What happens when we put all the gay movement's marbles in one party's basket? We're about to find out.
The Human Rights Campaign has finally shed any semblance of staying non-partisan in the fight for gay civil rights. Leaders of the D.C.-based HRC told the Boston Globe in a story published last week that their new strategy is to "become a steady source of funds and grass-roots support for Democrats-more akin to a labor union than a single-issue activist group."
The "new HRC" isn't just belaboring the obvious-that the Democratic Party is clearly better on gay issues than the GOP. HRC's head honchos have gone much further, deciding that the fate of the movement lies inexorably with the fate of Democrats generally, which means throwing money and support wherever Dems say it's needed, even if it means pulling money out of actual pitched battles over our civil rights.
How has the Democrat-ization of HRC worked out so far? For one, HRC took money out of the fight last November to defeat ballot initiatives that ban gay marriage, even those that amended state constitutions. HRC chief Joe Solmonese told the Globe he was "more effective by focusing on candidates."
So HRC sank money instead into quirky priorities of the Democratic National Committee not even marginally relevant to gay rights. As a result, the Globe reported, HRC turned out to be the single largest donor in New Hampshire state Senate races. How exactly does that bring gay Americans closer to equality?
The most obvious danger of the new DNC-controlled HRC is putting all the gay movement's marbles in the Democratic Party basket, even though from Bill Clinton and John Kerry on down, the party has almost never taken a political risk for its gay constituents.
Democrats don't even deliver for organized labor, HRC's supposed new role model. HRC must be the only lobby in the group anywhere, and certainly the only civil rights organization, modeling itself after labor unions. We can all see how powerful they aren't, after sinking themselves into a one-party, no message strategy.
At this point, it's too soon to know whether HRC's blind faith in Democrats will bear fruit, and whether Solmonese will muster the courage to criticize his fellow partisans if they follow previous patterns.
Color me skeptical. Solmonese came to HRC from Emily's List, a women's rights group that chose to officially align itself with the Democratic Party. Clearly, Solmonese envisions something similar for the nation's richest gay rights group.
Unfortunately, people like Solmonese who are so committed to partisanship will forgive all sorts of abuses from their party under the guise of "taking one for the team." They will invariably accept excuse after excuse why now isn't the time for Democrats to expend political capital on the civil rights of gay people.
"What makes you politically powerful is money and membership," the Globe quotes Solmonese as saying. Notice that missing from that poli-sci lesson is anything about the message. In the Solmonese playbook, having a meaningful message just doesn't count. (Neither does Solmonese's claim about membership, since he admitted last year that HRC cooks its books, counting in perpetuity as "members" anyone who's ever given even a single dollar to the organization.) His laser-like focus on politics may be exactly what HRC needs, but in a political director, not a president.
The Solmonese partisan allegiance, along with his disregard for winning hearts and minds, is what's really behind the decision to divert money from ballot measures to backing Democrats. The vote on a number of those ballot measures was close, and one was defeated in Arizona, proving they're winnable. And losing has a serious cost, given the difficulty of re-amending a state constitution to once again permit marriage (and in many cases, even civil unions).
But that isn't the biggest blow to the movement from Solmonese's failure to keep his eyes on the prize, as MLK would say. (Can anyone imagine the Civil Rights Movement putting a political operative at the helm, much less suborning the dream of equality to one political party?) Unlike the countless, faceless races in which HRC spent gay rights money on somewhat-pro-gay Democrats, these ballot initiatives are about "our issues." They represent an important opportunity to engage the public on marriage, something our leaders always say we need to do more of but never seem to get around to doing.
In fact, HRC has wasted lots of money in the past on ballot measures, usually on ads that rather than explaining why we want to marry instead invoke bromides about "not writing discrimination into the constitution" or pointing out gay marriage can be banned other ways. It's the kind of message that tests well with focus groups but doesn't win elections, much less engage on the issue itself, reaching "the mushy middle" of the American public that is sympathetic but can't get over "the M word."
Rather than see HRC money was wasted because of how it was spent, Solmonese instead diverted crucial funds even further from the actual battleground. That's because the new HRC of Joe Solmonese has given up reaching those people, and instead has chosen the lobbyist end-run: sliding money through the backdoor to vie with labor unions for influence in the Democratic Party.
It's a big gamble and one that shows little faith in the power of the message of equality. (Remember the equals sign?) It's certainly no way to run a movement.
20 Comments for “The Democrat-ization of HRC”
posted by Carl on
The Democrats did take a political risk by voting against the Federal Marriage Amendment, even as a number of supposedly “moderate” Republicans like Tom Davis, Sue Kelly, etc. caved and voted for that divisive hate legislation again and again.
The problem with talking about how horrible Joe Solomonese is and how horrible HRC’s new direction is is that gay conservatives have been complaining about for years about everything HRC has said or done. It’s easier to complain than to work together or get results, and that’s often what gay conservatives do with these organizations, even as they chastise these organizations for not wanting to be bipartisan.
