I don’t agree with former Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank on his regulatory state policy objectives (Dodd-Frank has been an anchor around the economy, particularly for startups, while a goldmine for compliance lawyers). But in terms of tactical assessments, he has some interesting observations in his new memoir, as reviewed by the New York Times. Some excerpts from the review:
[Frank’s] chief motivation in writing this book appears to be using his experience in public life to argue that the democratic process, though imperfect and given to incremental gains, is a more effective tool for social change than the protests and provocations often favored by the left. …
In 1993, during the debate about gays serving in the military, Mr. Frank participated in a large Washington demonstration for gay rights and relates that he prevented what he says would have been a “disaster.” He eyed a group of about nine or 10 gay uniformed soldiers practicing a leg-kick routine they were to perform on the stage during the televised rally.
“Nothing could have been more devastating to our argument that L.G.B.T. people would blend comfortably into the military than a photo—or worse a video—of these guys lined up not to march but to emulate the Rockettes,” he writes.
Mr. Frank convinced them not to do it and endured their anger—which, he notes, he would often face when urging strategic or tactical restraint with gay rights groups or individuals.
But he vociferously contends that his approach was more effective, and holds up the disciplined and orderly 1963 March on Washington for civil rights as a comparison. “The contrast between that great sober, moving occasion and the antics at our march [in 1993] could not have been greater,” he writes, recalling that one lesbian comedian had said onstage she would like to have sex with Hillary Clinton, then the first lady (using a more expressive four-letter verb). “If a black comedian had begun to joke about having sex with Jackie Kennedy, he would have been thrown in the reflecting pool, not cheered.”
The activists would respond that their militancy lit a fire under the politicos, and there are some narrow examples where that seems true (Act-Up and the FDA). But in general, Frank has a point—up to a point. The national “marches” (in 1979, 1987, 1993, 2000, and 2009) failed to achieve their primary goal (Democrats didn’t move a federal anti-discrimination bill during the times when they controlled Congress during both the Clinton and Obama administrations). Creating “community” and fostering solidarity, often mentioned as vital secondary objectives of these mass mobilizations, are harder to quantify, so that debate will go on.
And yet….What is grating about Frank’s critique is his default supposition that it should be left to inside-the-Beltway politicians to deliver gay legal equality. That’s on par with his default supposition that everything is best left to our liberal-elite Washington betters to handle. It’s (almost) condescending enough to make one side with the militants.
More. As for remembrance of things past, friends who were at the first march in 1979 tell me it was personally transforming. I was there in 1987 and found it inspirational and energizing. But by 1993, the attempt seemed more like politically correct ritual (maybe my consciousness of such things was better attuned), and I skipped the others and watched on C-SPAN, where they appeared to be progressively worse in that regard.
It’s worth noting that these were the goals stated in 1979:
–Pass a comprehensive lesbian/gay rights bill in Congress.
–Issue a presidential executive order banning discrimination based on sexual orientation in the federal government, the military, and federally contracted private employment.
–Repeal all anti-lesbian/gay laws.
–End discrimination in lesbian-mother and gay-father custody cases.
–Protect lesbian and gay youth from any laws which are used to discriminate, oppress, and/or harass them in their homes, schools, jobs, and social environments.
The top goal was never achieved (and I remain equivocal about it), while an executive order banning discrimination among federal contractors was finally obtained last year (although Obama had promised it when seeking LGBT votes in 2008).
A tangent: In the cultural sphere (a least in terms of popular media and audience response), progress is undeniable, as “The Fosters” on ABC Family showed with a recent episode where two 13 year-old boys kiss. Yahooo Entertainment says this marks “the youngest gay kiss in television history.” And “while there was undoubtedly a slew of angry, hateful tweets—unfortunately, that’s nothing new for a show revolving around an interracial lesbian couple and their five biological, adopted, and foster children—the overall reaction has been positive,” the network reports.
For those of us who can recall the controversy and advertiser boycott over “thirtysomething” in 1989, it’s a much changed media world, reflecting a much changed actual world. Washington seems to be the behind the times outlier, to be remedied to a great extent if the Supreme Court does the right thing in June.
