As you know, I’m one of the supporters of the DNC boycott launched by Americablog, as my position has been for a long time that money talks. The heavyweight and grassroots donors are appalled, not just with the lack of attention to LGBT civil rights, but the speeding bus now being driven over women and reproductive freedom in the health care reform morass. It’s not just the LGBTs affected by the lack of commitment to progressive change now.
That’s why you’ve seen Daily Kos and Firedoglake sign on to the effort, as well as Dan Savage, Michelangelo Signorile, David Mixner, Andy Towle and Michael Goff of Towleroad, Paul Sousa, Robin Tyler and Bil Browning for the Bilerico Project sign on. As far as our issues go:
President Obama promised to be a “fierce advocate” for LGBT Americans. But while making modest progress on a scant few issues, on the major campaign promises made to our community, the President and the Democratic party have failed to keep their commitments.There has been little, if any, pressure from the White House for votes on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). The administration continues to send mixed signals on the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT). And we’ve been told not to expect the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to even be considered until President Obama’s second term. In the last two weeks alone, we were angered that the Obama administration continued to defend DOMA in the courts — last June, the administration’s lawyers even compared loving gay relationships to incest and pedophilia — and we were saddened that the White House and the Democratic party refused to help us defeat anti-gay ballot initiatives in Maine and Washington state. LGBT Americans, our families, and our friends kept our promise at the ballot box, we now expect President Obama to keep his in the White House.
It’s not about pushing issues that were never on the table; it’s about inattention to the promises made and legislation in the queue, and continued delay and stalling both at the WH and on the Hill — after all, it’s never going to be the “right time” to address politically thorny issues. We’re not stupid or lacking pragmatism. You might as well toss the DSCC and DCCC on the list if you really want to send a message.
Glenn Greenwald was spot-on a few weeks ago about the goal post that keeps moving.
As for the “you-have-to-wait” justification, here’s the time-line of the Democratic Party mentality on all such matters:
- 2004-2006: ”You have to wait until we win a Congressional majority in the 2006 midterms.”
- 2006-2008: ”You have to wait until we win the White House in 2008.”
- January-May, 2009: ”You have to wait until we have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.”
- Currently: ”You have to wait until after the 2010 midterms so we preserve our majority” or “you have to wait until Obama is safely re-elected in 2012.”
- Once Obama is safely re-elected, it will be: ”you have to wait so you don’t jeopardize the 2014 midterms.”
That’s the mentality that produces majority power which exists for no real purpose but to perpetuate itself.
Jane Hamsher spoke to CBS about the boycott and how it’s cascading into more action.
Hamsher has signed on to a financial boycott of the Democratic National Committee, Organizing for America (the DNC-run operation to mobilize Obama supporters) and the Obama campaign. The boycott was organized by Americablog’s John Aravosis and Joe Sudbay over what they see as President Obama and his party’s failure to keep its commitments to the gay and lesbian community.…That’s not enough for some on the left, however – and LGBT issues are not the only ones generating anger. Separate from the Americablog effort, another boycott is being organized by Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos. He is calling on his readers not to donate to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee because it is supporting candidates who voted against the health care reform bill. “Instead, give to those elected officials who best reflect your values,” he writes.
In addition to signing onto the Americablog boycott, Hamsher pushed her readers to unsubscribe to the Organizing for America mailing list, which is believed to include 12 – 13 million names. Liberals have been unhappy with OFA for not doing more on progressive causes like the gay marriage referendum in Maine.
But what about those who are not in favor of the boycott — and there are Blenders who think it’s not a good idea.
More below the fold.Chris Geidner opposes the boycott and makes his case The Advocate, in “Where Are We“:
This is ill-informed to the point of recklessness, and all equality advocates should be offended that John Aravosis would use his influence, such as it is, to attack the most pro-equality environment we’ve ever seen in this country.Was the DNC right in failing to provide much-needed financial support for the No on 1 campaign in Maine? No. Should people sit down and find out what happened and why and publicly demand accountability? Yes. Is President Obama right in maintaining his campaign position opposing marriage equality? No. Should the LGBT community continue to push the president to fulfill his campaign promises that would advance LGBT equality? Of course.
Parting ways or disengaging with the DNC and Obama and his campaign apparatus right now could have tragic results. In the coming months, we expect action on ENDA and want support for D.C. marriage equality, should it occur. Will this AmericaBlog action help us gain support in either of those immediate goals? I suspect not. In a not altogether surprising way, the more successful Aravosis’s efforts at this boycott are, the less likely we could be to see quick action on ENDA. As with his earlier position opposing the inclusion of gender identity protections in ENDA, Aravosis again could be a wrench in the passage of nondiscrimination protections for our communities.