They have likely long stopped listening to these critical voices, because they know nothing is ever good enough.
posted by Bobby on
I think the folks at HRC are terrified of straight liberals being homophobic, so they do whatever they can to please their masters. We gay republicans on the other hand, are not afraid of homophobia. We have no masters. The GOP may not embrace us with open arms, but we flock there because our ideology does not depend on how gay friendly or unfriendly people may be.
I wonder how HRC is gonna feel when the homophobic muslims start taking positions of prominence and attacking gays in front of everyone. That’s already happening in London, when the ultra-leftist mayor Livingston has already been accused of Islamophobia after comfronting muslim homophobia.
Sucks to be a gay lefty, doesn’t it? You have no guns, you pay high taxes, you expect the government to do everything for you, and one day you find yourself betrayed by the forces you nurtured. I on the other hand will never be betrayed by anyone because my only master is my ideology and no one else.
posted by kittynboi on
“” You have no guns, you pay high taxes, you expect the government to do everything for you, and one day you find yourself betrayed by the forces you nurtured.””
Gay rightists have to pay the same taxes. Unless they want to go to jail.
posted by Jim Sherman on
Where to start? “which means throwing money and support wherever Dems say it?s needed”. This looks as good a spot as any. “… wherever Dems say it’s needed” Why would that be? why would the author assume that the HRC would be following orders in lock step as the Dems direct? First the Dems have enough problems organizing themslves let alone outside organizations. Second it shows pretty much contempt for the independence of the HRC leadership.
What was a jaw dropper for me and incredibly nieve was the comment “HRC turned out to be the single largest donor in New Hampshire state Senate races. How exactly does that bring gay Americans closer to equality? ” How does supporting a canidate that thinks like you do, get into and maintain a position of power bring you closer to achieving you goals? Insert your answer here!
posted by James on
I am a pro-life Democrat, like Henry Reid or Dennis Kucinich. I believe that all life–black or white, old or young, gay or straight–needs to be protected from conception until natural death. I am against the Iraq war and the death penalty.
I wish the Democratic party and the HRC were more strongly pro-life. I believe that once a genetic marker is found for homosexuality, the gay community will suddenly discover the pro-life movement. Once parents can choose to abort children which are going to be born gay, the gay community will suddenly start believing that life, even gay life, begins at conception and needs to be protected.
posted by Carl on
What I wonder if Crain realizes is how viciously homophobic some members of NH’s state legislature were in 2005 and 2006. Just Google “Tony Soltani” for more.
-You have no guns-
I don’t see any gay conservatives on these blogs talk about guns either. I actually do know some gay liberals who use guns.
posted by Steve S on
I say HOORAY for the HRC…now they don’t have to pretend to be bipartisan anymore. It was always a stretch for them anyway. Having lined up several GOP votes for them on several issues and then having them refuse to support these officials who risked the wrath of their constituents to help, I know what it’s like to get stabbed in the back by HRC. They have always held Republicans to tighter/more impossible standards than Democrats who have the same or worse records. Now they’ve officially gone the way of many interest groups –blacks and women come to mind– in sleeping exclusively with the Dems. and having to be satisfied with little or nothing for doing so.
posted by John on
Where were you indignant conservatves when the Bush administration aligned itself with Iran, Iran!, to oppose the monitoring status of an international gay rights group at the UN. Where were you last summer at a major meeting of conservatives attended by Gonzalez,on the dais no less,where gays were likened to the Anti-Christ amidst hearty applause?
posted by Herb Spencer on
“more akin to a labor union than a single-issue activist group.?
LOL! Coming straight from – or should I say right out of? – the horses’ mouths! Or is it out of the donkey’s hindquarters and onto HRC’s plate? Either way, it is a form of welcome relief, and those of us who’ve suffered through efforts to “partner with” HRC and its multistate minions can now rest easy knowing we’ll never have to break bread with those boorish little Bolshies again!
John, you’re not confusing that “fit of spite” with Hugo Chavez’s likening President Bush to Satan from the UN dais, are you?
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
At least the HRC is being honest now. Of course, being HRC honest about being a partisan is much like being honest about wiping thier anuses with their brains.
“Progressive” isn’t.
posted by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) on
“…Gay rightists have to pay the same taxes. “…
Yes, but we don’t enjoy it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
why would the author assume that the HRC would be following orders in lock step as the Dems direct?
Because HRC spent tens of millions of dollars in 2004 endorsing a candidate who as he himself admitted had “the same position” on gay equality as President Bush — whose position HRC called hateful, evil, homophobic, and awful.
Second it shows pretty much contempt for the independence of the HRC leadership.
