Steve Miller’s post on DADT makes some great points, including what appears to be the lack of action by President Obama as our advocate, fierce or otherwise. I don’t discount the possibility that he might be doing his work behind the scenes and out of public view. Sometimes, discretion is the better part of victory. Not everything a President does has to be in the public eye. But given the media’s just-shy-of prurient interest in this issue, it’s easy enough to imagine that the administration really is just watching the Senate agonize, and maybe crossing its fingers for us.
But I want to focus a bit on the politics that go unnoticed by most people. The promise that Joe Lieberman got from Susan Collins and Richard Lugar is not what I would call a solid one. What, exactly, or even approximately, is “an open amendment process?” This is just the sort of subjective “agreement” politicians announce all the time to make it appear they have done something they have not.
I have no reason to believe Collins and Lugar (and others) don’t intend to vote for repeal. But as we learned in the earlier chapters of this debate, their party’s leaders continue to have some sway over the strays.
The real test here, is once again of Harry Reid’s political skills. The “open amendment process” is not an argument, it is an excuse that the GOP can use any time they find it necessary or helpful or just convenient. Reid and the President can prevail (and I still assume the President does want to achieve repeal) only if they create the political climate where the GOP loses more from continuing DADT than they do. It’s a game of political chicken. If the GOP thinks DADT’s continuance is better for them, they can claim any amendment process Harry Reid comes up with isn’t open enough.
And by “losing” I obviously mean political loss. As is so often the case in Washington, not a single senator has a direct interest in this. It’s easy for them to treat our equality as an abstract principle because for them that’s what it is.
That’s why Joe Lieberman stands out. He has shown the kind of true and principled, actual leadership on this issue that only the best politicians even aspire to. So, too, Patrick Murphy in the House. In fact, Murphy had more to lose by standing up for us, and in fact lost in the midterms. Obama’s commitment as our fierce advocate can and should be measured against the open advocacy of these two men.
But neither Lieberman nor Murphy has the clout of the President and of Reid. This is now all about leadership. But it will also be the acid test for the Republicans in the Senate. How dedicated, really, are they to John McCain’s addled homophobia? Is his really the face of the 21st Century GOP?
In fact, for the Republicans, repeal will give them all a chance to re-decide McCain’s most fateful judgment. He could have chosen Joe Lieberman as his vice-president, but found Sarah Palin a better fit for his party. He rejected moderation and bet the farm on empty partisanship. In 2010, support of DADT is as empty as partisanship gets. It has nothing in its corner except ignorance and fear — ignorance and fear that it seems even most members of the military have abandoned.
That is the political calculation that the Republicans will have to make for themselves. For the Democrats, the calculation has to do with the risks of leadership. They saw what happened to Patrick Murphy. Do they have the courage to make this happen, and maybe suffer the anger of some voters, or will they take the easier course (for them) of leaving us with at least four more years of Bill Clinton’s compromised legacy?
25 Comments for “The Dancing of Politics”
posted by Bucky on
I am sorry but the moment you talk about Joe Lieberman as “true and principled” you lose any credibility whatsoever.
Lieberman? Principled?
Really? I mean REALLY?
WTF.
You need to step back and get some perspective.
posted by Jorge on
I think the fact that Joe Lieberman is principled speaks for itself so obviously, that if you’re going to dissent the burden is on you to give a reason.
Anyway, this is well thought-out. However, I believe that when the Republican party, which is not monolithic, acts in a monolithic way, there is a reason for it, not an excuse. There is considerable partisanship and bad blood in Congress right now.
It is disappointing that party label is such a strong determinant of just how strongly you support the repeal, if you support the repeal. When I wrote this I forgot the fact that Lieberman is in the Senate as an independent.
posted by avee on
In fact, for the Republicans, repeal will give them all a chance to re-decide McCain’s most fateful judgment. He could have chosen Joe Lieberman as his vice-president, but found Sarah Palin a better fit for his party. He rejected moderation and bet the farm on empty partisanship.
McCain should be castigated for his filibustering of “don’t ask” repeal. And for sticking us with the unqualified Palin. These are/were appalling decisions.
But David Link is wrong to put forth Joe Liberman has the man who should have been McCain’s veep. Liberman is a foreign policy hawk (okay by me) and otherwise a liberal. Stimulus? Okay with Joe. Health care takeover? Okay with Joe. To expect that the Republican party should have accepted as a veep candidate an economic, big goverment liberal (albeit one who is more like a Republican on foreign issues), especially when the presidential candidate was as old as McCain, is asking the Republicans not to have any core domestic principles.
The US originally tried having the president from one party (Adams/Federalist) and a veep from the opposition (Jefferson/Democratic-Republican). It was a disaster. Let’s not advocate returning to that practice.
posted by Jualt on
Don’t ask what Obama is doing, and he won’t tell you…
posted by PoliticallyIncorrect Libertarian on
The democratic party has never liked the military, ask the Center for American Progress who thinks Obama should use the military for social programs. Thus, they’re in no hurry to let gays serve in an institution they despise.
posted by Jimmy on
Such a statement makes you a hack as it is both utterly idiotic and absolutely wrong.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5928434/democrats_support_our_troops_and_veterans.html?cat=75
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And quoting a leftist front group makes you look even more foolish, Jimmy.
posted by Jimmy on
Does that change the votes?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Especially since these group heads are paid puppets for Barack Obama and the Obama Party.
