to get the Ledbetter Act passed. The key cloture motion in the Senate was passed five days before Obama was inaugurated by a 72-23 vote, with 15 Republicans voting aye.
The "idealists" might be more open to "facing reality" if the Democratic "realists" didn't have such a long record of failure.
Political capital is earned, not spent, by honoring campaign promises and getting things done. Repeal of DADT is low hanging fruit that Democrats can easily pick. Bringing this yes or no issue to a quick vote, particularly in the Senate, would be a demonstration of Democratic clout that would only help in addressing the complex issues of health care and climate change. The political reality is that 56% of American voters favor the repeal of DADT. Even among Republicans only 52% oppose repeal of DADT.
Withdrawal from Iraq is another area where Barack Obama has not delivered. His administration has consistently and unsuccessfully attempted to delay the withdrawal timetable accepted by the Bush administration in the SOFA agreement. They applied extreme pressure to prevent the referendum to speed up the withdrawal that the Iraqi people were promised.
Obama is a big disappointment so far in so many ways.
Big disappointment.
Hello
Is moderation taking a long time? Or are they just scrubbing most comments?
Good question Nathaniel!
All the Commander In Chief needs to do is order enforcement of "don't ask, don't pursue" and DADT enforcement will come to a halt.
Just order full enforcement. They should have to prove no one "asked" and no one "pursued" in all "don't tell" discharges and they'd all be dropped.
Rep. Inslee wrote me in May 2005
"I was alarmed to learn of the Government Accountability Office report findings that the U.S. military, in enforcing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, has let go of nearly 10,000 service members at an estimated cost of approximately $100 million. Many of those service members held critical occupations, including skills in important foreign languages such as Arabic, Farsi and Korean. "
I wish I had a copy of the GAO report. If anyone does, please share a link.
We're wasting money we DON’T have and kicking out people we DO need!
Here's the link to the 2005 GAO report:
http://www
Recent polls show about three-quarters (75%) of the American public believes that lesbians, gays, and bisexuals should be able to serve openly.
http://www
"73% of the troops said they were comfortable working around gays and lesbians"
http://ser
Americans are ready, in the service and out.
It is a readiness issue. We have been discharging people with key skill such as translators.
As Jon Stewart said "You can't torture people into speaking English!"
DODT will be thrown out in late summer 2012 when Obama needs to pull his coalitions of special interest together for the election.
Don't buy the "political kiss of death" theory.
Clinton favored gay rights and was elected twice. He would have been elected a third time if it were possible.
Clinton did feel "stung" by the reaction to his progressive attitude and told Kerry to stay away from gay rights. And how many terms did Kerry win?
Most Americans admire tolerance and moral courage.
And they are ready for the repeal of DADT.
Top 10 Reasons to Repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
http://www
"73% of the troops said they were comfortable working around gays and lesbians"
http://ser
The Commander-
http://www
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