…What’s more, the absolute lack of a good-faith basis behind this stunt is clear from the inclusion of DOMA’s repeal in AmericaBlog’s demands. There’s not a single member of Congress or an honest LGBT activist who actually believed that a repeal of DOMA was possible in this Congress this January. By including it, Aravosis guarantees that this effort can continue indefinitely.
Speaking for myself, I’m well aware that DOMA repeal legislation is unlikely to pass, but a vote on it is quite useful in showing who needs to be lobbied on this — “allies” who haven’t yet grown the spine to support via vote, but also endlessly have their hands out at the gAyTM waiting for a wad of cash. If you pay, then you expect your representative to PLAY, not pretend and dodge. But my position on this has been consistent from the time I threw that gAyTM up there. I certainly see no impending tragedy ahead for doing what other consitutencies (and PACs and big businesses) have done with the power of the purse to leverage action out of politicians. Why is it scandalous when the grassroots steps up to play hardball? Sign the Boycott the DNC pledge here.
I agree to disagree — the boycott makes sense — if you’re in the “just trust them to do the right thing at their pace” category or have a better approach than the boycott, then make the case for it not going forward; if it helps, all the better. Things will fall where they may. Discussion about it is a good thing.
Q of the Day for Blenders against the boycott:
1) Are you satisfied with the amount of progress in LGBT equality at the federal level?
2) Has the President and Congress had enough time to accomplish more?
3) If you believe progress is being stalled, then what might be a more effective approach to break the logjam?
4) What potential harm to LGBT equality do you think will result from this particular boycott (given there is not a call to stop donating to individual candidates supporting civil equality)?



53 Comments





We need a pay for Performance systemWe should take pledges for each item. When ENDA passes, they get money, when DADT gets repealed, then they get money, etc. but not until we get action.
Deanna
Targeted BoycottAs I’ve posted on other websites, I’m honoring the boycott (or “pause”). It is crucial to emphasize, however, that the boycott does not extend to individual candidates, organizations, or causes that are supportive. The boycott shouldn’t result in any overall reduction in anyone’s contributions. Rather, it should be about ensuring that your contributions go only to candidates, organizations, and causes that are supportive. I agree with Pam, however, that the DSCC and the DCCC should be included.
For myself, I’m also refusing calls from some progressive to redirect my donations to the Green Party or some third party. Personally, my objective is to pressure the Democratic Party to improve itself, not to abandon it. I know that some progressives disagree with me, but the model of supporting a third party–voting for Ralph Nader in 2000–was counterproductive. It effectively gave us eight years of the Bush Administration. It isn’t my goal to see Democrats lose power, as long as I still have hope of pressuring them to be more proactive.
We should also be aware of when to end the “pause” in giving. While I approve of the benchmarks set by those calling for the boycott, I will candidly say that I’d be willing to reconsider my refusal to contribute if I see some genuine commitment that may fall somewhat short of enactment of the three pieces of legislation mentioned: ENDA, DADT repeal, and DOMA repeal. I view those benchmarks as an opening bargaining position. At an absolute minimum, however, we need to see ENDA enacted within months and real movement toward repeal of DADT. Moreover, I’m not keen to contribute to the Party as long as the Justice Department is defending DOMA in court with arguments based on a right-wing interpretation of the Constitution, basically arguing that gay people have no judicially enforceable constitutional right to equality. That’s not the vision of the Constitution that I voted for in 2008.
Coincidentally, I was contacted by the DNC and asked to donate the other day and declined on account of LGBT issues. Based on my experience, I’d say be aware that solicitors will repeatedly pressure you to give before relenting and will seek to try to explain why the DNC is great for LGBT people. Do what I did: Politely decline to have the conversation, then firmly decline to have the conversation, and finally tell the solicitor that, for the third time, you’re not having that conversation with him or her.
I don’t think the boycott goes far enoughMore than “no money”, we need to get to “no votes”. Sit out the midterms and then we’ll get to hear about how the needy gays cost the elections (yet again).
American politics is an anomaly in the world. Most democracies have proportional representation and then cobble together their coalitions after the elections. In America, we cobble together the coalition during the primary season before the elections. Right now, we’re being told that LGBT concerns are not valid enough or important enough or that there’s so much on the national plate (given two wars that aren’t going anywhere, an economy that isn’t going anywhere, healthcare that isn’t going anywhere, and just in the last week education, which also won’t go anywhere.)
In the end does it matter if we’re getting kicked in the teeth by people telling us we’re barely human or if we’re getting kicked in the teeth by people telling us that we’re human, just not as human as they are?