12 Comments for “Frank Disdain”
posted by Thom on
The reason we have made so much progress over the past few years is because every time a state legalizes same sex marriage, the images on TV are of a bunch of middle aged, slightly pudgy people getting married – most of whom look just like the people at home watching. The utter joy expressed in those scenes and the lack of in-your-face militancy is what has drawn so many people to our side. They finally can see we are just like them – not a bunch of sex-crazed freaks in assless chaps gyrating on some tacky pride float.
posted by Houndentenor on
Protesting across the board seems unfocused these days. Occupy Wall Street was at a loss to explain a clear objective. We all know what we are against, but clearly stated policy objectives are all too rare these days. As for using the legislative process, we the people are far too removed from and have far too little access to those in power. Gerrymandering means that most members of Congress in both parties have safe seats. They are more afraid of losing the big donors than losing their elections and it shows.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As I look at the 1979 list, the only objective on the list that has been fully realized is the second objective, the executive order banning employment discrimination against gays and lesbians by the federal government (President Clinton, 1998) and federal contractors (President Obama, 2014). We’ve made progress on most of the other objectives, but still have a way to go to get to the objectives. We’ve made next to no progress on the last objective, “Protect lesbian and gay youth from any laws which are used to discriminate, oppress, and/or harass them in their homes, schools, jobs, and social environments.“. It is a reminder that we have a lot to do after the Supreme Court rules in June.
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s interesting that the thirtysomething episode would come up. I remember that well. The religious right scared most advertisers into pulling their ads from the show. ABC ran the episode with PSAs in those slots at a great loss. The episode was not seen again until the series was picked up for reruns by a cable network after the series had ended. That’s the power the religious right had in 1989 and that they do not have now. it’s one of the reasons they are so angry. They do not have major corporations running scared at the threat of a boycott. (I think the failed SBC boycott of Disney put an end to the any perception that such a boycott would have any impact, not that social conservative groups don’t regularly call for them). But it is odd to recall a time in my youth when it was controversial to show two gay characters barely touch or hug. The first gay kiss on a network didn’t happen until well into the 90s! How silly those unwritten rules seem now but how terrified everyone was of offending the conservative Christian groups back then.
posted by Jorge on
“Nothing could have been more devastating to our argument that L.G.B.T. people would blend comfortably into the military than a photo—or worse a video—of these guys lined up not to march but to emulate the Rockettes,” he writes.
That’s about the reason I’ve been leery of getting in Barney Frank’s way despite my differences with him. It’s hard for me to get to my destination without crossing a road built by him.
Civility, moderation, and incrementalism are fine things, but even so, I think there is a certain point where you just can’t put lipstick on a pig anymore, where it’s not just the symbolism of the left, but its ideas and goals that become radical. Of course I think facts and logical persuasion are important. The people who think things through don’t control everything all the time, but sometimes…
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The reason we have made so much progress over the past few years is because every time a state legalizes same sex marriage, the images on TV are of a bunch of middle aged, slightly pudgy people getting married – most of whom look just like the people at home watching. The utter joy expressed in those scenes and the lack of in-your-face militancy is what has drawn so many people to our side. They finally can see we are just like them – not a bunch of sex-crazed freaks in assless chaps gyrating on some tacky pride float.
In another fifty years or so, historians will be writing objective, nuanced histories of the gay rights movement, and it will be interesting reading for those of you who are young enough to be around to read them. At present, we are in the midst of the fight, and each of us mediate the “history” we now know through the lens of our own experience.
The “insta-histories” now beginning to be published are good examples. Several “histories” of the legal thread of the movement have been published in the last few years, and what is fascinating is that each insists on the critical role of a particular lawyer or group, dismissing the others as irrelevant or counterproductive. Other “insta-histories” are beginning to be written about the cultural and political aspects of the movement, each emphasizing or downplaying the role of various players and various events.
Barney Frank’s book is no exception. He writes his “insta-history” through the lens of his own experience as a Washington politician, and is (inevitably, I suspect, in the case of autobiographical memoirs) the hero of his own story.
We all do this, and my views are mediated by my own experience, my role, my part in the larger history, which none of us, as yet, can see objectively. Stephen, no doubt, has a different perspective, mediated by his experience. As do all of us. We view the movement through the lenses of our own experience.
I tend to agree with you, Thom, but with a slightly wider lens, based on my own experience.