I think the best example of how “independent” HRC’s leaders can be is in my favorite quote about Joe Solmonese, in which he defended giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to an FMA supporter:
Solmonese, who is also gay, contends that activists critical of the Tenenbaum endorsement are missing the ?bigger picture.?
Or see my example above, in which Cheryl Jacques, Hilary Rosen, Elizabeth Birch, and other members of the HRC screamed how “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” this was.
posted by wickedfire on
I think.. I think that
why would the author assume that the HRC would be following orders in lock step as the Dems direct?
Because HRC spent tens of millions of dollars in 2004 endorsing a candidate who as he himself admitted had “the same position” on gay equality as President Bush — whose position HRC called hateful, evil, homophobic, and awful.
I would have to agree with HRC….
posted by Mike in Houston on
This continues crain’s continued jihad against the HRC… one wonders who he dated there that dumped him.
Cooincidentally, a former publication that Crain ran into the ground — namely the Houston Voice — was lost because of his monomaniacal fixation with taking pot shots at the HRC.
posted by HDC on
HRC is an ineffective organization and by aligning themselves with the Democrats have only succeeded in *further* alienating independent-minded gay Americans.
No surprise…just business as usual for HRC.
posted by PCT on
Well said James – I don’t necessarily agree with you totally – I don’t want the Congress swooping in and messing with my own very personal end of life decisions – but it’s nice to get your opinion on something other than the dismal state of gay relationships.
Thanks
posted by Brian Miller on
The issue isn’t so much what HRC is *doing* — they’re a private organization and they can act as they wish.
The issue is more with what they’re saying — specifically, misleading the public by declaring themselves to be a non-partisan gay rights organization. HRC, NGLTF and the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund are all partisan Democratic Party organizations. They should drop the mendacious pretense of “non-partisanship” and communicate the reality — which is that they’re organizations interested in promoting gay rights through the Democratic Party.
All three organizations have funded Democratic candidates in recent elections who were often worse on gay issues than other individuals in the race — including Republicans, Greens, Libertarians and independents — and often including *incumbents* from those parties. The pretense of nonpartisanship is thus reprehensibly misleading and should be eliminated.
Once that’s done, some honest discussion of actual gay issues can take place in an honest forum, without HRC or NGLTF holding up their “neutral non-partisan” status to claim expertise or a broad base that really doesn’t exist.
posted by Brian Miller on
I wonder if Crain realizes is how viciously homophobic some members of NH’s state legislature were in 2005 and 2006.
This is true. Libertarian Steve Villiancourt — a state representative who registered as a Democrat (to get into the closed electoral system there) and then changed parties to Republican to survive a primary challenge from the left over his economics — was one of the most outspoken critics of the anti-gay antics in NH.
He slammed members of the GOP and Democrats who supported the anti-gay conclusions of the marriage commission (which he was on). He demanded sanctions against state representatives who attacked openly gay members of the assembly with homophobic slurs on the floor of that body. He brought to the floor a law legalizing gay marriage and debated it passionately (a majority of both Democrats and Republicans voted to keep that vote off the floor).
What was the “thanks” that HRC handed to him? They endorsed and funded his Democratic opponent — who is opposed to same-sex marriage but supports “civil unions.”
Some non-partisan fighting for gay rights’ allies, eh?
posted by Last Of The Independent Gays on
As most have been stating, at least the HRC is finally “coming out” about who they really are. My biggest complaint is that they have spent the VAST majority of their time/energy/resources on two issues that the general public is dead-set against and clearly not ready to handle (gays in the military and gay marriage), instead of spending the majority of time/energy/resources on issues that would help to unite gays and straights (and that polls have repeatedly shown most people would support today), like ending job and housing discrimination.
I know, I know . . . Some of you will be saying ” . . . well, the HRC does do that . . .” But, my response is for you to think about what could be accomplished if they diverted the resources away from the two vastly unpopular “hot button” issues to these issues? IMO, the answer is clear . . . We’d be much further along the road to true equality.
posted by Brian Miller on
My biggest complaint is that they have spent the VAST majority of their time/energy/resources on two issues that the general public is dead-set against and clearly not ready to handle (gays in the military and gay marriage)
That’s completely incorrect. Both causes were grassroots causes elevated to the front of the line not by HRC, but by grassroots gay people who had enough of self-appointed “experts” telling them what their priorities should be. The GITM issue was brought to the fore not by HRC but by SLDN (and the general public isn’t “dead-set” against it, it’s over 75% in favor of gays serving openly).
Gay marriage was brought forward by gay families who launched the Hawaii, Vermont and Massachusetts lawsuits (against the advice of the HRC board and Democrats, who viewed it as “unproductive” and “backlash inducing.”)
If anything, the success in prominence of those two initiatives, versus the HRC agenda that centers around “hate crimes” laws and ENDA, shows that the grass roots have firmly asserted control and the Democrats are going to have to do far, far better than they are today to even maintain the remotest pretense of being any “friend of the gays.”