I agree that this approach would be a far more effective long-term strategy:
Prior to the New Hampshire primary, the Boston-based gay newspaper Bay Windows-which circulates across New England-was approached by representatives of several Democratic candidates seeking an endorsement, editor Susan Ryan-Vollmar said.
Instead, Ryan-Vollmar wrote a biting column asserting that none of the front-runners-Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards-had shown enough courage on gay issues to deserve the customarily generous financial support of gay donors.
"They've merely settled on what the Democrats have staked out as a safe, consensus position, just far enough ahead of where the party was in 2004 to give a sense of progress but not so far as to threaten Middle America," Ryan-Vollmar wrote. "That's not leadership, it's poll-tested and party-approved pandering, pure and simple."
Rather than donating to any presidential candidate, gays and lesbians should give money to state and local candidates who support marriage rights, she wrote.
But it won't happen because too many LGBT inside-the-beltway lobbyists see themselves as Democrats targeting the lesbigay community on behalf of their party, with the hope of one day achieving their personal goal of a nice apparatchik position in a Democratic administration.
6 Comments for “Serving Two Masters”
posted by Jorge on
But it won’t happen because too many LGBT inside-the-beltway lobbyists see themselves as Democrats targeting the lesbigay community on behalf of their party, with the hope of one day achieving their personal goal of a nice apparatchik position in a Democratic administration.
They’ll listen by the 200th time. Keep trying.
posted by John M. on
Yes, well, there were quite a few Uncle Tom’s Cabin Republicans who did the same thing in 2000, and after a few nice words from people like Mary Matalin had hoped to get “a nice apparatchik position” with the Bush administration. Many of them, in fact did, and when the anti-gay marriage agenda swept the party they all talked about “working from within,” none of which amounted to crap.
Cuts both ways.
posted by Pat on
Good for Bay Windows, and excellent points by Ryan-Vollmer. Simply being better than Republicans on gay rights (even though obviously still true today) is no longer reason enough for the Democratic Party to deserve money from gay groups.
And minus the “Uncle Tom’s” I agree with John M. too. I’ve heard the “well, at least the Republicans are honest about their homophobia” line, and I don’t quite buy it.
posted by Avee on
It’s a catch-22. Virtually all gay political donations (and the $ figure is substantial) go to Democrats, so the GOP is of course non-responsive to gays, and the Democrats think they need only do the minimal (mostly rhetoric).
Yet any true advancement toward gay legal equalty is going to require support from both parties. The coutnry is still split nearly 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans (with some Democratic uptick due to Bush fatigue, which will quickly fade after the expected Clintonian restoration).
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
As a columnist at Bay Windows, I have enjoyed working with Susan Ryan-Vollmar. She stepped down as their editor last week to go to work for a foundation, and I will miss her.
That said, I don’t have as sweepingly harsh an assessment as Susan, because I think that Obama, notwithstanding his imperfections on gay issues (chiefly marriage), is a far better choice than Hillary Clinton and has far greater gifts as a leader. That is a non-gay-specific reason, but I think that his longstanding inclination to listen seriously to those who disagree with him will serve gay people better in the long run than the armed-camp atmosphere that would inevitably accompany a Clinton Restoration.
I agree with Susan, though, that the bulk of gay people’s political donations — at least to the extent they are intended to advance gay equality — should be at the state and local level.
posted by Brian Miller on
The Democratic Party will only change its homophobic ways after losing elections when gay people sit out or vote for a third party candidate.
They’ve taken LGBTQ support for granted — in fact, have demanded it — and need a couple of election cycles in the opposition to consider the price of talking the talk but not walking the walk.
Consider the literally hundreds of millions of dollars in LGBTQ political donations to Democrats since Bill Clinton took office in 1992. What do gay people have to show for those dollars and those votes?
Democrats got big fat campaign war chests, senior offices in government, and majorities in both Houses. Gay people were “rewarded” with DOMA, the military’s anti-gay policy, and John Kerry’s anti-gay campaigns in Missouri and his home state vis-a-vis marriage equality.
Einstein once said that insanity is trying the same thing over and over and hoping that it will yield different results. Richard’s embrace of Barack Obama — yet another slick-talking anti-gay politician who “feels our pain” — reminds me of the actions of himself and his compadres vis-a-vis Clinton in 1992. The same old thing, likely yielding the same old results.
I hope he (and queer voters) reconsider and start demanding that our votes and donations be earned by candidates who will fight for LGBTQ equality under the law, rather than expected by Democrat hacks who coyly hiss “what are you going to do, go somewhere else? Now pay up and vote, faggots!”