By Sean McCaughan
By the time this issue goes to press, rainbows will have flown over Washington, and gays in full Civil-Rights Era fervor will have marched upon the Capitol at the National LGBT March for Equality on Oct. 11. The Movement will have reached a level of activism and idealism that will seem almost retro – or so we’d like to believe. The gay movement may have even reached its zenith. .
Read Matthew Clark’s Live Coverage of the March
But isn’t a zenith usually reached when opposition is at its strongest? Clearly we should be doing better now than with Bush. But the Obama “Golden Child” shimmer has begun to fade, and we’re left to wonder if we even ever had a Democratic base of support at all.
In fact, as a recent lawsuit has shown, the political party on our side, our brethren in arms, our base of straight allies, only reluctantly has our backs at all and will sacrifice the gays for “the greater good.”
In 2006, the director of the Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council, one of the top gays at the Democratic National Committee, was fired because his partner spoke critically of the party. After prolonged negotiations, the director sued, and a lesson in the gross extents of party bureaucracy was played out in open court.
Obama is proving to be hardly any different. We almost loved him, and he appointed Rick Warren – a religious zealot and fervently anti-gay. We didn’t take Warren seriously – just a forgivable snafu soon to pass – and the President did nothing.
100 days later – still nothing. On the one hand, he was focusing on the economy and health care; but on the other, his total stagnation on the issue of gay rights was more than just prioritization.
People noticed. Richard Socarides wrote an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, and Rachel Maddow started a regular feature on her show dealing with the subject specifically.
Obama responded with a few, mostly symbolic, efforts. He hosted a reception in the East Room, inviting leading gays (but specifically, it is noted, focusing on those who support him the most – the good, docile gays). One person was even told by an undisclosed source to “behave” . And he gave some domestic partner benefits to government employees, not including health insurance, however.
Here is the most powerful person in the nation’s history to be openly pro-gay, being backed up by a Democratic Congress with historic levels of national goodwill towards him and gay rights, all dominated by the party that’s supposed to be on the gay side, and yet still nothing substantial happened. A few olive branches were tossed our way, trinkets meant to appease the angry masses. What gives?
Perhaps it has to do with the Democratic party in general. Perhaps it’s personal motivations, but it’s also party politics. And, to put it in cost-benefit economics terms, gay rights are not perceived as the most efficient use of party money and resources. Maybe they think the gain isn’t worth the risk. Sacrifice the gays for the sake of everyone else. What other party can they go to? The Republicans?
I’m not saying Obama’s homophobic. In fact, I believe quite the opposite. But I am saying that his inexperience with the Washington system is finally showing. During the campaign he was a golden boy – akin to a god, almost. He just seemed too good to be true. Hillary on the other hand, we knew too well. She wasn’t offering as much to gays, but what she did offer we knew she had the clout, rationality and political wherewithal to actually deliver.
Obama’s doing what the Democrats have done for years – taking gay votes and money when they need to, but only appeasing us when absolutely necessary. If they do any more, they risk upsetting other more homophobic demographics who could easily defect to the Republicans. Risk is higher than reward. So much for the idealist Mr. Obama that America fell in love with.
The gays are figuring this out.
One morning In 2006 (check year) Paul Yandura, a former Clinton staffer and the life partner of one of the the highest ranking gays at the Democratic National Committee sat in the living room of his Washington home and wrote an email to some friends. Here is what it said:
Dear Friends:
The Republicans have announced that they intend to use gay equality issues as a divisive election year tactic- AGAIN this year. Neither the DNC, nor any of the national committees (DCCC, DSCC), have a strategy to combat this hatred (unless you count avoidance as a strategy).
Dont believe me? Ask Howard, Ask Nancy, Ask Harry, Ask Rahm, Ask Chuck.
For many months a number of us have made appeals to Howard Dean and party officials to care about and defend the dignity of gay and lesbian families and friends, in the same way they defend the dignity of other key constituencies.
As the enclosed article shows, the DNC is fighting the vicious attacks being waged upon immigrants by the Republican party. Its the right thing to do and I applaud their action. Why then is it so difficult for them to do the same for us?
Why are gays and lesbians continually left to fight these battles alone? Where are our allies?
All progressives need to be asking how much has the DNC budgeted to counter the anti-gay ballot initiatives in the states. We also all need to know why the DNC and our Democratic leaders continue to allow the Republicans to use our families and friends as pawns to win elections.
We need answers to these questions. Until we get them my advice is don’t give any more money to the Dems.
-Paul
Paul sent it to the right friends. It was quickly printed in The Washington Blade, and a few days later his partner, Donald Hitchcock, was asked to resign. Hitchcock, the Chair of the Gay Outreach Desk, refused and was fired. The connection with the letter was obvious.
But other employees within the organization spoke out against the party on other issues and were not reprimanded. Why now? Why Donald?
In February 2005, Chairman of the DNC Howard Dean led a restructuring of the minority outreach desks of the DNC, uniting them under the title “American Majority Partnership.” Hitchcock was then the head of the LGBT outreach desk, which was eliminated all together, and he was made the director of the new Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council. This position was, Hitchcock soon realized, all about fund raising, with only a tangential relationship to the AMP and very little involvement in key policy-making discussions.
After his firing and 18 months of mediated negotiations broke down, Hitchcock sued the DNC. For the first time, DNC was confronted head-on with claims of homophobia. Howard Dean’s dirty laundry was out in the open.
Two weeks after the firing, Dean said marriage was between a man and woman because he “didn’t know” who he was being interviewed by. Hitchcock and other openly gay employees were paid less for the same work. And there was even evidence that blacks in the DNC were being pitted against gays by certain high-ranking individuals.
It was finally settled out of court in a rush to finish before the inauguration. The terms are confidential, but Hitchcock likely got what he wanted and was even given seated tickets to the inaugural ceremony by Dean himself.
Hitchcock may have been the first, but other gays can easily follow. The DNC must now act more defensively than it has in the past, knowing that the gays can leave them. Money can be taken elsewhere, donations can be withheld.
Transparency in the system is important. This lawsuit was a lesson about the kinds of behind-the-scenes political machinations and manipulations that can happen when the public isn’t aware or given visibility to the backrooms of power. The goals and ideals of the Democratic Party may always be the “big tent” of universal equality, but without the vigilance of everyone in that tent, any group within it can be easily forgotten.
