The Washington Post reports that a “coalition of civil rights groups” is launching a $2 million campaign “aimed at mobilizing support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which has languished on Capitol Hill for nearly two decades.” Moreover:
The coalition, which also includes the American Civil Liberties Union, American Federation of Teachers, National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, will focus on senators in Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. With the exception of Democrats Mark Pryor (Ark.), Bill Nelson (Fla.) and Joe Manchin III (W.Va.), all the targeted senators are Republican. HRC President Chad Griffin said he was optimistic the campaign, which will also include business leaders, would be able to persuade conservative and centrist lawmakers to support the law.
If they think Democratic-front “civil rights groups,” including those that consistently work to defeat openly gay Republicans running in non-incumbent races, are going to be effective at targeting members of the Grand Old Party, they’re delusional.
19 Comments for “Not Likely”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
If they think Democratic-front “civil rights groups,” including those that consistently work to defeat openly gay Republicans running in non-incumbent races, are going to be effective at targeting members of the Grand Old Party, they’re delusional.
Wait a minute. Aren’t you the one that is always dumping on these organizations for failing to work with Republicans? I guess that they are damned if they do, damned if they don’t. Or maybe just damned.
posted by jared on
Tom again misreports in order to seem oh so clever. Steve has said often that LGBT activist groups cannot oppose Republicans at every turn (including working to defeat openly gay Republicans running against corrupt Democrats and gay-friendly Republicans), and also support Democrats on a full range of non-gay issues, and THEN expect to be able to lobby Republicans on gay legislation. That’s not how the world works.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Do you favor having groups like the ACLU (which does not endorse political candidates) and the American Federation of Teachers (which does) working with Republicans on legislative issues of importance to them, or not? My view is that organizations interested in an issue should lobby every politician in sight.
In my view, that goes twice for LGBT groups, who should be relentless in lobbying and single-minded in endorsing candidates who advance our cause.
As for the “working to defeat openly gay Republicans running against corrupt Democrats” complaint, it is nonsense. We’ve been over that a hundred times. The “openly gay Republicans” Stephen has used as examples have been half-baked in support of “equal means equal”, while the “corrupt Democrats” have had long histories of strong support for “equal means equal”.
What is wrong with endorsing the candidate who is most supportive of our issues, regardless of party affiliation, except that so far, the candidate with the record of support has been a Democrat in each case? The NRA doesn’t give a damn about party affiliation — it rates based on votes and record, and nothing else.
What you guys want is an affirmative action program for gay Republicans, and that doesn’t wash.
posted by Houndentenor on
Shouldn’t HRC and GOProud be able to do that work? Aren’t those the Republican gay groups? Shouldn’t they have some clout inside the party? Enough for a few votes to pass a bill that the majority of Americans not only favor but assume is the law already?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
LCR supports ENDA. LCR has worked hard for ENDA in the past, and I assume that it is doing so now. Whether it has any clout inside the party, I don’t know.
GoProud does not take a position on ENDA. I assume that means that GoProud is not working to pass ENDA.
The American Unity Fund is a Republican-oriented organization formed to support ENDA. It is part of the coalition.
I don’t know if there are other Republican-oriented groups involved. All I have to work with is the WP article Stephen cited.
posted by Doug on
Whine, whine, whine, Stephen. Where are the Republican-front ‘civil rights groups’ pushing for non discrimination.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Another of Stephen’s “dump and runs” bemoaning something or other about LGBT civil rights organizations being leftist, Democratic front groups… meh.
posted by houndentenor on
Somehow it’s Democrats’ fault that Republicans are so virulently anti-gay. I’m not sure how that works, but such nonsense never follows any logic.
posted by jared on
Somehow, the Democratic stalwarts who comment everyday about how awful this blog is would rather engage in fundraising with pretend bipartisanship than actually, you know, try to build actual alliances.
posted by Doug on
Once again it’s the Democrats fault that Republicans are anti-gay. You just can’t help yourselves. If you would take a look at the history you would see that it’s the left leaning folks who moved the Democratic Party on LGBT issues and we did it with zero assist for right leaning folks. What have you right leaning folks done to move the Republican Party?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
How the hell do you build an alliance without talking to Republicans, trying to find common ground? And why bother, if any attempts to do so are “delusional”?
What Stephen seems to be telling us, and you seem to be seconding, is that Republican lawmakers are so entrenched in anti-equality that they won’t listen to anybody.
Maybe that’s true, but Chad Griffin is no dumb ass (he founded AFER is is personally responsible for bringing Olson and Boies together to fight the Prop 8 case), and my view is that the coalition he is putting together, which includes right-leaning groups like the American Unity Fund as well as left-leaning groups and LGBT groups, is a good idea.
I don’t have any predictions about the possibility of success in bringing the targeted Republicans over to rationality, given the nature of the Republican base. At least it is worth a try.
If nobody tries to work with Republicans, we are just writing them off.
posted by Houndentenor on
I talk to Republicans every damned day. Building alliances? It’s like talking to brick walls. They are either fundamentalist Christians or want their tax cut and everyone else be damned. Maybe some of the rest of you live in places with moderate Republicans. I’m in Texas. They think they are liberal because they haven’t had me lynched yet.
posted by Jorge on
How the hell do you build an alliance without talking to Republicans, trying to find common ground? And why bother, if any attempts to do so are “delusional”?
