HRC's Solmonese: Dinner Attendees "More Politically Aware," Have "Better Sense of What's at Stake"

Those are his words, not mine. Joe Solmonese said them to CNN's Don Lemon in an interview on Sunday that hasn't received much play, and there are some interesting nuggets that reveal more about thinking inside the org than he probably meant to share.

It's rare to see the whole diversity/class/power dynamic that vexes the LGBT movement opened up since it's a third rail topic that tends to give some with privilege a case of defensive agita. It's likely this unintentional level of candor won't be seen again any time soon.

LEMON: Joe, I got to ask you this. We had a panel last night, Dan Savage, Michelangelo Signorile, Dan Choi, Hilary Rosen on. And some of the folks who are on that panel said that the HRC doesn't represent the masses of gay people in the country, that it is, you know, one certain group.

Do you think that the group -- how do I put this -- that there is a lack of diversity within the HRC, and if it were more diverse, that that might help the cause?

SOLMONESE: Well, I think that -- you know, I know that -- I think it was Michelangelo who was making some sweeping comments about the number of people in the room and who was in the room, although he did start by saying he couldn't get into the room. So, you know, I sort of take that with a grain of salt. But we're the largest LBGT organization in the country with nearly a million members. Most of them are small donors and supporters all over the country. And so, I think we absolutely represent the LBGT community.

But I think that -- as Hilary mentioned last night on the show -- perhaps the crowd at the dinner last night was a little bit more politically aware and had a better sense of maybe, you know, what's at stake and what needs to be done. Because at the end of the day, what all these fights come down to -- and this is where we are in this movement...

A couple of things are quite notable. Lemon asks about the diversity issue within HRC. Solmonese can't answer that question without either fibbing or going down a really uncomfortable path, so Joe chooses to answer the question in terms of paid membership, so he can reference the multitude of small dollar donors. Those donors weren't at the dinner, nor are they in leadership positions or on the board of the advocacy org.

The real boo-boo, however, is the claim that the crowd attending the annual dinner is more politically engaged, more boned-up on the issues, and even more incredibly, know more than you folks out there -- living in places where you have no rights whatsoever -- about what is at stake. Well, those who opened their wallets to see the fabulous Lady Gaga and the cast of Glee (after all, the dinner sold out before the President's appearance was billed), surely are in touch with the issues more than you are. Joe said so.

But seriously, there obviously were committed activists in that room, people who deeply care about those without the access and power to effect change in the same way they can. It's too bad that they get scooped up in the criticism of HRC's poor handling of the diversity issue. By raising the value of the attendees as "the players" who know better, he's essentially confirming all of the worst stereotypes. Those skeptics outside of the LGBT sphere who saw that non-diverse audience that night are even less likely to support LGBT issues (more on that below).

Adele Stan, in a piece worth the click, "LGBT Activists Criticize Obama's Speech for What Wasn't There, But Miss a Very Big Thing That Was", she points out that the real landmark comment the President made that went unnoticed - he made the connection between the black civil rights movement and LGBT rights.

[E]ven more importantly, completely overlooked by activists as they battle for marriage rights was a critical turning point: In anticipation of the criticism he clearly expected to receive, Obama compared the movement for LGBT rights to the civil rights movement of the 1960s:

Now, I've said this before, I'll repeat it again -- it's not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans petitioning for equal rights half a century ago. (Applause.) But I will say this: We have made progress and we will make more.

This is not a statement without some risk for Obama. It's a comparison often met with resentment in the African-American community -- a comparison few have the moral authority to make. The nation's first African-American president is one of them.

On one level, that's correct - that needed to be said. On another level, it's not enough. If you want to see how much impact that statement really had in the aftermath of that speech, surf over to a blog I respect a great deal, Jack & Jill Politics ("A black bourgeoisie perspective on U.S. politics"), where there is a plethora of politically informed, educated black netizens who are tapped into the progressive blogosphere. The President's comparison went in one ear and out of the other for way too many of the commenters.

It's fair to say that The President needs to repeat that link in equality movements in front of other, non-LGBT audiences over and over to make it stick. In those comments at J&JP you'll see:

* Criticism of the complexion of leadership of too many of our orgs with this dinner a nationwide televised display of the gap in race and class alienating commenters in the thread, feeding the stereotypes quite nicely;

* black gays called house negroes/having house negro syndrome;
-- it matters not if you have a long record of challenging the lack of diversity in LGBT leadership and political inclusion and representing the community on-air; you've revoked your black card.

* the claim that gays have all the rights that they need and deserve, because they see the snowstorm at the public events, and it follows that all gays are white and have money and don't show up for social justice issues affecting POC. And that means homos need to "get to the back of the line" for rights.

