Jamie Kirchick takes a look at the legacy of Matt Foreman, the departing head of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, and explains why "NGLTF is redundant at best and counterproductive at worst." Kirchick observes:
There is, of course, nothing inconsistent with being gay and liberal - the same can be said of being gay and conservative, but that's a point neither NGLTF nor its ideological allies would ever concede - yet the group's crucial error is the conflation of liberalism with the very notion of gay rights itself. ...
NGLTF peddles a pernicious discourse purporting that the gay people who oppose their agenda are rich white men suffering from false consciousness.
It's a chord that the gay left strikes endlessly whenever its approach is challenged (and often in comments by our critics), which serves to derail any debate about actual ideas and strategy.
(And for the record, IGF's contributing writers are predominantly academics, think-tankers and gay/small-publication columnists-not exactly swimming in wealth.)
8 Comments for “Left Foot First”
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
It will be no big surprise that I agree with Jamie, since I have been making similar criticisms of NGLTF and other gay leftists for a long time.
I will say one thing for Matt Foreman: he has always been personally gracious toward me, notwithstanding our strong and extensive disagreements. He has always sought to keep an open door with me as a local activist, which I appreciate. Unfortunately, the ideological gulf between us is pretty hard to bridge. I agreed with him more when he was in charge of Empire State Pride Agenda, but of course he has since expressed regret for having supported New York’s gay-only non-discrimination bill.
Steve Miller wrote: “(And for the record, IGF’s contributing writers are predominantly academics, think-tankers and gay/small-publication columnists?not exactly swimming in wealth.)”
Yes. When I run across the “rich gay white men” meme, as in the recent rant by National Center for Transgender Equality board chair Meredith Bacon, I wonder where is my trust fund, where is my veranda under the magnolias, and where are my servants. I also wonder, given how selfish and insular I allegedly am as a white male, why I have been so energetic in seeking justice on behalf of (for instance) a black transgendered woman. But of course, for True Believers, the facts can never be allowed to count. In this regard I found Matt Foreman to be more decent than some of his followers, but he chose to ride atop the Task Force’s leftist corporate culture for five years.
One silver lining of the Task Force’s embrace of the “all oppressions are interconnected” dogma is that, by refusing to focus on gay issues, they have been less effective. Or would you prefer that leftists be more effective?
posted by Richard on
(1) The NGLTF is a progressive LGBT interest group. People who disagree with its agenda or tactics are more free to start up their own organization.
(2) Their are certainly LGBT conservative who argue that LGBT people ouaught to support the political right, and employ all sorts of underhanded arguments against anyone who dissents.
(3) Most, not all, of the LGBT GOP/conservatives I have known over the decades have been white, and come from wealthy or upper-middle class families.
If you are a University professor or work with a successful thinktank, then you are ,at least, probably part of the middle class. Possibly some of the highest paid people within a community.
posted by Avee on
Richard (not Rosendall), if you read Jamie’s article, he clearly makes the point that it’s fine that there are gay progressive and gay conservative groups; he’s critical of NGLTF presenting itself as the spokespeople for the entire community (and suggesting that this is a role only progressives can have).
But thank you for demonstrating just how engrained the whole Marxist “class interest” knee-jerk worldview is among our gay progressive class (who are probably far richer — with many trust fund babies — than working-class gay conservatives.
posted by Bobby on
And who pays for all the expenses of those gay groups? Rich white gay men. Who goes to their $1000 a plate fundraisers? Rich white gay men. Who writes groundbreaking TV shows like Queer As Folk that help the cause? RWGM. And who gets the blame when anything goes wrong? RWGM.
So let’s try to give RWGM’s a break, come on, people.
posted by Brian Miller on
And who pays for all the expenses of those gay groups? Rich white gay men. Who goes to their $1000 a plate fundraisers? Rich white gay men. Who writes groundbreaking TV shows like Queer As Folk that help the cause? RWGM. And who gets the blame when anything goes wrong? RWGM.
Kinda sorta true. I do find it amusing when a well-monied political insider in Manhattan, DuPont Circle or WeHo deigns to explain to me “how things are” for “the gays.”
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Full disclosure: I live two blocks from Dupont Circle, but I am neither well-monied nor do I purport to explain to Brian “how things are” for “the gays.” I merely offer my opinions and analysis, and some editors choose to publish them.
As to the other Richard’s comment that “People who disagree with its agenda or tactics are more free to start up their own organization” — um, they did. I note, for example, that the much-maligned HRC was on the winning side of a vote last fall in the U.S. House of Representatives on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, while a coalition of over 300 groups organized by NGLTF was unable to change more than a handful of votes. But I suspect Richard knows this. Sorry, but public advocacy groups are subject to public criticism.
posted by Richard on
I was commenting less of Jamie’s article and more on the general conservative criticism that gets launched against the NGLTF.
I do not believe that they claim to speak for the entire LGBT community. They do speak for a significant part of the community (i.e. progressives, people of color) and will continue to do so unless a compaditble alternative comes forth.
Personally, I tend to avoid giving money to any national LGBT groups. I prefer to help out with local and regional groups.
LGBT conservatives/Republicans represent a rather small (20%-ish)part of the community. Independents/minor party supporters are even smaller (5%).
If you wonder why most LGBT people consider themselves to be center-left or progressive, and thus tend to create similar orgnaizations you will not get far by dismissing their concerns as ‘Marxist’.
I have not seen any credible study on the income levels of LGBT people based on their politics.
Most of the LGBT “trust fund babies” I have known over the decades have been Republicans.
Most of the LGBT people I have known over the decades who are poor, working or middle class have been Democrats.
I have known only a few ‘liberal’ trust fund babies, most of whom were actually Green Party and never met a Libertarian who was not part of the well born and well fed.
posted by Richardf on
Richard;
I have some quite a bit of work in the field of lobbying and public policy development.
The NGLTF is a multi-issued progressive LGBT group. If you want to focus on narrower issues or from the other side of the political aisle, NGLTF is probably not for you.
Yet, they do alot of important work and for decades they were the only major group in America that dealt with gay rights advocacy and training in every state.
The Human Rights Campaign is more a of centrist interest group, focuses on fewer issues and mainly works on federal lobbying.
All important tools to try and advance federal bills. The HRC has never been great at dealing with local/state legislation, beyond helping out with networking and training.
The HRC more of the ‘adult’ while the NGLTF is more of the idealist young college freshman. Both play important roles.
I am not opposed to criticism of interest groups. I am not a member of either group and have many good and bad things to say about them (and the LCR, LavGrp, OutLibs, etc.)
I just get tired of LGBT people sitting on their rear end and complaing, especially for no other reason then to trade shallow partisan jabs.