Does Either Party Deserve Our Vote?
The last issue of OUT magazine featured an article on Gay Republicans. This article generated such a great deal of mail from the gay republican contingent of our community that the writer of the article wrote a rebuttal to the original article.
The gist of the first article was that the closet is a bad place to be, and many if not most gay republicans who work on Capitol Hill have locked themselves inside it. Being gay and out in Washington is a quick way to lose power—something that gay republicans seem to value more than their own self-respect. Many of the republican commenters took issue with the article, stating that it was little more than a hit piece with no representation from actual republicans.
The rebuttal was simple enough. The writer, Charles Kaiser, responded that in spite of the backlash, “none of his detractors challenged any of the facts in his piece”:
“closeted gay Republican Congressmen and Senators have a very long history of voting against the interests of gay people -- whether the subject is gay marriage, gays in the military, or something as basic as the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, a law that would make it illegal to fire someone just because he or she is gay. And many talented gay Republicans -- inside and outside of the closet -- agree with David Duncan, that there’s nothing wrong with working for someone with homophobic positions, if gay bashing is the price you have to pay to keep a Republican Congressman in office.”
Regardless of the foul play claimed by gay republicans, the fact remains that they continue support people who steadfastly work to deny equal rights to gay people. As Kaiser goes on to write:
“I salute the Log Cabin Republicans for their efforts to change their party from within, and I’m sorry I didn’t include more of them in my piece. But it’s hard to see that they’ve made much of a difference, when every Democratic presidential candidate in 2008 favored an end to don’t ask, don’t tell, and every Republican was in favor of continuing it; every Democratic candidate participated in a discussion of gay issues on Logo, while every Republican boycotted it; and McCain, Thompson, Huckabee and Romney all opposed passage of the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, while every major Democratic candidate supported it.”
While most gay people have enough self-respect to not put any issue above equality under the law, does this mean we should automatically vote democrat?
No.
As one commenter aptly wrote:
“the liberals gave us Don't Ask/Don't Tell, the Defense of Marriage Act and it was a liberal governor who gave Texans that famous anti-sodomy law. Gay liberals dump millions of dollars and votes on people who have routinely passed ant-gay laws.”
Sure, there are ways that liberals explain these acts of gay bigotry, but the fact remains that they didn’t fight for us when we needed them. Most gay people I know slavishly support Hillary Clinton for President, yet:
-she won’t stand up for full marriage equality Obama doesn't either
-she won't reject “don’t ask/don’t tell” based on discrimination (in public she only admits opposing it because it depletes our military) Obama does
-she won't (on her own accord) mention gay people in speeches unless she’s speaking at a gay event, usually fundraisers. Obama does
-she doesn't list any GLBT links from her website, probably for fear of anti-gay supporters finding them (her base is more blue-collar and less educated than Obama's). Instead she provides a separate GLBT site that she disseminates in some indirect way. Obama's LGBT resources are easy to find on his website
-she is against repeal of DOMA. Obama says it should be repealed
Hillary lovers always tell me that she can’t really say what she feels, for political reasons, but why should I be in Hillary’s closet if I’m not in my own? I never accomplished anything transcendant while in the closet, and neither will she. Her husband enacted “Don't Ask Don't Tell” when he had a Democratic Congress and enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (and then heavily campaigned on his support of it in the South), and he we gave him a pass. Hillary learned from him. She knows that LGBT people will vote Democratic, and she counts on us not going elsewhere. These are the people we give our money and support to? Obama has a true outsider's perspective by nature of his story and he presents himself as a refreshing presence that might not be ashamed of us in the light of day, but by what party precedent do we trust him? Put our trust in an unproven guy who gives a good speech? Bill Clinton gave good speeches too.
The sad fact is that neither party deserves the support we give them. While Democrats have been good for us on a number of fronts, if we continue to support either party in the way we have grown accustomed, we will continue to be taken for granted. Regardless of party, gay people have by and large acquiesced to an incremental strategy of change that to this point hasn’t provided jack shit, unless you want to count President Clinton’s decision to ban workplace discrimination in the federal government. Aww, how nice. Now Republicans have recourse when their bosses try to fire them for being the very thing they work to marginalize. Excuse me if I'm not filling out my DNC pledge card.
This misplaced trust our community provides isn't limited to politicians. I found out last week that the Human Rights Campaign gave their endorsement to U.S. Senators that voted for a number of judges, two of which are now on the Supreme Court, who will undermine our basic rights long after these Senators’ political careers are over. Disgusting.
