Author Gore Vidal, who enjoys provocation, once said that God is a convenient fiction. The same can be said of "gay community." Despite the common tendency to generalize based on gay urban ghettos and prominent liberal voices, the LGBT population is distributed across all neighborhoods, professions, avocations, income levels and viewpoints.
LGBT people are on various sides of disputes over immigration, gun control, tax reform, smoking bans, gangsta rap - and presidential elections. Given the multiplicity of directions in which we are going, it is implausible to describe a particular position as "the gay position." Like the population as a whole, we are scattered across affinity groups and risk groups and political philosophies.
It is easy to lose sight of this as another presidential race heats up and various gay politicos line up behind different candidates. Once you have jumped on board a particular campaign, your job is to emphasize how wonderful your candidate is and how terrible the others are. But with no one other than comic-relief candidate Dennis Kucinich supporting civil marriage equality, and no great courage visible among generally gay-friendly candidates on issues such as gays in the military, there is no slam-dunk gay case to be made for one candidate. Non-gay considerations, therefore, are likely to be the deciding factors.
Last week, Republican front-runner Rudy Giuliani, who had previously taken a position similar to Hillary Clinton's supporting civil unions but not same-sex marriage, pulled a Mitt Romney. Reacting to New Hampshire's civil unions bill, Giuliani's campaign told the New York Sun, "In this specific case the law states same-sex civil unions are the equivalent of marriage and recognizes same-sex unions from outside states. This goes too far and Mayor Giuliani does not support it."
If Giuliani prevails in the Republican race, his continued support for the lesser alternative of domestic partnerships might still leave some opening for gay Republicans to push their party in a more gay-accepting direction. But a stronger impression from his stunning flip-flop is a sober reminder of the futility of expecting leadership from politicians on controversial social issues. The GOP will not summon what its greatest standard-bearer called the better angels of its nature until the party's voters repudiate the fanatics to whom Giuliani and Romney are pandering.
Senator Clinton's vague promise of access to a second Clinton White House does not bowl me over any more than her barren slogan, "In it to win it," but she deserves credit for being the only candidate from either major party who responded to the Human Rights Campaign's invitation to meet. And her strong performance in the April 26 Democratic candidates' debate reinforces perceptions that she is the one to beat.
Barack Obama's inspiring delivery and sophisticated responses, coupled with his strong early fundraising, suggest that he has staying power. John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd all performed credibly on April 26, with Senators Biden and Dodd serving a useful purpose just by lending their experienced perspectives to the discussion. In a pleasant departure from the general rhetorical caution, Dodd, expressing support for civil unions, speculated that his young daughters could turn out to be lesbians. In general, the hesitance of the major candidates to address LGBT concerns shows how much work we have left to do.
What common cause can we find in the campaign free-for-all? If you are a Democrat, you may be willing to settle for any of the Democratic candidates, but that leaves out the roughly one-fourth of gay exit-poll responders who vote for Republicans. Frustrating though it may be, it makes no sense to talk of a single, cohesive LGBT movement once it sinks in that our diversity is less a value to be celebrated than a reality to be faced.
Sometimes we can best view people far from us on the political landscape as laboring in another part of the vineyard. But when that metaphor fails - when others appear from our vantage point to be pulling up the vines - then, by recognizing that we cannot police beliefs, we can perhaps make our peace with the fact that all of us are part of the social ferment which over time has led to greater opportunities and freedom.
Election decisions are easier if you use litmus tests. If you refuse to vote for any candidate who does not support marriage equality, you can give up after Kucinich loses. But for those of us intent upon making the best available choice, the presence of multiple gay-friendly candidates is more significant than their imperfections. And having a visible gay presence in multiple campaigns is more important than collectively agreeing on a candidate. It shows that we are an integral part of the body politic, which (at least for this assimilationist) is a victory in itself.
8 Comments for “Crosscurrents in 2008”
posted by KipEsquire on
Clinton — and HRC — deserve exactly zero “credit” for their despicable back-alley meeting. How come it wasn’t publicized, her campaign made no mention of it and it appears nowhere on her website?