I think that the reason we have made the progress we’ve made, so rapidly, is that the nature of repression changed in the 1990’s, and the “the quiet ones” among us were threatened and became engaged in the fight for equality.
When repression was focused on social control — the bars, the cruising areas of the parks, the tea rooms, the clandestine hook-ups in rest rooms and so on — it was, as John Rechy pointed out, all too easy for “the quiet ones” (the teachers, the shopkeepers, the couples living in clandestine respectability outside the gay ghettos) to be disengaged.
When the focus of repression changed to attacks upon “the quiet ones” — I am thinking, specifically, on the broad-scale attacks on marriage and couples raising children, on adoption, on post-divorce custody, on cleaning gays and lesbians out of teaching — “the quiet ones” could no longer remain disengaged.
It is no coincidence, I think, that the “Briggs initiative” — a blunt and explicit attack on “the quiet ones” coincided with Harvey Milk’s insistence that the key to progress in the fight was for “the quiet ones” to come out to their families, friends, neighbors and co-workers. I think that as the attack on gays and lesbians broadened in the 1990’s to a frontal attack on gays and lesbians as partners and parents, more and more of “the quiet ones” started to come out.
And I think that the fact that so many scores of thousands of gays and lesbians came out in response to the anti-marriage amendments cemented the deal. What studies exist suggest that (1) the number of self-reporting gay/lesbian couples increased dramatically in each state where a fight over the anti-marriage amendments was fought, and (2) the most significant change agent for straight people in terms of whether or not a person supports “equal means equal” is whether the person knows a gay or lesbian family member, friend, neighbor or co-worker. It is almost impossible to think of gays and lesbians as the “spawn of Satan” when your own experience with gays and lesbians tells you different.
The joyous images of “middle aged, slightly pudgy people getting married” that have flooded our media in the last few years have been an important change agent for straight people, but the foundation was laid by “the quiet ones” coming out, little by slowly, in the last decade or two.
posted by Doug on
History is not only colored by the lens of personal experience but also by the lens of personal bias and prejudice. And sometimes personal bias and prejudice trump personal experience.
posted by Thom on
Totally agree! My point was that the political advances we have made over the past 10 years had little to do with the big planned marches and pride events, and more to do with the personal connections we’ve made with the straight majority when we’re not promoting the basest and least relatable aspects of the homosexual experience. When we showed them that many of us what the same things they do, marriage, family, etc, and not just free reign to lead a hedonistic lifestyle, we attracted much more support and are now reaping the benefits.
posted by Wilberforce on
Stephen is under the express delusion that Republicans still have credibility on economic matters.
posted by Francis on
It’s not just economic matters. They insist on treating science, particularly evolutionary biology and honest climate research, as a partisan hustle.
P.S. To the soul(s) who will inevitably claim I am lumping them unfairly with the more crazy elements, some free advice: start horsewhipping those gobshites.
posted by Kosh III on
“that it should be left to inside-the-Beltway politicians to deliver gay legal equality.”
Those are the folks with the power to create laws. The laws may be in response to demands from we the people but it still has to be done by legislators.
Do you need a refresher course in Civics 101?
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
1. Yes, popular culture (films, tv shows, music, comic books, video games) — as an multi-platform industry — has gotten much better in terms of the gay ‘glass ceiling’ and in terms of depicting/dealing with gay characters/gay rights issues.
2. Yes, I would agree that a successful political campaign — of just about any sort — needs to be (ideally) run by people with an appreciation for public relations, media narrative/structure and political procedure and the like. Not to mention a bit of tact, civility and compassion…..
3. As I understand things — I am sure someone will correct me — but the leadership in both main parties was pretty leery about supporting gay rights issues.
The Carter administration did a few positive things for gay rights, but didn’t want to alienate voters and substantive policy needed the backing of Congress and very few elected officials in the House of Senate were willing to back gay rights legislation.
The Reagan administration did not want to alienate the “moral majority” voters, but the President himself was personally quite nice to gay people that he new. The Bush administration was pretty much the same, although I think that they approved a bill collecting statistics on hate crimes motivated by anti-gay bias.
The Clinton Administration supported some gay rights legislation, but the results were something of a mixed bag (some of that is the fault of the administration and some of it was the fault of both parties in Congress)