Washington Blade Editor Kevin Naff, a liberal, editorializes The Democrats Earned Their Drubbing:
Given the history of midterm elections being hostile to the party in power, we knew Obama and the Democrats had just two years to deliver on some key LGBT initiatives, most notably repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t’ Tell” and passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. But hopes were far higher than just those two issues. In September 2009, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) introduced the Respect for Marriage Act, which would overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. . . . Obama campaigned on supporting a full repeal of DOMA, which bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. One year later, the bill is nowhere and repealing DOMA has vanished from the radar. . . .
In typically sloppy Democratic fashion, the party has managed to alienate its most ardent supporters — gays — by half-stepping on repeal and appealing a federal judge’s ruling that the military’s gay ban is unconstitutional. Leave it to the Democrats to piss off a constituency that has nowhere else to go.. . . After next week, LGBT rights advocates return to playing defense on the Hill after failing to capitalize on the incredible and short-lived opportunities of 2009 and 2010.
For all the legitimate complaints about the Democrats’ out-of-control spending and fetish for rule by regulatory bureaucracy, one would hope that the near-trillion-dollar stimulus-to-nowhere and the trillion-dollar healthcare mashup would at least be offset by advances in gay legal equality. But gay voters gave millions and worked endlessly for this president and his party, and all we got was a lousy hate crimes bill (and please, the GOP didn’t have a Senate filibuster until mid-2010, so don’t try that lame party defense).
I have no illusions about the GOP Congress, although I hope some sanity can be restored to the federal budget. The judicial branch may well be where gay liberty is advanced. Too bad Obama is appealing the pro-gay rulings on “don’t ask” and DOMA. The price of making the once-independent gay movement into a fundraising lapdog of the Democratic party (which takes us for granted as a captive constituency easily bought off with cheap rhetoric) will be long and painful.
More. Here’s how Democrats respond to favored constituencies—when they feel they need to. In January 2009, the Democratic congress passed and President Obama signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a top priority for NOW and other women’s groups, over strong GOP opposition. The Democrats felt they had to make good on this campaign promise and do so fast. They don’t fear that gay voters/contributors/PACs aren’t going to support them, no matter how little they do on our behalf. This is what comes when groups such as the Human Rights Campaign see themselves as part of the Democratic party machine, rather than fighting on behalf of an independent constituency.
25 Comments for “Reaping What Democrats Have Sowed”
posted by Jorge on
The price of making the once-independent gay movement into a fundraising lapdog of the Democratic party (which takes us for granted as a captive constituency easily bought off with cheap rhetoric) will be long and painful.
I agree it was a missed opportunity.
Some interesting things came of it, though. Thanks to the Log Cabin Republicans, GOProud, and GetEQUAL, this country is seeing us as more diverse politcally and socially now. So many of us are turning out not to be Obama lap dogs.
Here’s how Democrats respond to favored constituencies—when they feel they need to. In January 2009, the Democratic congress passed and President Obama signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a top priority for NOW and other women’s groups, over strong GOP opposition.
Oh, lovely.
posted by Carl on
In the eyes of conservatives, when was the gay movement independent ? I thought the criticisms of gay groups being too Democratic go back for decades.
When some gay groups tried to move more towards Republicans in 2000, ultimately they got very little out of it. Unfortunately it seems like both parties will always give gays very little, or actively work against them.
posted by another steve on
Post-Stonewall and in the early years, the gay movement took aim at both Democrats and Republicans. Now, as Miller points out, HRC and other big-money PACs are little more than fundraising operations run on behalf of the Democratic party, and the staff of HRC often comes from, and goes back to, Democratic party staff positions.
GetEqual is a refreshing return to a gay activism that’s not co-opted by party hacks.
posted by Debrah on
“…HRC and other big-money PACs are little more than fundraising operations run on behalf of the Democratic party, and the staff of HRC often comes from, and goes back to, Democratic party staff positions.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When are gay voters ever going to understand that fact?
Check what Maureen has to say about Obama’s many screw-ups.
The entire column really hits it.
“In an interview with progressive bloggers, the president was asked why he was lagging behind Republicans like Ted Olson on gay marriage.”
Good question for the gay activists!
posted by Jorge on
I don’t agree with you, Carl.