We so desperately need a progressive party option in this country, because this rancid choice between center-right and lunatic-right isn’t worth much any more.
Just for the curiousAnd admitting that W was a cretin who dishonored the country every day he was in office.
How is that different from the current situation?
Sure, Barry plays better overseas, but there’s nothing for the progressive agenda. All these conservative fears about the terrible uber-progressive Nancy Pelosi-saurus have turned out to be just tales about Chupacabra.
We don’t have proportional representationI wish we did have a European-style system of proportional representation that could support multiple parties, but we don’t. Our winner-take-all system has prevented the rise of an enduring third party for our entire 200-year history. All an attempt to create a progressive party would do is split the left, and when you split the left, you elect the right.
I’ll sign on to your movement to amend the Constitution to create a parliamentary-style system with proportional representation, but I’m not willing to make progress on gay rights depend on it. I’m hopeful that monetary pressure can have some positive results with the moderate-left party we have.
Answers, and a redesign suggestion1) Not just no, but Hell no.
2) Accomplish? I don’t think that is the right question. But when the President and Congress abjectly refuse to even acknowledge the issues, much less make an honest and meaningful start to addressing them… they have most definitely had more than enough time.
3) Money talks, and votes talk. We need to shut down the money, we need to get others to refuse donations — and be willing to explain, in excruciating detail, exactly why the revenue stream has dried up — and we need to run challenges in as many races as we can. We need to make it impossible for them to ignore our influence. The problem is that there are an awful lot of quislings in our community. We need to figure out how to neutralize their actions.
4) Absolutely none. How can we be marginalized any more, when the Democratic Party is so busy pandering to the Republican base that the issues of its own base threaten their perceived viability?
And might I suggest a redesign of the gAyTM image to say, “Cash on delivery ONLY”?
What moderate-left party do we have?We have a center-right House (barely passed a really moderate health insurance reform), a center-right Senate which may not be able to get that much done, and a center-right President.
GLBT issues are just the tip of the icebergThere’s an article today at Americablog pointing out that the Dems are at risk in 2010: http://www.americablog.com/200… citing inaction on campaign promises. This whole “you just have to wait” idea doesn’t work for me, they’re gonna get booted out of office in the midterms and we’ll be back to the regressive politics of the Republicans. This boycott should be a wake up call to the Dems, shit or get off the pot!
It depends on where you think the center is
If you think the Democrats are “moderate-left”then I can only assume 1) you’re very young or 2) you don’t have any objective view of the rest of the world.
Sure, compared to Reagan, the current Democrats are moderate (the same) or slightly left. That doesn’t mean that the political center changes.
Ooh, these are fun to answerOk.
1) I am. It has been less than a year and we already have inclusive hate crimes legislation passed that not only provides federal protections and suspect class statuses, but increases funding and aid for state investigations. Considering that a transperson is killed in this country at a rate greater than one a month, I consider that not “nothing”. Furthermore, I’m beginning to get really annoyed and bitter that so many of my fellow queers seem to not care that this historic bill was passed. It’s like they’re too wrapped up in their own pet issues to give a damn about positive news for the community because they really don’t see themselves as part of a community. In their eyes, they live in progressive states or see themselves as unlikely to be a victim of hate crimes so such a law passing is less than meaningless to them and all the hard effort of passing it through our messed up congress is meaningless. It’s insulting, especially as they also ignore that the other piece of big legislation this year (health care) has some good lgbt protections in its house incarnation and the phenomenal progress on ENDA considering there is a host of issues that could have been deemed “more important”.
2) No. 2/3 of this country support progressive reforms to the health care system. Our health care system in America is a world-wide joke. Danish people refuse to believe me when I tell stories about how bad our health care system. It is like I’m describing what it’s like to live under constant bombardment and war. There’s massive energy for change and even a large percentage of businesses are advocating for it and we’re still getting watered down sludge. Congress is practically designed to be a giant pile of shit and conservadems and republicans have undue influence because of their resistance to reality and their scatterbrained idiocy. Considering that moderate almost health care reform needed to kick women in the teeth just to get passed and the Senate is expected to be worse, I think we need to acknowledge that the illusion of numbers isn’t the same as a progressive majority. Even so, in one year, that has seen only a handful of genuine legislation, we got one gay rights bill passed, a home rule law thwarted, protections added to signature legislation and another issue or two to be debated and potentially voted on in the House before year end. That’s staggering considering that congress is fundamentally flawed as an instrument of governance in this political climate.
