I'll go further than David in endorsing the "compromise" on Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It would be a huge and necessary step toward the permanent end of DADT. It's a conditional repeal, restoring the status quo ante 1993 under which presidents had sole authority to set military personnel policy toward gays and lesbians. But it would wipe out the statutory basis for the exclusion of gays. President Obama would surely exercise his authority to end the ban. And while a future president could in theory reinstate it, that's extremely unlikely in fact.
The problem is that we may not get this conditional repeal. Congress still has to vote for it. The Obama administration was dragged kicking and screaming into acquiescence. The letter from budget director Peter Orszag on behalf of the administration is about as non-committal and unenthusiastic as a message of "support" could be. The president and the White House are exercising no leadership, which is what may be needed to get this through even this heavily Democratic Congress this year. And if it doesn't get through this year, it isn't likely to happen anytime soon.
5 Comments for “Nice Compromise If You Can Get It”
posted by Jorge on
President Obama would surely exercise his authority to end the ban.
I think it is a mistake to take this for granted. President Obama has a demonstrated record of dragging his feet when it comes to fulfilling his gay rights campaign promises, including repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, in both spirit and letter.
If Obama does not believe that the gay community’s support in 2012 is conditional upon him exercising his discretion to end DADT, he’s not going to do it.
posted by RWG on
“President Obama would surely exercise his authority to end the ban.”
Oh, really? What exactly makes you so certain of that? Up to now, Barack Obama has treated the LGBT population of the United States as the skunk at his garden party. He has shown us nothing that would support your rosy expectation. Put down the Kool-Aid and open your eyes.
posted by Bobby on
I hate to defend Obama, but if he ends DADT by executive order he’ll end up looking like a dictator. So he’s better off letting the military have their say, do their studies, interview servicemen, and when DADT is lifted it won’t seem like a dictatorial decision but a true democratic process.
And by the way, this guy has never served in the military, he hasn’t even served in the national guard, I don’t think he’s ever gone hunting, or even shot a gun. He may be the commander in chief, but he can’t just impose his will on the military.
In fact, when people join the military they swear to protect the United States and the constitution. Their allegiance isn’t to the president but to the country, I mean, a president can tell you “go ahead and invade this country” but he’s not gonna tell you which guns to use, which bombs to throw, and which units to send.
posted by Jorge on
You are mistaken, Bobby. The President is as powerful as the King, only for four years at a time. It’s all right there in United States v. Nixon. When the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.
When the tortoise that is the US government sleeps at the beginning of the race, it doesn’t get to say it’s losing because it’s not a hare.
posted by Tom on
That’s true in part, Bobby.
The President is Commander-in-Chief, but his orders must be lawful. A footnote from the Nixon era is an example. During the last hours of the Nixon Presidency, the military underwent a subtle shift in the line of command. Military units in the Washington area were put on virtual lockdown, as were a number of special-purpose units elsewhere in the country, under orders from CONARC not to move from station on orders of the President unless the order was countersigned by the Secretary of Defense. The purpose was to prevent a coup attempt should President Nixon or those loyal to him attempt a coup.
But with the exception of the requirement that the orders be lawful, the President is in command of the military.
The military is not a hooligan “militia” that acts on the President’s orders only when the military wants to do so; the military is highly disciplined, and is, by law and by training, responsive to the President’s orders. Within the constraints of the Constitution and law, the President can impose his will on the military. We are not, thanks be to God, a country where the military is an independent political force, effectively a branch of government.
By the way, it makes no difference whether a President has had no active service (Presidents Taft, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Johnson*, Clinton, Obama), lower-level military experience (Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II), or higher-level military experience (Teddy Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower).
I put an “*” by Johnson’s name because although he held a Naval Reserve commission during WWII, Johnson was a Congressman whose military experience during the war was limited to a a fact-finding tour of the Pacific. He was commissioned pro-forma with no expectation of actual military service, and he did none.