Kudos to the Washington Blade for editorializing on why gay fealty to one political party is not now, and never was, good strategy.
In a lawsuit, former Democratic National Committee gay outreach director Donald Hitchcock charges he was fired as director of the DNC's Gay & Lesbian Leadership Council in May 2006 after his domestic partner, Paul Yandura, wrote that "All progressives need to be asking how much has the DNC budgeted to counter the anti-gay ballot initiatives in the states. We also need to know why the DNC and our Democratic leaders continue to allow the Republicans to use our families and friends as pawns to win elections." DNC memos brought to light as a result of the suit reveal the extent to which the DNC expects gays to shut up and keep sending dollars.
Comments Blade Editor Kevin Naff:
it serves as a reminder of what happens when one party knows it can count on the support of a constituency group, no matter what. We have seen this problem manifest before. When Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, a Democrat who once publicly supported gay marriage, changed his position and invoked the Catholic sacraments following that state's high court ruling upholding a gay ban, our national advocacy groups were silent. It's a safe bet that if O'Malley were a Republican, the indignant press releases would have been flying and rallies would have been scheduled for Annapolis.
When Democrats like John Kerry and 2004 running mate John Edwards announce support for anti-gay state marriage amendments and gays line up dutifully behind them anyway, we teach the party that there are no repercussions for betraying us.
This doesn't mean gay voters should pull the lever for any of the Republicans now in the running. Rather, gay voters, donors and campaign staffers need to learn the art of the barter system: you give something, you get something. No one knows that concept better than the evangelical Christians.
"Free gay votes and dollars for Dems; nothing required" has for too long been the operating principle of major national (and some state) LGBT organizations.
24 Comments for “An Inconvenient Political Truth”
posted by PJ on
That is one thing I have to say for the GOP, they may not like us but at least they are honest about it. The DNC tells us that they stand behind us but then they do whatever it takes to get votes. This includes lying to us and telling us what they think we want to hear. If you ask me, there is nothing good about either party.
Although we are supposed to live in a country of equal opportunity, it is strange how those opportunities are only for certain people and those same people are the ones who complain about our special rights.
Hooray for political hypocrisy!
posted by Brian Miller on
Gay people have tried two of their three options.
Option A: Vote for Republicans. We see what that got us — 12 years of Reagan-Bush big government and anti-gay pogroms at a local, state and federal level.
Option B: Vote for Democrats. We see what that got us — Bill Clinton’s Defense of Marriage Act and Bill Clinton’s Anti-Gay Military statute (co-written as a “compromise” by Barney Frank).
Option C: Vote only for candidates who have earned your support with their policies and actions. Gay people have rarely tried this one.
Of course, it will require votes outside of old-party norms, but that’s far less of a challenge when you consider that the past 30 years of Democratic and Republican flip-flopping control has produced mostly anti-gay laws that are embraced and promoted by the leadership of both old parties.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
This one statement unravels the whole point.
This doesn’t mean gay voters should pull the lever for any of the Republicans now in the running.
So basically, gays are saying that there’s no way they would ever vote for a Republican. Got it.
So, given that…..
Rather, gay voters, donors and campaign staffers need to learn the art of the barter system: you give something, you get something.
Erma Bombeck once wrote wryly of a trip to a bazaar during which she picked up an item and asked, “How much?”
The man replied, “First price, $300. Second price, $80.”
She didn’t pay $300.
In this case, the Dems have asked for the gay community’s vote, and been told, “First price: do something. Second price: do nothing, but you’ll still get it anyway.”
And then finally:
No one knows that concept better than the evangelical Christians.
Indeed they do. But that’s because they know the first rule of buy, barter, and sell; sometimes you have to say no to an offer and walk away.
It’s because they are willing to walk away and because not doing their bidding carries consequences that they have power.
Naff talks a good game. But he’s decrying something that he himself shamelessly practices. The Dems know they have him like a puppet on a string, so they let him vent his spleen, and then order him to do their bidding.
posted by Brian Miller on
One reason why the Republicans have no candidates worth supporting is because their partisan puppets like ND-30 can be counted on to blindly support the GOP candidate regardless of his positions on gay issues.
So long as Republicans and Democrats continue to promote homophobes to the LGBT community and cynically attempt to manipulate the electorate with a “lesser of two evils” message, the problems will persist.
The gay vote will become important when gay people decide to reward the candidates who stand up for our rights — and make clear to the anti-gay candidates that they’ve lost our votes until they improve.
Once they lose a few elections, Democrats and Republicans alike will be forced to change, or be supplanted. But it requires gay people to start ignoring the old Tweedledee/Tweedledum team-sports political arguments that form the core of empty rah-rah statements ala ND-30.
posted by Richard on
(1) It is never a great career move to attack your employer and then wonder why you got fired.