3) More and better democrats as always. To whit, I don’t mind some using the boycott and its publicity for the purpose of cudgel and to redesign some funding. However, while noble to this purpose, it ignores a problem. Conservative dems suck. They’re vile, petty, ignorant shitfucks, but in most cases, they come from areas where the resulting republican would be much worse. Yeah, Ben Nelson is god awful, but his republican replacer would be just as bad on the social and economic issues, while also siding with the rethugs on things like the defending blackwater from having the law involved in rape cases. Remember that during the repub-dominated Bush years, the thing they were toying with was constitutional amendments for one man/one woman marriage, so yeah, it may be satisfying not to see money going for assholes who vote like republicans, and I’m not actually entirely against this funding those who stand for us, but there could be distinct consequences.
4) Republicans. Republicans vote in lock-step and they are petty, vile, and cruel. We talk about the recent horror in the Stupak Amendment. Yeah, it was awful. Yeah, it was sick how a good number of democrats felt woman-hating was what their constituents want more than health care, but the republicans all except for one, voted for that amendment and all except for one voted against health care. In the NY Senate, we are worrying about a handful of conservadems, because the republicans are assumed to be close to all in on the against side. We need to play games to get rights passed for gay people, because republicans will raze the whole world if it means some hated minority gets to eat a shit sandwich. It is obscene that some democrats agree with them, but it is the disease of conservatism which is the problem. Republicans exist, that’s why these conservadems matter. If they didn’t or if they didn’t universally hate all minorities, the whining of a handful of red-district dems wouldn’t amount to a fart in a windstorm.
That being said, if people want to boycott, that’s a form of pressure on the democrats. The main problem we have is not only the sustained rot of conservatism and republicanism, but an entire apparatus so beaten over the years, that the entire media is centered around praising conservatism no matter what and shifting the overton window lurchingly as far right as it will go. Angry leftists whether in this boycott or the actions for the public option seem to have some function in shifting the overton window back and certainly I prefer that movement and I personally like the position of puller trying to yank things from the far left with pressure, anger, life stories, whatever it takes.
I think the whole new world of e-funding and the e-grassroots allows some new power in the role of the money game and especially shifting funding from diaspora organizations to targeted donations to vulnerable congresspeople who are willing to take public stands for progressive policy (such as Alan Grayson) or who don’t fall into the temptations of connservademtardness (currently Bill Owens) may help train more dems that one wins and gets money and volunteers for reminding their constituents about the value of progressive legislation rather than just voting with the republicans on anything controversial in the hope that their constituents like scared republican-lites.
But I think one should also note that this could lead to congresses where no legislation even has a hope of passing because lock-step republicans are preventing any bills from coming to the floor in favor of the “Investigate Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate” Bill or the “Should Gays be Strung Up by Lightposts or Fenceposts” Omnibus Bill of Hating Gay People. The fact that we even have the hope for some rights passing is dependent on Democrat control of congress. By all means push, by all means boycott, by all means rail and rant and march and lobby. Lord knows, I will be. Anything we can as often as we can, as many tactics as it takes, etc…
But remember also that shitty dems are better than their alternative. It’s not a “both sides are just as bad” thing. One side has minimal empathy. One side wants to harvest our organs to cast out the demons. It sucks that those are our choices, but that’s on the giant list of why America’s political system sucks.
Great Move, but DOMA repeal by 2012?I think this is a great move. We need to apply pressure. Of course, I haven’t given to Democratic organizations in over a decade, so I’m easy to convince. They give too much support to conservative, anti-choice and anti-LGBT Democrats. I’d rather give what I can to truly progressive individual candidates.
That said, I think that if you pledge not to support Obama’s re-election campaign unless DOMA is repealed before 2012, you’re basically saying you’re just not going to support him. I was glad to see your doubts on that one, Pam, since you do say you’re part of the “reality based community.” ;-) I think you have to have left the planet to think there is any way that DOMA will be repealed before 2012. Obama could make it job #1 and it still wouldn’t happen; we just don’t have the votes in Congress. The only hope for DOMA in the near-term is the courts.
Personally, since we’ve gotten hate crimes, if we also get ENDA and DADT repeal, I’ll happily support Obama in 2012. I’ve never had any illusions that DOMA repeal would happen first term.
I’m transgender.I’m transgender and on a fixed income, and as of the last needs assessment in San Diego (2004), my pay is in the top 14% of all trans wage earners in my city.
My subcommunity of the LGBT community is on the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. As a community, we’re poor.
Closing down the GayTM will not impact many trans people – very few of us make enough money to have any political clout that way as trans people or trans community.
All we have is our votes, which are few. And, of course, that our cause is just:
Thank youWell said.