We need to demand more from our politicians. We need to demand more from the gay organizations we support. We need to demand more from ourselves.
15 Comments:
this post turned pretty quickly from a nice summary of an interesting debate in out magazine to an anti-hillary hatchet job to a nonsense "all politics sucks" screed. wow.
first, hillary is not her husband. the positions he has taken that you subscribe to her by association are not hers. maybe she is more calculated and overly cautious when she talks about gay issues, but give the woman a break. her positions on these handful of gay issues that you have deemed important are the same as the almighty obama's.
and what is this about "incremental change?" nothing happens overnight. name me one group out there that isn't upset that they only get their "wins" in dribs and drabs and i'll join with you in your argument that the politicians fuck us, and not in a good way.
i think the earlier parts of this post about the out article prove (to me at least) that the democrats are really the only option for someone looking to support politicians who will get something done on gay rights. the human rights campaign and the so-called progressive groups like them who support republicans like senator susan collins who vote againts gay interests and who vote for the likes of mitch mcconnell for senate majority leader need to learn that and stop making destructive decisions with the money they raise from us. they should be the target of our anger, not people like hillary (or obama or the countless other democrats who have come out on our side).
i like to shock people (namely my extremely political family) by saying that i won't vote for another candidate who doesn't openly support gay marriage and repealing don't ask/don't tell.
that said, i have to say that i agree with parker on many of his points, especially the last one, by taking cues from the circumstances that define a presidential race. any candidate trying to make it to the white house is going to try one of two ways to get there: by either riding the extreme ends of a polarized electorate or by attempting to appeal to the broadest base of moderate voters. the clintons rely heavily on the latter, and hillary is especially impacted by this because as a woman she has to prove she is tough enough (thus she's a hawk) and mainstream enough (thus limiting her comments on lgbt issues to lgbt audiences) to surpass the ordinary male candidate. in effect, she has to mainstream herself just to be considered electable and this is probably the biggest obstical facing her.
as voters, we have to remember that the entire nation elects the president and that there is no possible way for one person to embody all of our interests and represent each of us directly. i agree that we, as lgbt citizens, need to emphasize our importance and interests to politicians; however, i think we ought to start at the local levels and get more people in the pipeline who are in line with our views. in the meantime, we just need to vote for the best presidential candidate out there, who is definitely NOT john mccain. both clinton and obama are excellent choices.
wow, i think i just talked myself back into voting!
It should be noted that Hillary has suggested that the discussion regarding DOMA is irrelevent because marriage has always been left up to the states.
http://realitycheck08.org/2007/06/20/hillary-clinton-shifts-on-the-defense-of-marriage-act/
anon - and your point is?
As someone who has worked on numerous congressional, gubernatorial and mayoral campaigns for Democrats, I can personally vouch that I've been on the receiving end of hateful direct mail, TV ads and robo calls from the national Republicay Party and its respectful committees (NRCC, NRSC, etc) where they would attack my candidate and boss for supporting simple things like gay adoption, allowing gays to be foster parents, etc.
While some Democrats aren't perfect on gay issues and have voted for DOMA or the constituational amendment, I've never known of any Democratic campaign that has used democratic dollars to attack the gay community and cheaply use them as scapegoats to achieve a few political points at the ballot box. That's why I don't understand how gay Republicans can sleep at night knowing that their contributions fund the kind of negative TV ads, robo calls and direct mail pieces that I've seen where they've largely blamed gays for a lot of our nation's woes and used us as a whipping boy to keep Republicans in office.
Even if there are Democrats who support DOMA or the constituational amendment, I'd rather have a Democrat in office who is forced to vote for that b/c if they don't they'll lose their re-election as opposed to a Republican who would not only vote for it but probably co-sponsor it and give a rousing speech on the House or Senate floor expressing why "traditional families" are the bedrock of our nation, etc.
I lose no sleep at night attacking gay Republicans who care more about getting another tax cut for themselves over protecting members of their own community from the continued violence, discrimination and oppression that is a direct result of the GOP talking points on gay isues.
I personally feel that neither major party has its priorities right. That's why I've registered Green. That means that I lose my vote in the primaries, which sucks. In DC, the Green party is also lumped in with the DC Statehood party, which also sucks because I'm not necessarily passionate about DC statehood. (I'm all for full voting rights, but it would be silly for this tiny place to be a state.)
Personally, I feel like we do need a valid 3rd party. I'd love for all the environmentalists and those otherwise seriously concerned about our future to register for the green party. Let's show the RNC and the DNC that they are no longer relevant to our lives, and no longer addressing the real issues.