(2) Until we have real campaign law reform, then we basically have only two viable choices; DNC or RNC.
(3) LGBT people have never — as far as record shows — only supported one of the two major parties, but it is clear that only of these parties entertains the notion of gay rights.
posted by Bobby on
“(1) It is never a great career move to attack your employer and then wonder why you got fired.”
—So democrats aren’t allowed to question their bosses? They’re supposed to be good plantation slaves, just following orders?
For the republicans to fire you, you have to do something obscene like having sex in a public bathroom or hiring a hooker. But I guess in the democratic world, question the party once and you’re persona non gratta. Sad, I feel sorry for him, I once was a liberal that got betrayed by my own people. Never again.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The gay vote will become important when gay people decide to reward the candidates who stand up for our rights — and make clear to the anti-gay candidates that they’ve lost our votes until they improve.
Which is why, of course, the Democrat front group “Outright Libertarians” has been so silent on Mark Leno’s burying his marriage bill at the request of Democrat Party leaders so as not to embarrass them in this election year.
That is, of course, based on the standard of proof espoused by Brian Miller that uses the presence or absence of blogposts to draw complete judgments.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass rants about how gays support Democrats regardless of their actions when he himself unequivocably supports Repuglicans regardless of their actions. And Republicans are on the whole highly antagonistic to gays in comparison to Democrats as a whole. Give it up Northdallass, few gays are as stupid as you and you’re not going to convince gays to vote Republican against their own interests.
posted by Richard on
Bobby;
I said: It is never a great career move to attack your employer and then wonder why you got fired.”
Your reply: So democrats aren’t allowed to question their bosses?
No, when you job involves promoting a party or business, it probably not a great career move to trash talk that party or business.
You said: For the republicans to fire you,
As far as I know, their are not any openly LGBT Republicans in a similar situation as this man.
The two examples you cite, I believe, where elected officials and thus get fired by voters and not their party.
posted by Bobby on
“No, when you job involves promoting a party or business, it probably not a great career move to trash talk that party or business.”
—Part of working in politics involves brainstorming sessions about what positions to take, what mistakes are being made, what must be done.
The irony here is that Hitchcock got fired not for what he said, but what his domestic partner wrote. This is a dangerous precedent, would you like to be fired because you have a controversial boyfriend? Even with at-will employment, we should not be judged for the behavior of our partners. Furthermore, if the democrats claim to be the party of tolerance and inclusiveness, perhaps they can start showing it with their own kind.
“As far as I know, their are not any openly LGBT Republicans in a similar situation as this man.”
—The Log Cabin Republicans aren’t banned from party meetings. The GOP also has pro-choice republicans, and many other divisive groups. The difference is that the GOP doesn’t put a test on their members. That’s why a liberal scumbag like Michael Bloomberg was allowed to join the GOP.
Personally, I think we should have a test, but I doubt a republican has even been fired for questioning party policy. The GOP tolerates dissent within the ranks as long as the majority rules.
posted by Richard on
“Part of working in politics involves brainstorming sessions..”
Agreed. But this was not something said during a brainstorming session. For better or for the worse, when an employee is critical of an employer, its probably not going to be a good career move.
Do I think it was a wise decision? No, but the employer-employee dynamic is not unique to Democrats or Republicans. Those who celebrate ‘at-will’ employment have little to complain about.
You said: The Log Cabin Republicans aren’t banned from party meetings.
Well, their have been efforts to ban them from certain events and how many openly LGBT Republicans have a similar job as the gay Democrats?
You said: The GOP also has pro-choice republicans, and many other divisive groups.
Yeah, and you will find many different types of Democrats. The notion that one party is more ‘tolerant’ of dissent then another is simply silly.
You said: That’s why a liberal scumbag like Michael Bloomberg was allowed to join the GOP.
Actually, a political party has virtually no say in what party a citizen chooses to affiliate with.
He ran in the Democratic Party primary, lost and ran in the GOP primary. Now he is an Independent.
You said: I doubt a republican has even been fired for questioning party policy.
Again, their is no openly LGBT person employed within the GOP who works on selling the party to gay voters.
posted by Richard on
Remember, that it is almost impossible for an American party to ‘deny’ membership to a citizen.
In States with party registration, no party can deny membership to any citizen.
The most they can do is try and keep them out of the primary race, if they want to be a candidate.
posted by Brian Miller on
Which is why, of course, the Democrat front group “Outright Libertarians” has been so silent on Mark Leno’s burying his marriage bill at the request of Democrat Party leaders so as not to embarrass them in this election year.