“gayTM” doesn’t strike me as an accurate description; it’s much too neutral“Blatant fraud” would be more like it. The Democratic Party has been taking money from us for decades, on the basis of promises which they knew perfectly well they had no intention of keeping. It would be too charitable, even, to say we’ve had our pockets picked. WE HAVE BEEN DEFRAUDED, PERIOD. And once you realize you’ve been defrauded, you put a stop to it. Do you suppose any of Bernie Madoff’s “clients” are still giving him money? Unfortunately, there’s no legal recourse available to us; “truth in advertising” laws don’t apply to politicians. The only thing we can do is refuse to be defrauded any further. This, er, “pause” is not only eminently sensible, it is long overdue.
And it appears to be working. Am I the only one who is not surprised that suddenly, almost immediately after the boycott was announced, Barney Frank announced a DADT repeal in the 2011 defense bill? Fine, Barney. When you repeal DADT and come through on all your party’s other promises to us, I will no longer look at you as a political Bernie Madoff. Till then, well, I guess you and your pals in the smoke-filled back room will have to make do with smaller cigars.
Barry Goldwater was once the exemplar of conservative AmericaEven so, he was very open in his support of equality for all, even gay people. For him, conservatism meant treating everyone equally and fairly. Fourty-five years ago, he stated at the Republican National Convention that “moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Thirty-five years ago he stated that “You don’t have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.”
In short, the Democratic Party of today is even more conservative than the poster child of conservatism in the 60s. Think about that for a bit.
Well as one of the peoplethat this thread is actually talking to, ‘d be happy to answer the questions.
A: This question is something of a red herring given that until this congress there had been NO progress on LGBT issues at the federal level in any area.
Going by that simple standard, what the Democrats have done has been extraordinary. Yes I am definately satisfied. Do I want to see more, certainly. However, having a sense of historical perspective as it pertains to civil rights for minorities…there is nothing here to be upset about. Passing civil rights legislation ALWAYS takes time and often comes with uncomfortable compromises. I’m not selfcentered enoug to think that government policy revolves solely around my personal needs.
A: NO. Anyone who says yes to this question is a damn fool with no understanding of either the scale of the problems the President is facing nor fully comprehends the level of opposition to what he is trying to do. The man has not been in office a full year, yet in that time the government’s policy toward its LGBT staff has improved, it is now a federal crime to target someone for being LGBT and the HIV travel ban has been lifted. That’s the result of 10 months in office out of 4 years. It was totally unrealistic to expect that the President would tackle every LGBT issue in his first year in office (especially given the magnitude of the problems he and the country are forced to contend with.
A: N/A
A: It runs the risk of helping the Republicans gain seats. The best tool for achieving equality is having a Democratic controlled government. Whatever you may think of blue dogs and conservadems, they are not out to stop ALL legislation. Each seat the Democrats lose to a Republican is essentially one abstention or becomming a hard hard NO when the time comes to vote on our issues. Furthermore, losing control of congress means that our isssues will no longer even be up for discussion.
Bad news, CerberusSciFi Geek is agreeing with you.
Can’t think of a better sign that you’re flat-out wrong.
But you hold on to that idea that it’s only been X months (where X < 48 because Obama’s not going to energize a base that he is actively demoralizing).
Autumn, votes are hugeThey’re more huge than money. Americans, as a rule, have rotten turn-out. Compare that to the LGBT community, which tends to have excellent turn-out, and turn-out that is overwhelmingly Democrat. End that turn-out and we can really scare people.
DOMA argument is a red herringI think that when folks argue “but DOMA doesn’t have the votes!” that it’s a red herring. Few things have the votes when you first propose them. Candidate Obama didn’t have the votes when he first took on Hillary Clinton in the primaries. He didn’t throw up his hands and say “gosh, it’s a great idea, but I don’t have the votes, so I guess I’ll quit.” He fought for the votes and got them. On health care reform, Obama proposed single payer, then a public option, then refused to push for either because “he didn’t have the votes.” It took Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to get the votes, because the President didn’t want to try. And now on gay rights, it’s the same thing. People lament “gosh, we may not have the votes” to repeal DOMA when the president hasn’t lifted a finger to get us the votes in order to keep his promise.
The White House is relying on their belief, their hope, that folks don’t understand how politics in Washington works. That you don’t give up when you first start, even if you don’t have the votes, because you’re supposed to first fight to get the votes, THEN decide if you can win, not the reverse. Second, the White House is hoping that people don’t realize that Barack Obama is currently the most powerful man in the world. They keep putting out this weird talking point about how the Congress makes laws, there’s nothing powerless Mr. O can do to influence the process because he’s just the president. Uh huh. The president has immense power to influence congress, if he chooses to use it. And we’ve seen time and again that this president is particularly averse to to doing anything to influence the legislative process for the better. Well, that’s going to change with our boycott.