“I’ll meet you, but only in silent secrecy” is hardly a position that deserves “credit.”
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Kip,
As Bay Windows reported on March 15, “Solmonese told Bay Windows that invitations were extended to all of the declared Democratic presidential candidates as well as Republican candidates Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain. Only Clinton accepted. He also noted that Democratic candidate and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson will speak at the Los Angeles HRC dinner later this month.”
Calling that “despicable” is both ill-informed and over-the-top. I said she deserved credit, not that she deserved to be elected. I don’t particularly like Hillary and never have, but I believe in giving both credit and criticism where due. I commented in my article about the general cautiousness among the candidates on gay issues, and about the futility of expecting leadership from politicians on controversial social issues. (I did not say just GOP politicians, though the latter point was made in the context of comments about Giuliani’s flip-flop.) Politicians will progress on gay issues to the extent that we have prepared the way for them to do. There is no reason to think that Hillary will be any better than her husband in this regard, and I specifically stated that I was not bowled over by her promise of access to a Clinton White House. So no serious and honest reader can read my article to be a bit of fawning over Hillary. I am tired of the all-or-nothing, they’re-saints-or-devils way of thinking about politicians. It’s self-indulgent and unrealistic. She is what she is. She may well be our next president. That requires neither despising her nor kissing her behind.
Incidentally, I will be astonished if there is not a stream of anti-HRC invective at this point, but I am tired of that as well. I do not give them my money, but I have better things to do with my time and energy than attack them. One thing I always give them credit for is their consistent strong leadership over the past dozen years in defending gay people in D.C. from homophobes in Congress who have regularly used Congress’ power over D.C. to add anti-gay riders to our annual appropriations bill. It is a small thing in the grand scheme of things, and I am not impressed by their overall priorities nor by the way they measure incumbents for their congressional scorecard, but that doesn’t stop me from giving them credit where due. If you don’t like a particular organization, support another one. Criticism is not only fine, it is a necessary part of the give-and-take of an inevitably non-centralized and messy “movement.” But the endless vilification of HRC is simply unproductive. And in this case, they insist they did not only invite Clinton, and I have no reason to call them liars.
posted by Brian Miller on
I agree with Kip — you’re extending an awful lot of credit to people who are the LGBT equivalent of George Wallace.
Progress, versus the 1990s? Perhaps. But I don’t see it. I still see a field of Democratic candidates who haven’t earned the votes of LGBT people — and who continue the original Clintonian tack of “talk a good game, and then tuck tail and run. . . or even pass anti-gay laws. . . when the going gets slightly tough.”
But a stronger impression from his stunning flip-flop is a sober reminder of the futility of expecting leadership from politicians on controversial social issues.
It also underscores the futility of so-called “strategic voting.” If a politician’s positions are malleable based on pressure, and so-called “gay friendly” candidates can become anti-gay in the blink of an eye — ala Bill Clinton, Guiliani, and Mitt Romney — then the real strategic vote is for the candidate on the ballot, regardless of party, who stands firm on gay issues.
Make politicians earn your vote.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
The question is not whether to vote strategically or not, the question is which strategy you choose. The fact that I believe in choosing the best available candidate (and I am not a single-issue voter) does not mean that I stop there. Politicians will follow where we lead, to the extent that our organizing and advoacacy are successful. Taking an all-or-nothing approach to politicians because they blow with the wind (and they are not all as bad as that, it is merely an occupational hazard) is no more productive than selling ourselves to them too cheaply. To get where we want, we must start where we are, with our eyes open. If you do not expect too much of a politician, you are unlikely to be disappointed.
I am not surprised, Brian, that you consider the paltry credit I offered to be too much, but that says more about you than about me.
posted by Brian Miller on
Politicians will follow where we lead, to the extent that our organizing and advoacacy are successful
They’ll follow until the campaign check is cashed, anyway.
I am not surprised, Brian, that you consider the paltry credit I offered to be too much, but that says more about you than about me.
