All of this talk of Obama’s hesitancy on a DADT repeal is making me nauseous.
Washington Blade editor Kevin Naff says:
There is no rational justification for prolonging the repeal effort any longer. No more waiting, no more excuses and no more cover for duplicitous, squeamish politicians from our timid activist groups.
Flaming Politics’ Brock Savage says:
I went into this, as much as I could, with my eyes open, aware that the new President was not nearly as liberal as I would like, and far from on-point on many of the most important issues facing the LGBT community. There are still many battles to be fought, and the LGBT community can’t sulk because he isn’t the man he never claimed to be but we hoped he was.
Obama spent countless hours talking about how he’d reach out to everyone on the DADT issue. If my memory serves me right, I believe Obama even told us before he was elected that he’d work to build consensus on the issue before pushing for a repeal.
The 2010 timeline for repealing DADT doesn’t offend me. Naff’s insistence that there’s “no rational justification for prolonging the repeal” conveniently (and, perhaps, blindly) ignores the dire economic situation in which our entire nation (and world) now finds itself.
Obama’s tactics on the issue of DADT repeal aren’t the issue; it’ll get done one way or another — seventy percent of the American public won’t be able to be ignored for long.
But, right now, 100 percent of the American public is begging our government to fix this financial mess. Gays need to cool it and give Obama a chance. It’s not like his entry into the White House is going to be a nice walk in the park on a sunny, warm day. He’ll have to save the entire nation before he can start saving the minorities within it. What good are civil rights if there’s nation where they can be exercised?
Of course, the impassioned activist inside me is screaming, “Equality Now!” The more politically-adept, enlightened side of me says, “Yeah… we’re all so great at pissing of the religious right and independent voters; go ahead and push DADT ahead of the line and in front of the economy. That’ll be just fine.”
I understand Naff’s view from an activist standpoint. Strategically, pushing a DADT repeal through before dealing with the economy would be a complete disaster. Talk about turning folks against us.
There will be time to hold Obama accountable. When the time is right — when the nation isn’t on the verge of collapse — then we can shout and scream into the windows of the White House. Let’s be American first. Let Obama and the new administration figure out the national and worldwide economic problem, then we can worry about DADT.
Our LGBT organizations and leaders need to keep pushing on our issues, including DADT, ENDA, hate crimes and marriage equality. Keep these issues on the agenda for national discussion. Just realize that more important matters — problems with international implications — are being dealt with first and foremost. Painting Obama as a back-peddling politician isn’t going to help our cause
UPDATE: The Washington Blade has more. Oh, and another on why we have to get the economy fixed.
November 25th, 2008 at 11:21 am
My personal feelings about war aside, one could easily say that being “an American first” requires getting DADT removed immediately. We’re fighting wars in how many countries? The military can’t afford to loose or not attract any more qualified men and women. Dealing with the economic mess will take years, DADT could be repealed in a day. There’s plenty of time to do both, starting right now.
November 25th, 2008 at 11:29 am
If only the world worked that way. Brian, you and I both know how pushing DADT to the head of the line would be interpreted, spun and propagandized by conservatives. It would be a bad, bad move.
I’m all for DADT repeal, but I doubt it will be number one on any federal official’s priority list. Our country is on the brink of economic ruin… our defenses are fine, despite losing so many gay servicemembers.
Putting biases and rhetoric aside, it’s easy to see that this economic crisis threatens our security more than the loss of gay servicemembers.
November 25th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
I find myself generally agreeing with Matt (though I have much less faith that Obama’s policies will “save the entire country” from the current economic issues). One thing Obama is sure to learn from the Clinton administration is that trying to push the gays in the military issue as a first priority upon entering the White House sends a strange message to the general public – it’s spun as paying back the far left with a tone-deaf act of social engineering. While popular opinion on this issue has come a long way since then, we all know that politicians are constantly refighting the last war. 2010 isn’t a bad timeline – but if it doesn’t happen at that point (and yes, there are some indications that Naff rightly points out that it won’t), principled gay Democrats had better be holding President Obama’s feet to the fire. He owes us that much.
Btw, I won’t be satisfied if in 2010 Obama refuses to push repealing DADT, but has instead signed federal hate crimes legislation. Why? Because there’s very little evidence to indicate that hate crimes laws make a significant difference in the number of hate crimes committed, and even the symbolism of such legislation is tainted. Passing hate crimes sends the message that gays are still weak victims that need special protections – repealing DADT allows us to present our strongest, most responsible faces openly and claim, as many minorities have before us, that we deserve absolute equality because we sacrifice and die for it. As long as we’re discussing prioritizing the movement, my perspective will always be that on the federal level, DADT should be our top priority.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Oh, I didn’t say Obama’s policies would necessarily save the nation — I’m just saying he should be focusing on the economy during his first months in office, not civil rights legislation.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Since DADT is public law, passed by Congress and signed into into law by President Clinton, Obama would have to ensure he has the backing of a majority in Congress. He doesn’t have that right now. An executive order from him is not enough to repeal DADT (10 USC Sec 654: Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces.)