So don’t let people tell you that if we don’t now have the votes for DOMA, we shouldn’t demand that DOMA be repealed. I have faith in our president, and truly believe that if he and the leaders in Congress wanted DOMA to be repealed, it could be repealed.
It says muchIt says the Overton Window has been fucked hard and without consent by media conglomerates, an insane right-wing base of white supremacists and John Birchers, and 30 years of republican rule.
We indeed have a choice between center-right and far right wing. These choices do indeed suck and it is frustrating because the country itself is on most issues center-left but stuck in a soup of the crappy Overton window.
The answer is more and better Democrats and pushing the Overton Window wherever possible back to sane. Which is why I wouldn’t dream of stopping the boycott or the efforts of the grass-roots in general. We need to train the Democratic Party to not be afraid of progressivism and reinvigorate the not-altogether small progressive wing of the party to be willing to pull a Grayson every so often.
What we NEED is an alternative to the Two PartyChoice is good, and it is far past time for Americans to demand a political system that supports choice. Until then, we will only be allowed to choose between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.
I Really Like That – It’s Worth Repeating. . .
HmmThat seems odd considering I support those who are boycotting, I support the message, the press it will get for greater action, and how this action regardless of anything will push the Overton Window. I’m sort of a anything and everything type. I believe on the ground we should push for everything at every stage in order to begin laying public support or to galvanize and radicalize that support, we should make this clear to congress and the WH as well with as much ranting as we can muster so they understand its importance and it cuts through the teabagger retiree brigade of people with nothing to do trying to fill their empty lives with Jesus.
I disagree with some of the assumptions made in the particulars and pointed out those disagreements, particularly and most infuriatingly the idea that “no” gay rights have been passed this year and that “nothing” has been done for us. I also disagree with vote boycotts or trying to discourage participation because low participation always favors right-wingers and the rightward shift of the Overton Window.
I also disagree with the idea that democrats get messages like vote boycotts. They don’t. They just look at the raw numbers, assume that progressives and DFHs are lazy bastards who don’t care and what they really need to do is become more conservative to woo the more conservative voters who actually voted. It’s why even Maine looked only at “likely voters”.
Vote boycotts fundamentally don’t work and so for that sliver, I’d say any vote boycott is a vote for the worse party as long as we have the fundamentally flawed two-party system we have now.
But redirecting money towards training high-risk candidates towards principled stands on public-supported legislation? Hell fucking yeah. That will probably what I’ll be doing nationally my whole life on the money front, because it has direct effects on the Overton Window.
And furthermore because anything we can do, wherever we can do it, as often as we can do it. Diversity of tactics, diversity of legislation, diversity of court cases. We can drag the future here inch by agonizing inch.
I disagree on hate crimesWhile the passage of the bill is a good thing, it only helps someone after they are dead or battered. These incidents of gay-bashing will continue at the same rate as long as our laws treat us differently. The anti-LGBT laws give legitimacy to haters for their actions. The removal of these laws will do more for reducing hate crimes than the hate crimes bill. IMHO.
WellMore like between Tweedle Dum and a serial killer, but the point is one I share.
We have to deal with the system we have first, because the same system isn’t going to allow the radical changes towards parliamentary PR system au natural, but I have given long thought about how this problem might be addressed.
One idea I had was to perhaps use CA’s broken 50%+1 constitutional amendment system to force an adoption to PR representation for the State House and Senate. Earlier bills have surfaced, but they’ve been rejected by third parties and warned against on the literature. If one could design a bill with third parties and gain their support as well as having it written by a constitutional scholar, it could actually have a chance and even if it didn’t work, it’d at least prompt the two parties to do something about the broken amendment system here.
money politics & powerSure the Dems will take our money – they take it and spend it – that’s what they do. But all politics are local, and the only way for us to gain power is to continue moving forward in taking over our local Democratic party congressional districts. When the Dems locked us out in the 80s and 90s, there was a movement to push our way through, but then we got distracted by AIDS, by Clinton promises and failures, by the GOP Contract on America, by 9/11, by lots of stuff.
For real power to shift, bloggers need to call for local take overs of local Democratic parties at the county, state and national levels.
Until then whether we boycott in donations or votes won’t matter, because our donations & votes are a drop in the bucket of the billions raised by the DNC. LGBT voters in California, Arizona, Florida and Arkansas turned out in record numbers, yet in all those states equal rights were stolen by tyrannical theocRAT Obama supporters.
The only way to change the laws is to become delegates to your county and state Democratic Parties. Then you get to decide who runs for office and that’s where the control is.