Actually, I believe it says nothing about either of us. I simply lack your compulsion to simplify disagreements over politics into “personality insights.” Not only are the majority of those “insights” incorrect, but they’re also completely irrelevant to the issues at hand.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
I don’t know what “personality insights” you are talking about. I don’t recall offering personality insights about Clinton; I have made observations about her and others based on their behavior. I would say that character is relevant to the choice among presidential contenders, not personality.
Your attempt at another clever dismissive comment about campaign checks implies that anyone who does not share your total dismissiveness is naive. You are trivializing the discussion with your endless sneering. I specifically said we have to proceed with our eyes open. I certainly did not say that effective organizing consists merely of giving politicians money based solely on promises and then declaring victory without paying attention to what the politicians actually do. Organizing voters to wield power (not all power or no power, kindly stop the either/or nonsense) is of course a lot harder than that. But the numbers in support of measures for which gay advocates have been organizing have improved at the state and national level, just as the pro-gay numbers in many initiative battles have improved even when our side has lost. The recent passage of the hate crime bill by the House illustrates this, aside from one’s position on the subject (and many of us here are skeptical about such legislation).
posted by Brian Miller on
I don’t know what “personality insights” you are talking about.
Oh, come Richard, you know full well I was referring to this:
that says more about you than about me.
Your attempt at another clever dismissive comment about campaign checks implies that anyone who does not share your total dismissiveness is naive.
I’m not dismissive in the slightest. I’m quite partisan, as you’re aware. I simply believe that we need to try a different strategy, rather than the “support the Democrats yet again and hope it will be different this time” strategy that has become nauseatingly ubiquitous in the gay press.
I’m quite aware that a majority of gay people will probably support Mrs. Clinton should she become the Democratic nominee — I’m simply becoming more aggressive in noting what a failed strategy that is becoming. Inevitably, Mrs. Clinton will disappoint, and people will say “what are we to do now?”
I have some suggestions — which are, oddly enough, dismissed by you! 😉
the numbers in support of measures for which gay advocates have been organizing have improved at the state and national level
For *some* issues, perhaps. Then again, the priorities of “gay advocates” versus everyday gay people are quite different. . . and the delta is growing every day.
For instance, recent surveys of LGBT families across the country show that ENDA and “hate crimes” aren’t even in the top 5 “gay-specific concerns” for the average gay person.
the pro-gay numbers in many initiative battles have improved even when our side has lost
And that’s largely as a result of grassroots activism, not activism by the big gay groups pushing largely symbolic feel-good initiatives like ENDA. And once again, Democrats have been nowhere to be found in these crucial battles.
Howard Dean fired his gay outreach director when the director and his partner noted the utterly pathetic expenditures that the DNC made towards fighting these anti-gay laws — less than 1% of the contributions made to the DNC by gay people.
Overall, the Democrats continue to fail. That we as gay activists from across the political landscape are making progress in no way exonerates the Hillarys and Baracks of the world from their own dismal records.
If someone wants my support, he or she has to lead. If he or she is willing to follow “after it’s been made safe,” that’s an entirely different ball game and one that LGBT activists shouldn’t be willing to reward with accolades and press coverage. After all, there’s no courage in the easy path.
posted by Jorge on
It’s a little frustrating to me that the stakes for this election when it comes to gay issues seem to be so small, because I think they are pretty important. On the other hand I feel things are getting a little better.
I do not think it will make much of a difference who is elected when it comes to gay issues. If it does I can only guess who’s the best candidate on gay issues based on what I can tell about their character and the respect with which they treat people who are not important to their election.
What the candidates say about gay issues is a little misleading because gay rights politics and lobbying has more effect on who gets elected or endorsed than what politicians actually do when they’re elected. Democrats have to play a little nice with gays and Republicans have to play a little distant during campaigning, and they’ll do what they have to do to get elected. So there’s not a lot of integrity around when it comes to candidates and gay issues. But once in office the politicians get to do what they want. I have to guess at what that will be.
So for these reasons I do not consider Hillary’s speaking engagement with the HRC to be important at all, especially in cross-party comparisons. She has a long record, though.