You have to wonder if the reason that Jimmy and his fellow Obama shills shriek “astroturf” around the Tea Parties is because all of their so-called “grassroots” groups like this one are actually paid and purchased wings of the Obama Party.
posted by PoliticallyIncorrect Libertarian on
Jimmy, deny to me that the left doesn’t have the following views about the military: 1. If you join the military you’re probably too stupid to get into college. 2. Joining the military is a bad idea because you might die, lose a limb, or kill people. 3. People who join the military are a bunch of rednecks. 4. Too many blacks join the military because they can’t get a job elsewhere (gee, I guess patriotic blacks don’t exist). 5. Vietnam veterans are a bunch of baby killers that deserved to be spat upon. 6. It’s ok for Bill Clinton to have dodged the draft. 7. It’s not ok for George W. Bush to have served in the national guard instead of going to Vietnam.
You know the left hates the military, I’ve seen your commie friends celebrate every time some stupid progressive deserts from the army and flees to Canada because he disagrees with the so-called “illegal war” in Iraq.
Just look at the anti-war movies and documentaries Hollywood puts out, our troops are either torturers in Rendition or traumatized victims suffering from PTSD. What bullshit, what about the happy soldiers? What about the servicemen and women who stay in the military for 20, 30, even 40 years? What about the mutilated men who go on Fox News and tell Bill O’Reilly how proud they are to have served their country and how they would do it again even if they knew they were going to lose an arm or a leg?
Your left hates the military for the same reasons they hate NASCAR, country music, and hunting, they just don’t get it.
posted by Jimmy on
Let’s see, I’m on the left and I love NASCAR and Indy car racing, real country music, fishing, and I also love my country.
The left, the moderates, even some on the right, all patriotic Americans support our soldiers. What we have a problem with is when a cabal of chickenhawks lead by Snidely Whiplash( who received how many deferments?) manage to lie and lie again to wage their un-American war in Iraq, a nation that NEVER ATTACKED THE US, for their own ideological ends.
We have a problem when our military is misused, something every patriotic American should be able to agree upon.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Jimmy, you like NASCAR, loud cars, country music and fishing? Sorry, that one doesn’t even pass the sniff test –we don’t need to even scratch. As a Democrat liberal, you’d be as welcome at event featuring those activities as a conservative GOPer would be at an HRC dinner featuring Whoopi Goldberg and Bill Maher. NASCAR voters, like the military vote, usually goes 89-95% GOP for a reason… they know true supporters of patriotism when they see ’em, and the Dems have struck out on that score for 4-5 generations now.
I’ve been to NASCAR events in the Midwest and deep South and I can tell you I’ve never seen an Obama tshirt, a Volvo with an Obama or Kerry or Gore bumper sticker, or anything that even closely resembles leftist political or social positions. When you start in with the chickenhawk nonsense and the line about Iraq being an UN-American war, I think it’s fair to suspect your earlier claims, as well.
I doubt you’re a NASCAR fan. I seriously doubt you’ve ever been near a race track, listened for more than a split second to country music while switching between NPR stations, or ever been patriotic to anything –including the US military, the US or our Nation. But I’m sure you worship at the altar of Obama.
No real American nor any patriot would spout your partisan, bitter and anti-American rhetoric –unless they were a political opportunistic like Democrat John Kerry. Unfortunately, lying seems to come far, far too easy for you guys… it’s a shame you’d be willing to lie about liking true American hobbies or being a patriot, too.
posted by Jimmy on
I live, and was born in, Indianapolis and I have spent more days at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway than I can count. But, you go ahead be ridiculous; it suits you.
posted by Jorge on
I’m a Republican social worker… in New York no less.
posted by Jorge on
ask the Center for American Progress who thinks Obama should use the military for social programs. Thus, they’re in no hurry to let gays serve in an institution they despise.
Someone tell me how repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is not a social program?
Regarding the article Jimmy linked to, I’d have to know the bills in question before I agree with the author’s and lobbyists’ conclusion. Seeing people like Barbara Boxer and my own Senators on the A/A+ list and Lindsey Graham on the D/F list suggests to me that the votes have more to do with either money or social programs (which is also money) than anything else. A lot of budget-conscious Republicans want to cut spending in the Defense Department, despite all the myths out there.
But no one seriously questions the commitment of any but the most far-left Democrats to supporting our troops.
posted by james on
we all know this is going to be voted down. dadt will still be here in 2012. religious people in this country will not allow any rights for gays to be advanced except throught the courts. even then they will try everything to stop any type of equality for gay people. right now it just isnt going to happen in the united states of america… we are not a country of liberty and justice for all.
posted by Doug on
I just heard on CNN that TeaParty Nation has sent a letter to Congress saying that Tea Party representatives should vote against the repeal of DADT.