I respectfully disagreeHate Crimes legislation increases the seriousness of the crime and one of the chief points of note in bashing and murder cases is how unserious the local law has treated it and how unserious the courts have treated it.
But now, it’s a federal thing. Suddenly, it’s a big deal. What this means is the sudden increase in the death of the gay/trans panic defense, local law enforcement lazing around, etc… Also the suspect class issue will likely have a huge impact in a number of court cases for gay civil rights working the various courts. I expect an even bigger jump if we’re successful on ENDA.
That being said, I agree on the latter point. Whatever we can change, wherever we can change it will have huge impacts on the treatment of queer individuals everywhere. Any removal of discrimination, every positive rights change, every personal case of suing against discrimination pushes the society forward and must be repeated strongly and forever until bigotry against gays stops being a lucrative business.
Whatever we can get, wherever we can get it, as often as we can get it, with as much push, shove, and battle as we can give, etc…
Show me where the difference is betweenElecting Conservative anti-LGBT Democrats and Anti-LGBT Republicans? President Obama won the Democratic Primary because he promised a full repeal of DOMA, Hillary didn’t.
If just discussing our issues equal progress to you, you have set your sights way to low IMHO. We ended up with Alito and Roberts on the SCOTUS because of a few Democrats that didn’t have the guts to do what the republicans are doing now.
If you can’t see that LGBT issues are suffering the same fate as Health Care Reform with huge majorities in both houses of congress and the White House held by Democrats, you must be blind.
Full forward!Full forward with the boycott! People who think we’re just being mean to the nice Democrats are missing the point – THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO GET THEIR ATTENTION. It’s how things have worked for every interest group in American political history. You don’t exercise control to get your agenda enacted by being “nice,” you get what you want by threatening to withdraw your support. It’s the only power the politicos recognize: your donations, your votes, and your support.
It’s the differenceBetween being beaten up and being murdered. Both suck, one is worse. Conservadems will stab us in the back, but often will at least support our humanity in some other bill that aids those most needy, even if it is obliquely through positive economic reform, protections for women, or general anti-discrimination measures or at least the chance for a vote on things like health care legislation. Republicans however will watch the country die for simple political advantage and know how to fuck minority groups, which is why our situation got so bad during the Bush years.
We are dealing with choices between sane but cowardly, and the Party of Completely Fucking Nuts.
And I’d think that’d be obvious in the debates you mentioned. If the other party was sane, we’d not be talking about the small set of conservadems fucking all of us, because sane republicans would have been crossing the aisle too. Instead they voted in lockstep against us, kept trying to sneak in poison amendments, and have made every vote in the Senate require a 60 seat majority in order to give conservadems additional power.
By all means, we should train our progressive members to have a spine by all and any means necessary, but the parties are NOT the same by any conceivable stretch of the imagination.
Hell even Mad Joe of Lieberman for Lieberman is more lucid than even the most liberal Republican left. That’s saying all that really needs saying.
For more concrete: Hate Crime Bill passed and signed versus Attempts to Amend the Constitution to block gay marriage and Virginia Foxx and Friends ranting about how Matthew Shepard deserved it.
Screw the DNCWhat have they done for LGBT people lately? Nothing. What have they done for women? Passed the Stupak amendment, which goes well beyond Hyde in making access to safe, legal abortion even harder for poor women.
It’s not just the DNC we have to boycott. It’s the Dem party beast as a whole. Work for individual candidates at the local level.
Interestingly enough, for those who are in Hawaii, State Senate President Hanabusa is the featured guest at the GLBT Caucus meeting, Nov 14, 10AM to Noon at Dem Party HQs (Ward Warehouse, 2nd floor). She will be talking about her candidacy for the 1st Congressional seat, and answering questions about HB444. You all do remember HB444, right? The Civil Unions bill that Senator Hanabusa refused to pull from committee to the floor for a full vote in the Senate after it had already passed in the House? Yeah, THAT Colleen Hanabusa.
Screw her, too. If I’m still here next year, I’ll work for Gary Hooser in his run for LtGov. HE was unafraid to publicly support our families.
My 2 centsNo, they haven’t done enough. Yes, they’ve had enough time to do more. When it comes to the boycott, I say yes, but better would be to bypass their funding groups altogether, form a new National GayPAC, encourage everyone to give to it, then have National GayPAC only give funds to candidates who actually co-sponsor and vote favorably on our issues. After a few cycles of so-called “centrist Dems” getting no money, they’ll start to see things our way. The bigger and better funded the GayPAC is, the more money we can give, the more influence we’ll have. And don’t be shy about cutting off funds for backsliders, one fall off the wagon and you’re out for the next cycle, period. As Bob Dylan once wrote, “Money doesn’t talk, it swears!”