I feel sorry for the poor gay brother in the comments there who can't get a break.

As I told a much more diverse audience at NC Pride:

For blacks and other minorities who have to learn how to integrate in the dominant culture out of necessity, they often feel frustrated and defensive hearing the lack of knowledge exposed when whites make the tentative steps to engage. The honest truth is that, outside of working alongside people of color, there's a lot of social self-segregation going on (on both sides).

What this lack of cross-community dialogue means for out LGBTs of color is that one has to be willing to put yourself out there to be attacked, over and over for addressing homophobia in communities of color knowing that few, if any, white LGBTs are going to come forward to have your back.

I see it time and again, with the excuses ranging from "I'll be called a racist" or "it doesn't feel safe to do this" or "it isn't my place to do it. " Well if you're waiting for it to be safe, it isn't going to happen.

So it is in this environment that black LGBTs have a difficult choice about whether to come out, though more and more are. Fearful of losing social connections, friendships and emotional shelter provided by their faith community if they come out, black gays and lesbians in the church are intimidated.

They fear the judgment of those in the pews and the pastors spewing anti-gay bile from the pulpit. Some of these minority LGBTs simply cannot envision stepping out of the closet because they don't see a welcoming largely white LGBT community on the other side of the door.

And the reaction in that thread tells you how bad this problem is.

So it's in that context that Solmonese's comments are a tragic, confirmed truth that just slipped out in the interview. Our movement needs to address how our largest LGBT organization can represent the reality of LGBT America, because its representative just let everyone know that in HRC's reality, the right mix - the most effective mix - of people in the LGBT equality movement attended that annual dinner. I'm not sure how the rest of us rate other than as a small dollar GAyTM. Maybe Joe will tell us the next time he's on the air.

Follow Pam Spaulding on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Pam_Spaulding

Comments

[wernerholm]

More politically aware? Well, I am aware enough to not fund the HRC, and their lunches with the Prez. Just like the Democratic Party as a whole, If they don't start supporting equal rights for everybody (which is the promise of this country) then I will not support them. Not the HRC, not the spineless Democrats who fund the military to the highest level ever, expand the wars, cover up for the CIA, allow tortures to get away with their crimes, and treat gays just like the Republicans do (we get crumbs).
The HRC doesn't get it; anti-war (anti big military budget) people could give a rats patooties if gays are let into the Army or not. I don't want to go into the Army, and anyone gay who does has to understand that it is a hetrosexual frat house, and they conduct themselves as such. The Army has issue with women, what on earth makes anyone think that this most institutionalised of institutions is even capable of making the changes needed to bring open gays into their ranks?

[LintLass]

Not everyone who's anti-war is anti-havin­g-a-milita­ry. While some may be puzzled how gays end up in the military in the first place, very few think our gay servicemembers should get a raw deal and abuse as thanks for serving their country.

The military, especially as college gets more and more out of reach for more and more of our nation's youth (even if you aren't getting flak from the people who are supposed to be on your side in life) often looks like a good ticket out of bad situations or dead-end prospects or just plain unemployment. For some LBGT people, it's a last ditch attempt to try and 'be a man' (Or even something they're directed into,in the case of boys, ...that's the big myth, isn't it? Son, you're joining the Marines so they can make a man out of you!)

For gals, it can be a way to escape certain other kinds of expectations and demands.

I don't imagine the idea of 'military as surrogate family' is any too unappealing to those who've experienced rejection and alienation in their own families and communities, either.

It's not an issue that will 'just go away' if someone comes along and says 'Nobody at all should join the military.'

[LintLass]

You know, maybe this is part of a gap here:

"So it is in this environment that black LGBTs have a difficult choice about whether to come out, though more and more are. Fearful of losing social connections, friendships and emotional shelter provided by their faith community if they come out, black gays and lesbians in the church are intimidated."

Most white LBGT people grew up with this, too. Most of us were raised to figure that if you come out, never mind be out and active for your rights, you basically forfeit any social connections, friendships, churches, or whatever 'emotional shelter' a homophobic environment may dubiously provide to begin with. It's expected. Maybe someone'll be good to you, maybe not.

There's a double-whammy for LBGT people of color, true, but I don't see how it's white LBGT people's fault if many in the black community doesn't want to come out, then say it's about there not already being a lot of black folks in the movement like it's some systemic exclusion.

Which isn't to say these big ticket fundraisers represent *me,* either.

Money talks. Has a limited vocabulary, but it may as well say what it can.

Yes, there's a lot more to us. But these dinners are just what they are. What would I do, buy some outfit that costs more than anything I already own, and that would represent my social class? Maybe it's not the dinners. Maybe it's where the cameras point.

[Tanyars5]

Long live the bloggers at JJP!