My point is that it's not correct to say she doesn't advocate repealing it, as though she has never taken a stance on it or supports it. She has taken a nuanced approach.
Michael, I'm so with you. I'm registered as an independant, mostly because I haven't really looked too deeply into the green party.
Larry Kramer, in giving a large address in New York I think last year, said that voting for anyone who doesn't give us full rights is colluding with them in their homophobic agenda. In many ways, I totally agree.
Marriage isn't just about marriage to me - it's about acknowledging our equal status to everyone else in this country. My moral quandry when voting is pressing the button for someone who doesn't support my voice as being fully human.
That's why I won't vote for either Obama or Hillary. Call me a human, or admit you're a politicized hypocrite and shut the fuck up with the platitudes already.
I think Democrats need to be true liberals again and not just some milquetoast crowd-pleasers. While that might not get everyone elected all the time, I think the very nature of people standing up for what they believe in (the fundamentalists sure do) starts to turn the tide.
i think this third party thing could be a good topic for another post, but i have a couple comments on that:
1 - the fact that there is a green party to register with tells me that we do have parties beyond the democrats and republicans to be a part of.
2 - i'm glad that michael said that he thinks the two largest parties don't have their priorities straight rather than saying (as many people do) that there is no difference between the two parties. there is and this discussion of how the dems and republicans handle gay issues illustrates that.
3 - i don't see what some mass exodus to the green party will accomplish, other than to prove that there are a lot of people out there who just want to be contrary. all three dem and republican candidates still running for president have called for dramatic action to address golbal warming. both democrats have a universal health care plan as the centerpiece of their campaigns. what's the point?
I have to agree with Parker on point 3. This country skews Rightist (which is to say insular thinking economically and socially - different to true conservativism, but thats a different post) to such an extent, that dividing the only progressive party in the country because the main Leftist party isn't progressive enough won't accomplish anything. Look at the Presidential election in the year 2000 and all the good that did then.
If anything, we should try and split the Republican Party into two to split the crazy Evangelicals off from everyone else and sweep the Democrats into office. Then we could maybe get some gay marriage, non-discrimination legislation, tax reform, meaningful education reform, and an end to the death penalty. And finally be a normal, civilized, developed nation.
On point 1, we have third parties in name only for the most part. They only exist insofar as the Democrats and Republicans let them. A 3rd party candidate has to go through thousands of hurdles and legal loop holes just to get on a ballot. We do a good job of creating the illusion of other choices.
On point 3, I think registering with another party or as an Independent forces Democrats and Republicans to take your issues more seriously because they view you as a swing voter. That's why so much attention gets paid to undecided voters. No one is saying you actually have to vote for those candidates in the end but declaring that your allegiance belongs not to a party but rather to the right ideals is, I think, a good strategy.
Also, if we had a form of run-off voting like most democracies do, then the spoiler issue would be null and void. Democrats and republicans have the ability to enact that but choose not to. Occasionally it bites them in the ass like in 2000 or in 92, yet they still do nothing to rectify it other than the blame game. I find it hard to have sympathy for them.
two parties are an inherent aspect of a first-past-the-post system (meaning the candidate with the majority -- not the plurality -- of votes wins. there are only 11 of these in the world and the US is one of them). that maens that unfortunately this country is not dominated by two parties because the DNC and RNC have a strong hold on politics that they refuse to let go, but because the system is structured so that only two parties can be viable in terms of competing for a number closest to the majority. in order for the DNC or RNC to have the power Steve implies that they do, they would have to restructure the US electoral system, which would be a truly radical measure.
i agree that third parties do an important job in shifting issues, but i think that their role is most effective only during the primary season.
@ SMZ. "i agree that third parties do an important job in shifting issues, but i think that their role is most effective only during the primary season."
... which is the only time your vote really counts in DC anyway.
yeah. you might as well throw your vote in the trash can on the corner of 14th and u st if you're casting a vote in dc.
Third parties are practical in parliamentary systems of government (Labor, Tories and Liberal Democrats in the UK, Likhud, Labor and Kadima in Israel, etc), but I don't think they are practical for our democracy where whoever wins a majority of votes wins power. I just don't think our government is set up that way unless a majority of votes came from a third party in a federal, state or local election.
A vote for a third party this election year will no doubt give us 4 more years of Bush (McCain) and that's not a chance I'm willing to take. History repeats itself (Nader in 2000) and I hope we can all learn from that mistake.
Post a Comment