The Log Cabin Republicans got access in the White House during George W. Bush’s first term. I also remember the very big deal Attorney General John Ashcroft–feared as a far-right conservative–made in prosecuting an anti-gay double murder (the case was ultimately dismissed, which I think speaks in the administration’s favor if they chose to prosecute a weak case). Much was made on this site over how frustrated social conservatives were during the first term because gays weren’t being blacklisted in the White House. They were being hired into key positions. By the way, it wasn’t just gays trying to move toward the GOP. Three major candidates were moving toward the left on the gay community.
Now, you’ve got only one of two possible explanations for the Bush administration’s overtures toward the gay community during the first term: principle, or payback.
So I think you need to start from the end of the first term instead of the beginning.
posted by Throbert McGee on
While it’s refreshing to see a gay liberal publicly criticize the Democrats, I think that Naff’s editorial overreaches by trying to tie together two unrelated questions:
(1) Do Democrats deserve to lose a lot of seats on Tuesday?
(2) Do Democrats deserve to lose knee-jerk LGBT loyalty?
And the reason that they have to be considered separately is the likelihood that in some of Tuesday’s races, the Democratic incumbent is going to lose by a far more substantial margin than the plausible number of “gay votes” in the candidate’s voting district. And the reason that the Democrat will lose by a wide margin is public anger over the extremely expensive and controversial health-care act that came close on the heels of an expensive but not-very-stimulating economic stimulus act.
So, compared to the economic stagnation and widespread frustration over job losses, Obama’s failure to please gay voters by delivering on his DOMA and DADT promises will be totally negligible factors on Tuesday.
In other words, these two questions — Do Democrats deserve to lose in a specific election? and Should Democrats stop treating gay voters as a guaranteed constituency? — are really related only in very close races where a big gay turnout for the Democrat would’ve changed the outcome of the election.
On the other hand, as far as question #2 goes, Obama’s disappointing performance on various gay-related issues may indeed be good reason for LGBT voters to stop being “yaller dog Democrats,” to not let themselves be suckered by candidates who flatter gay voters, and to seriously weigh the overall merits of GOP candidates on “non-gay” questions.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
T McGee, I can answering your two questions you incorrectly think Miller wrongly conflates in his piece:
Do Dems deserve to lose a massive number of seats on EDay? Yes.
Do Dems deserve to lose knee jerk gay support? Yes.
And so do the liberal, knee jerk Democrat leaders inside the gay movement who serve their Dem masters rather than the strategic interests of gay civil rights.
How many states passing anti-gay marriage constitutional amendments will it take before our community wakes up and says “Enough Damn It!”? Dems silent or complicit are still no help to our movement.
posted by Jorge on
So, compared to the economic stagnation and widespread frustration over job losses, Obama’s failure to please gay voters by delivering on his DOMA and DADT promises will be totally negligible factors on Tuesday.
True. The question in such an election is, has Obama pleased his base enough to offset how much he has displeased the common man (particularly where they overlap)? He hasn’t.
posted by Carl on
“The Log Cabin Republicans got access in the White House during George W. Bush’s first term.”
True, but ultimately when Republicans needed to capitalize on the Bowers ruling, and then gay marriage in Massachusetts, Log Cabin Republicans, and gay Republicans who had ties to the White House, seemed to be on the sidelines. I’m not saying this is different than Democrats, because gays have also been on the sidelines for Obama’s administration. I just wish I knew what gay activists could do to get any type of a hold in either party.
“Post-Stonewall and in the early years, the gay movement took aim at both Democrats and Republicans.”
I wonder how much of that was down to the Republicans of that time being less of the Moral Majority which began to sweep into power in the late ’70s.
posted by BobN on
Post-Stonewall and in the early years, the gay movement took aim at both Democrats and Republicans.
Yes, and quickly made enormous progress in both but then the GOP needed some tactic to get large numbers of people to vote against their own economic interests and Nixon’s “moral majority” turned into the GOP’s anti-gay “family values” crap. And the right has moved backwards on gay rights ever since.
On the Dem side, gay rights became mainstream, to the point that several states now have SSM and virtually every Dem politician supports federal recognition of same-sex couples (either SSM or CUs).
Stop blaming gay liberals for the fact that the GOP turned you guys down.
posted by Gregory on
Why do some gays tolerate Muslim extremists.
http://politicallyincorrectlibertarian.wordpress.com/2010/10/31/why-do-some-gays-tolerate-muslim-extremists/
posted by Jorge on
True, but ultimately when Republicans needed to capitalize on the Bowers ruling…
You mean the Lawrence ruling, right?