What are you blathering about?
The bill was passed and sent to the governor for signature, two years in a row (including this year).
Your Republican Party warned that it would lead to people marrying their dogs, your Log Cabin Republicans were utterly silent during the entire campaign, and lots of your party’s LGBT members just quit and became independents or Libertarians over it.
Not only was the GOP LGBT movement completely absent from the debate, but you yourself refused to get involved with it and then claimed that you did so in order to “preserve the will of the people.”
Now you’re claiming the bill has been “buried” despite having been passed two years in a row — including late last year — and being vetoed by your own governor, in part due to useful self-loathing sorts like you lobbying against it.
Is there any sort of desperate lie you will not try in order to keep your unprincipled, corrupt, and hateful band of big-government crooks in power so that you can retain your place on their lap as their little closeted pit-poodle?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The bill was passed and sent to the governor for signature, two years in a row (including this year).
Um, no it wasn’t.
It was pushed in 2005, vanished in 2006, pushed again in 2007, and has vanished again for 2008, with Mark Leno stating that he will not introduce one this year.
Why? Because, like 2006, 2008 is an election year, and the Democrat massas want gays to be silent, stay in the closet, and keep signing checks — especially Democrat gay groups like Outright Libertarians that have stated publicly their goal is to abolish marriage completely and who are pushing gay marriage as a means to that end.
posted by Brian Miller on
I was going to reply and point out the numerous logical fallacies, factual inaccuracies, and laughable contentions in your post.
Then I realized that I’d be “debating” with someone who has no active (or even passive) engagement in California’s LGBT multi-partisan politics, who is completely unknown in the local and state LGBT community, who has never shown up for any honest debate in person in the local community, who likely doesn’t even live in California, and who has so little confidence in his pronouncements that he posts under a pseudonym (which is admitted understandable, since if I was posting such embarrassing dreck, I’d not want people to know my name either).
So I figured “why bother?”
Let the facts speak for themselves.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Which is a very useful tactic, Mr. Miller, if you actually present facts or logic.
But as is usual, mine are the posts with references and links, and yours are the post with nothing but personal attacks based solely on your speculations, which are completely contradictory.
To whit, your claim:
who is completely unknown in the local and state LGBT community, who has never shown up for any honest debate in person in the local community
Stated simply: you insist that I am “completely unknown” and have “never shown up”…..but then you admit, in your blast against my using a pseudonym, that you don’t even know who I am.
If you don’t even know who I am, how would you have any idea if I was there or not?
Meanwhile, just for giggles, let us hear your story about how if, as you claim, I don’t even live in the state, that I have so darn many pictures from it posted on my blog.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
LOL, Northdallas you’re a joke “I have a lot of pictures from the state, that proves I live there” – what a laugh. Puhleeze, you’re a notorious liar and everything you say is questionable.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Yawn.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, don’t forget my response to Jim –
Jim, I stated at the outset that I don?t know if Hutcherson is a self-laothing gay. I never as you said, ?based an accusation against one individual on one lone study?.
That?s quite an assertion you?ve made – that my statement that erections are caused by sexual arousal is extraordinary while your statement that its equally plausible that erections are caused by anxiety is non-extraordinary. The vast majority of men would disagree with you.
Ask yourself and some of your male friends a few questions. How often are your erections due to sexual arousal? How often are your erections due to anxiety? Think of all the times you?ve been anxious, when a spouse is overdue, when its tax time, when you were in a tense interview, when you were worried about the outcome of a medical test – how often did you get erections when you were anxious?
You know the answer to this one Jim. You said ?And as I said, sexual assault counselors across the country have also reported physiological resonses to extreme anxiety.?.
You haven?t made that case Jim. The physiological responses were due to sexual stimulation – there?s no proof that they were caused by anxiety, an extraoridinary claim.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Study shows that Bush administration lied hundreds of times about Iraq in an attempt to lead the country to war under false pretenses
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Northdallass, don’t forget my response to Jim
Actually, that entire thread is quite worth a read for anyone who wishes to see your methods.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
By all means. Unlike you I’ve got nothing to hide.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Apparently you do, or you would have posted the link yourself.
Again, Randi, your claim is that you never do anything wrong, and that Jim Burroway is an unfair, awful, evil person who had no reason whatsoever to ban you.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
That thread has nothing to do with this thread, there was no reason for me to post it, or for you to either for that matter, other than to change the subject from your laughable claim that you’re having a lot of pictures of California proves you live there.
And you lie – I never claimed I never do anything wrong and I never said Jim Burroway is unfair, awful, or evil. Its you who said you are his “exact ideolocal opposite” implying there is something drastically wrong with him. Stop being a coward, explain what that is.