So much for those TeaParty folks not caring about social issues and being our friends.
posted by Carl on
There are a lot of different types of Tea Party groups, so I don’t know how many the above represents, but the Tea Party candidates have generally been very socially conservative. This is the way a lot of Republicans in Congress are — they will vote against this type of thing and always have plenty of cover.
posted by PoliticallyIncorrect Libertarian on
“Someone tell me how repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is not a social program?”
—How is it a social program? It costs no money, it demands no special accommodation, it simply means that gays will be judged on the basis of what they do and not who they are.
Besides, when I think of social programs I think of medicare, social security, food stamps, etc.
posted by Jorge on
—How is it a social program? It costs no money, it demands no special accommodation, it simply means that gays will be judged on the basis of what they do and not who they are.
You are aware that some people oppose the repeal on the grounds that the military is not the place to conduct social experiments, are you not? The purpose of repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is to achieve social justice for gay people, to enact social change in an institution, however limited in scope that institution is.
This does not happen with a snap of the fingers. The repeal has already cost money in the form of the study due next month on the effects and feasibility of a repeal. The repeal will require special accomodation in the form of heavy sensitivity training and people to investigate anti-gay bias incidents.
The whole history of the civil rights movement has shown that when the government steps in to reverse discrimination, the result is not simple negation, but a permanant class of watchdogs and whistleblowers imposing new and often controversial rules on society and institutions.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Just to echo the point Jorge already made: Have you never read Catch-22 or seen a single episode of M*A*S*H? The U.S. military is notorious for complicating everything with procedural bureaucracy — which definitely costs money.
posted by Bobby on
“You are aware that some people oppose the repeal on the grounds that the military is not the place to conduct social experiments, are you not?”
—They are misguided, allowing blacks to serve with whites in the military was never a social program, it was equality under the law.
“The purpose of repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is to achieve social justice for gay people, to enact social change in an institution, however limited in scope that institution is.”
—I really despise the words “social justice,” they usually refers to socialism, income redistribution, class warfare, and all kinds of left-wing things that have lead to tyranny and death. This is about EQUAL justice, it’s about giving gays the same rights as straights.
“The repeal will require special accomodation in the form of heavy sensitivity training and people to investigate anti-gay bias incidents.”
—There’s already sensitivity training about race and gender within the military, we should add gays at no additional expense.
“The whole history of the civil rights movement has shown that when the government steps in to reverse discrimination, the result is not simple negation, but a permanant class of watchdogs and whistleblowers imposing new and often controversial rules on society and institutions.”
—True, but gays better watch themselves. Look what happened to black activists, when they got equal justice they started demanding social justice. Now you got crazies like Jeremiah Wright who thinks being poor is a civil rights violations and arresting blacks who commit crimes is racism. Neither the military nor society needs that kind of bullshit from gays.
I’m very scared at how the people who fight for freedom are so quickly to enslave someone else. Did you hear about Dan Savage chastising CNN for giving gay rights opponents a platform? Everything Glenn Beck says about progressives and social-justice seekers is true, these people HATE freedom, hate free speech, hate equality. Their philosophy is one of minority over majority rather than equality for all.
Don’t believe me? Consider the DREAM Act, it’s hard enough for a legal immigrant to get his greencard, yet now we’re supposed to reward law-breakers with residency? It’s insane!
http://politicallyincorrectlibertarian.wordpress.com/2010/11/23/the-dream-act-insults-legal-immigrants/
posted by Jorge on
I really despise the words “social justice,” they usually refers to socialism, income redistribution, class warfare, and all kinds of left-wing things that have lead to tyranny and death. This is about EQUAL justice, it’s about giving gays the same rights as straights.
I don’t care whether or not you despise the term. Equal justice cannot exist in a world without equal of opportunity, and where justice has not yet reached people, something is needed to make sure they get it. Social justice. The fact that the left wing in this country still clings to money as the root of and solution to all problems only means that the right wing of this country has failed to put the alternative into action. Maybe if more right wingers thought it was just as cool to get involved in this country’s domestic problems as they think it is to go overseas and kill people or enter the priesthood, then you’d be more satisfied with the elite few who actually are problem solving out there.
posted by Bobby on
Jorge, in this country you have the right to PURSUIT happiness, not the right to be happy, to have affordable healthcare, housing, free education, etc. Is the right-wing the only wing that gives a damn about the constitution and declaration of independence? Besides, equal opportunity will exist once DADT is removed, and that’s the only thing that needs to happen, we don’t need affirmative action for gays, it’s bad enough that we have it for blacks and women.
posted by Jorge on
Without affordable healthcare, housing, and education, there’s not much ability to pursue happiness. Liberty is not just the province of the haves.
Is the right-wing the only wing that gives a damn about the constitution and declaration of independence?
You mean the documents that rail against involuntary search and seizure and forced confessions? Were you shacking up with Rip Van Winkle during the left’s outrage at the Bush administration?