Maybe his problem is with the word “targeted”? Or the term “civil rights groups”?
See, here’s the thing. Building alliances, right?
Somehow, the Gang of Eight managed to craft one between Big Labor and these really conservative intellectual groups (though not all conservatives) on immigration reform. Now, immigration reform has already been tried in the past and discussed to death.
This seems geared toward the same result, but the methods are a little off, and Mr. Miller seems to be suggesting that without some kind of buffer between hit-groups that usually lean Democrat and Republicans who get targeted by them, an initial attempt at engagement will not result in big legislative success. I think the comparison is slightly off-target, but otherwise the observation is valid. The problem is not the targeting or the talking or building alliances. There is nothing wrong with trying to build a cross-party alliance without the help of moderates in the other party (although realistically… they’re seeking that help).The problem is the expectation.
posted by Don on
I simply don’t see it as a fault at all. political parties build coalitions among people who share similar lines of thinking. the need for votes often bring together people who would normally disagree on different issues but take the “you scratch my back and i’ll scratch yours” approach.
Most libertarians would be happy in either camp. But financial independence tends to take primacy in their thinking. So we have to oppress gays to get a tax cut and smaller government? Electorally there is no way to get there without that match. So, more government intrusion in your life and less in mine. Most libertarians can live with that.
Left libertarianism is more esoteric. Until a libertarian gets brought up on charges for sodomy and faces a felony (not possible anymore) or the state uses secret spying of emails to railroad somebody unjustly, most will sit back and say nothing while someone else’s house is invaded. At best, the pooh-pooh it on the internet.
I would be harsher if I knew anyone who didn’t “go along” with their chosen party on issues on which they disagree to achieve a more important goal. What I find surprising is that Stephen grumbles when this happens. He supports the idea of “teams” in one post and then derides the system in another. I’d probably look at that tendency to square it up a bit if I were him. Either he’s on Team R, or he’s an independent political thinker. His writings suggest the former, not the latter. The only deviation from that are gays.
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s hard to take gay Republicans seriously when they complain that we won’t support slightly pro-gay Republicans over very pro-gay Democrats when they are happy to endorse anti-gay Republicans over pro-gay Democrats in every election cycle. I am happy to give credit to Republicans who stand up for gay rights. Susan Collins, for example. Ted Olson. The list is embarrassingly short. That’s not my fault. ENDA will not pass so long and John Boehner (or pretty much any other Republican) is Speaker. It’s not even going to come up for a vote. Getting support from a couple dozen GOP Congressmen would get it passed IF it could come up for a vote. It’s not going to until a Democrat is Speaker.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
What puzzles me is why it has become an article of faith in the Republican Party that ENDA is wrongheaded.
It hasn’t always been this way.
A majority of Republican legislators voted to add sexual orientation to Wisconsin’s workplace non-discrimination law in 1982, and the bill was signed into law by a Republican governor. That was true in a number of the other states that passed non-discrimination laws in the 1980’s, as well.
And it would also seem, reading back on this list, that there was significant (if not, perhaps majority) support among Republican legislators for ENDA in earlier years. (See, for example, https://igfculturewatch.com/2010/08/01/the-enda-blame-game/ from 2010, and https://igfculturewatch.com/2007/11/22/an-enda-thanksgiving/ from 2008). Now we are scrambling for a “handful” of Republican votes.
So what changed?
ENDA seems to be a no-brainer to me (and to the American people, too, apparently, who seem to think it is already the law), but it can’t even make it to a vote. It isn’t just John Boehner’s fault. He couldn’t bring it to a vote if he wanted to and remain Speaker. The opposition in the House is too entrenched at this point, it seems to me, for anything to work.
So while I think that Chad Griffin is right to work with Republicans on this issue, I suspect that it is whistling in the dark at this point.
What I’d like to understand is why, over the course of 3-5 years, ENDA has become a non-starter for Republican politicians. Something’s changed in the Republican Party, and I don’t know what.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Good question! The 1980s was before my time, but I suspect that in the 1980s and 1990s the crazies in the GOP basically took over the party and shut the door on just about anything sane — in terms of social policy or civil rights — coming out from the GOP.
An older friend of mine once told me that the GOP supported the Equal Rights Amendment! Not sure if this is true or not, but it illustrates how utterly insane the GOP has become on issues such as God, gays or gender.
Today, if you are a conservative who supports gay rights (much less feminism) then you are pretty much denied any chance of having a meaningful role in your party when it comes to setting social policy.
I have heard horror stories from young gay and straight Republicans who have tried to get involved at the local level in order to get the party behind gay rights and women’s rights issues and were shut out and told to leave the party.
Granted, I am talking about the Midwest, so maybe things are different in say a ‘blue-leaning’ State or hip, urbane district. But, the crazies seem to have taken over the GOP, at least in terms of decision making on social policy.
I welcome efforts to bring center-right and conservative supporters to the table when trying to get ENDA passed, but the crazies seem to run the show in the GOP, which is the elephant in the room that GOPers are going to have to deal with.
posted by Doug on
What’s changed is that a very significant number of Republicans hate the fact that we have an African American President and that this is no longer a white majority country. Deal with it.
posted by Houndentenor on
There are only four states without a white majority (and of those, I don’t think Hawaii ever had one). It’s part of the persecution complex of the reactionary and religious right. “White, Christian, Protestant Heterosexuals aren’t the only people who matter any more. We’re being persecuted!”