I think they just lost.
I just wish I knew what gay activists could do to get any type of a hold in either party.
I think it’s best to look for (and if possible vote for) people who can empathize with us, not just (or even necessarily) the ones who make campaign promises. That means looking outside of politics. We may not get what we want politically, but we can still win the culture war.
And the right has moved backwards on gay rights ever since.
Ah, there you go again, not giving Republicans credit for anything and letting the Democrats get away with everything.
posted by BobN on
Ah, there you go again, not giving Republicans credit for anything and letting the Democrats get away with everything.
For what should the GOP get credit vis-a-vis gay rights. I can’t think of a single legislative issue where today’s GOP is better than the GOP of Reagan. Seriously. On what issue are prominent Republicans more gay-supportive than they were in the late 70s? And, no, citing wives and daughters of prominent Republican politicians doesn’t count.
posted by BobN on
Miller fails to point out that the Fair Pay Act passed with support from FIVE GOP senators. To me, this indicates that womens-rights advocates have managed to get at least a few GOP senators to actually vote for women’s rights.
Pity the LCR and GOProud can’t do the same… yet.
posted by Jorge on
For what should the GOP get credit vis-a-vis gay rights.
Now, see, that’s a bit of an insult to those of us who have many times given the Republican party credit over many months and suggesting that you should, too. It means you aren’t paying attention and that you are not willing to give credit where it is due. I expect you by now to offer at least a token disagreement on the points I have raised in this topic.
I can’t think of a single legislative issue where today’s GOP is better than the GOP of Reagan. Seriously. On what issue are prominent Republicans more gay-supportive than they were in the late 70s? On what issue are prominent Republicans more gay-supportive than they were in the late 70s?
I reject the premise of your question that legislation is necessary for any advances in gay equality. If you had been paying attention, you would know that the easy answer to your question is hate crimes. Here, there is no need for any additional legislation to protect gays, only good law enforcement and a severe bully pulpit.
Sodomy is an easy one. This one was decided by the courts, and there was only one prominent Republican who disagreed with it.
Now, since we have long established that the Republican party is gay supportive, perhaps you could help me to understand how the Republican party of Reagan used to be gay supportive?
posted by Debrah on
From the NY Times……
5 Reasons Republicans Could Do Even Better Than Expected
posted by Carl on
I do wonder if Republicans today would oppose the Briggs Amendment that Reagan opposed.
posted by BobN on
Jorge, it is precisely because I have been paying attention that I excluded examples of politicians’ wives and daughters.
I note you couldn’t think of any on the spot either.
As to what was better in the 70s, Carl brings up a good point. Reagan opposed restrictions on gay teachers. People forget that it was in the 70s, with liberal and moderate Republicans and Democrats, that this country repealed A LOT of laws aimed at suppressing and oppressing gay people. Donkeys and elephants both discussed letting us serve in the military. Up until Anita Bryant, there was bipartisan support (yes, tilted Dem, but not with just a token GOP participation) for us.
Of course, most of those reasonable Republican politicians were RINOs by today’s standards.
posted by Jorge on
I note you couldn’t think of any on the spot either.
I said John Ashcroft, you stubborn lib-Dem brownnoser! You can see why I conclude there’s no use playing a hand when it’s clear BobN won’t acknowledge it. Despite his careful framing of the question.
posted by BobN on
Oh, sorry, didn’t think you (or anyone else) considered John Ashcroft to be a “prominent GOP politician”, but fine, let’s look at what he did.
Ashcroft chose to pursue federal capital murder charges against a man who murdered two lesbians in a national park camp ground, right? I’m working from memory here. Despite having been a vociferous opponent of extending hate-crime protections to gays and lesbians, Ashcroft — six years after the murders — added hate-crime enhancements (which he could, as the murders happened on federal property).
You see this as evidence of a GOP politician giving us support. I — cynic that I am — take a different view. I acknowledge the support, but I think his main purpose was to assert the federal jurisdiction to pursue a death-penalty case.
