In the Bay Area Reporter, Bob Roehr pens an excellent account of how the Gill Action Fund is getting it right. Set up by Denver gay entrepreneur and philanthropist Tim Gill to support results-oriented gay activism on the local level, that's just what the fund is doing.
Ted Trimpa, who advises the fund, and Rodger McFarlane, executive director of the Gill Foundation, shared their insights with Roehr, who reported:
The foundation and action fund also have learned to play both sides of the political aisle. "Part of Tim's giving strategy on the Republican side has been, let's help Republicans take their party back, rather than change them into Democrats. There are reasons they are Republican, and we have to respect that," said Trimpa.
McFarlane adds in a conspiratorial whisper, "And many of us happen to agree" with some of those reasons.
That alone gives you a clue of why the foundation has been successful. As Roehr continues:
McFarlane has joined the growing chorus of those within the LGBT community calling for "actual legislative wins," and accountability. "In the past it was we've gotta elect a Democrat, we've gotta elect a Democrat. And the Democrats haven't done very well, nor have they responded to our adversaries."
"I think they're just scared of our issues. They're stuck [back] 10 years ago and think this is a negative, when in fact, if you look at the data and if you get on the offensive, it is not a negative," McFarlane said.
"Tim has said, passing money through the Democratic Party and letting someone speak for us has not worked. We always end up as the piece that is negotiable-we always fall off the end. Bill Clinton would make speeches that would inspire you to walk across the desert, and then every time we came to getting something out of committee or actually voting on something, we were the ones that were cut," McFarlane added.
And here's another "on the money" quote:
The pair criticizes much past political spending for piddling away money to support "friends" who are going to win anyway; many of whom may vote the right way but do not exercise leadership on LGBT issues. Trimpa said money has to be concentrated for maximum impact, both "to punish the evil," and "to create an environment where there is reward for people who actually lead, who take those risks."
Can't argue with that.
--Stephen H. Miller
5 Comments for “Pragmatism, Not Partisanship.”
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Except that the people who actually lead aren’t getting the money — Republicans and Democrats are. And Republicans and Democrats never lead — to be a partisan of the old parties is to be a de-facto follower on every issue of import, including gay rights.
posted by Ed Brown on
Until we have real election law reform in America, their is not going to be any viable alternative to the two major politicla parties.
The reality is that when Democrats are in power things tend to (a) stay the same or (b) get better. When Republicans are in power things tend to (a) go down the cr*p hill or (b) go down the cr*p hill.
The “moderate” Republicans let the right-wing take over at the federal level in 1980 and have not demonstrated that they have any balls since.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I don’t agree.
Libertarians are starting to go around, under and above the blockades put in the way. Michael Badnarik’s congressional race being a good example — a Libertarian candidate is the best-funded in a major congressional race and now neck-in-neck for the lead. And that’s with just $200,000 in funding — and Michael Badnarik is an undeniably pro-gay politician who was the most outspoken pro-gay voice in the last presidential election.
Now that’s a significant voice and opportunity for change for just $200,000. Repeat it nine other times in close “swing” districts with large groups of libertarian voters, angry independents and vulnerable GOPers or Democrats, and you suddenly have 10 articulate, independent, principled and unquestionably pro-gay legislators as a bloc in the House.
Now, consider that’s about $2 million dollars — and that the GLAAD annual budget is about four times that amount. Which has greater potential impact on gay rights — a strong, principled pro-gay Libertarian lobby in the House, to serve as a swing vote on key areas of import, or yet another GLAAD gala award ceremony with Cher as emcee?
posted by Ed Brown on
“Libertarians are starting to go around, under and above the blockades put in the way.”
Again, until we have real campaign law reform, at least fair and equitable ballot access laws then no third political party has got a chance at doing much at the federal level.
“who was the most outspoken pro-gay voice in the last presidential election.”
I do not recall him saying much about the issue, beyond what Nader or the Greens might have said.
GLAAD is a media watchdog group, not a third political party so you comparision does not work. They have done a tremendous amount of good work in media relations and visibility.
BTW, the one “libertarian” in Congress is the anti-gay Ron Paul.
posted by Ed Brown on
Remember simply being an independent or third party candidate and getting the on election ballot is oftimes ridicusly difficult and expensive.