Why was this the ONLY instance when Ashcroft ever did anything, if he’s such a supporter?
posted by Jorge on
Well, since you’re going to put me on the defensive here…
Even if I were to accept your explanation, Ashcroft did too much for him to be ignorant of the implications. You have one of the top officials of a Republican administration meeting with a crime victim’s family, condeming the crime in the harshest of terms, making specific reference to the couple’s committed relationship. These details say a lot between the lines. They set a very strong message for how Ashcroft thinks gays and lesbians should be treated in this country.
I doubt that means Ashcroft actually became a supporter of hate crime enhancements. You just use what you can. If anything, the point is that you don’t have to use hate crime laws to prosecute hate crimes effectively and enact social change. Too many times Republicans say they think the laws should apply to everybody the same way, but they don’t care to look for ways to fight what inequalities persist. This was something different.
Why was this the ONLY instance when Ashcroft ever did anything, if he’s such a supporter?
Do we really need more than one instance to prove that someone can treat us with the respect that is our due?
So anyway, the rest of my list is Cheney and Bush on marriage and civil unions, respectively. Oh, and John McCain, but we all know he fell out of favor when all the straight marriage laws started passing in the states (or did it have to do with the courts?). Have fun with it.
posted by BobN on
These details say a lot between the lines.
Yeah, they say that Ashcroft was willing to invoke sympathy for the parents of murdered lesbians in the course of trying to push federal imposition of the death penalty.
Do we really need more than one instance….
Of course we do. That’s the point of being “supportive”. If someone smacks you in the face every time you walk by them on the street and then, one day, out of the blue, instead of smacking you, he waves at you, then returns to smacking you the next day, is that person “supportive”?
As for Bush and Cheney, you can believe whatever delusions you have, but they have never, ever gone further than saying we deserve the right to get a vote on our relationships. As to how they would vote on SSM and CUs, they don’t say. However, the fact that they worked hand-in-hand with our worst enemies to pass 30 state constitutional amendments banning SSM and CUs tell me something that obviously eludes you. Bush is on record saying he would veto CUs and would not vote for them. Cheney is on the record — in a remarkably consistent rote — supporting our right to have relationships. He is also on record opposing legal recognition of them.
posted by Jorge on
Of course we do. That’s the point of being “supportive”. If someone smacks you in the face every time you walk by them on the street and then, one day, out of the blue, instead of smacking you, he waves at you, then returns to smacking you the next day, is that person “supportive”?
Well that’s different. That’s someone smacking you in the face every day. Anti-gay must mean different things to different people. Fact is most attempts to label people, even Republicans, as “anti-gay” are totally bereft of anything except politics, and that is meaningless to me.
As for Bush and Cheney, you can believe whatever delusions you have, but they have never, ever gone further than saying we deserve the right to get a vote on our relationships.
So what’s your problem? That’s called living in a democracy in which you have political opponents who feel passionately on controversial issues but who respect the fact that we live in a pluralistic democracy, not a theocratic dictatorship. And like it or not, the extent of what civil rights and equal rights are for gay people is a controversial and political political issue that is hardly black and white–even among gays. That means we have to fight for what we want. But where Bush, Cheney, and other politicians stand in our way is not a matter of life or death or anywhere close, so don’t pretend that it is. Opposition is a part of American life.
I much prefer to judge people by their personal character and ethical conduct toward gays instead of their party line and political or religious positions. It has the benefit of not making enemies of the majority of American people who are–by your reckoning–our worst enemies because they voted to ban SSM and civil unions in 30 states. Nothing wrong with bashing people on the head when you have to, but at the end of the day you have to be able to sit down and break bread with your neighbors.
posted by BobN on
That’s called living in a democracy in which you have political opponents who feel passionately on controversial issues but who respect the fact that we live in a pluralistic democracy, not a theocratic dictatorship.
Uh… suggesting that the people have a right to vote in laws that resemble a theocratic dictatorship is most certainly not what living in a constitutional democracy is called.
And it might not be life and death for you but it is for some people. And it’s certainly “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” for all of us.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Wrong answer, BobN.
We’re very aware of the fact that gays and lesbians like yourself fully support and endorse bans on gay-sex marriage when the Obama Party does it.
So frankly put, your shrieks of “antigay” are clearly nothing more than simple partisanship. And that is why you and your fellow gay and lesbian leftists are nothing more than jokes; everyone knows you hate Republicans and slavishly obey Obama Party members regardless of what either does.