It’s responses like this that turns off people who mights support the boycott
Really? No difference between W and Obama? I don’t even think such a statement justifies a response.
W and the RNC were actively OPPOSED to the items in “the Big Gay Agenda” that Obama and the DNC SAY they support, and have taken action on (signed hate crimes, supports ENDA, Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act, DADT, etc).
W Supported a FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO BAN ALL MARRIAGE EQUALITY IN ALL 50 states.
To say “there’s no difference” between the two is simply ludicrous.
i have also said I am going to honor he boycott, but I think Aravosis is NOT HELPING the situation by posting a petty, inaccurate and, frankly, slightly bizarre “list of slights” that must be apologized for.
I am all for saying No money to DNC, OFA or DSCC/DCCC until we get congressional actions on DOMA repeal, DADT and ENDA. But keep the eye on the prize: it’s about the result, not whether people’s feelings or egos are hurt.
why are they honoring Hanabusa?What is UP in Hawaii? 16 years after the first successful same-sex marriage ruling in Baehr and all you all have is “reciprocal beneficiaries” not comprehensive civil unions or marriage (which your state legislature COULD pass if it wanted).
Wrong frame of referenceThe “rest of the world” does not vote in American elections. The question is not, abstractly, where is the center-of-gravity of all political theories on the planet. The question is where is the center-of-gravity in American public opinion. Within the American electorate, the Democratic Party is moderately left.
Besides, what you call the “rest of the world” is nothing but Western Europe, if you’re talking about LGBT issues. Your perspective on where the political center has conveniently ignored Eastern Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, South Asia, East Asia, Indonesia, and Australia.
We have to contend with the political system and electorate that we have, not with the parliamentary system or European political spectrum we might like to have.
Goes Beyond LegislationNot only is DOMA repeal a red herring, the entire legislative argument (e.g., “there has not been enough time”) is simply a way for the Democrats to deflect criticism on their lack of action, or, more rightly, their reversal of the promises made during the campaign.
I have long argued that it is not the lack of legislative action that is the biggest problem. Given how slowly Congress moves, getting hate crimes through this year and either ENDA and/or DADT next was probably the best we could hope for. So on that issue, I am actually satisfied, although I am supporting the boycott.
My problem is the decision by Congressional leaders to downplay the importance of our issues, but even more importantly with the Obama administration for reversing course almost entirely about the issue of LGBT equality.
Sure the administration is still supportive of legislative fixes for our current second-class status, but in the filings supporting DOMA and DADT, as well as their silence on the referenda in Maine and Washington, they are implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) making the argument that treating us as second-class citizens is completely and totally fine.
They have argued that both DOMA and DADT are Constitutional, despite the 14th Amendment, and their silence on the injustice of any/all referenda on our civil rights implies that they think it is fine for the majority to limit our lives in these ways. Do you really think the Democrats would sit by while, say, Mormon rights were limited via referenda? For Obama, et.al., to tacitly accept the denial of full humanity, equality and value of our lives inherent in these votes clearly demonstrates that they do not truly consider us equal human beings. THAT is what really sticks in my craw.
Personally, I don’t even need legislative advances to regain confidence in the Democrats. Rather, I need them to stand up and state unequivocally that I am a full and complete human being who already is an equal citizen in this country – and that the time has come to no longer accept anti-gay positions as simply another political viewpoint.
Of course, in some ways that is a taller order than simple legislative acheivement, but I believe it is the route we have to take. Enough with fighting referenda on our existence, I demand a party and a leadership that sees me as a human being.
They are not ‘honoring’ HanabusaShe requested to meet with the caucus. She’s looking for support for her run to take Rep. Abercrombie’s seat as he is running for governor.
Hawaii is an interesting place. The courts ruled for gay marriage, but once it was put to a vote, well, you know how that goes. This state is more religious than you would think, and these folks that meet every Sunday have a tendency to show up at rallies and at the state offices, with children in tow. After speaking with some of the Dems in office here, I was told that there are many who are too afraid to lose the money they get from these ‘supporters,’ re-affirming why this boycott is a wise one.
GO HOOSER!
Great idea!That way, we get to show exactly how much ‘muscle’ we contribute.
Well said.
Bear with me…In the end, I think that a boycott will have little practical effect on any of these organizations because for many of us–where money is tight and we still manage to squeeze out a few dollars here and there–we have been scant contributors to these specified organizations or don’t understand the nuance between these organizations and others. Most of the people who read about this boycott in the general media will think that this is about not giving any money, to any candidate, good or bad. But in the end, I wonder if this isn’t just another way of applying pressure. And that’s fine if that’s the case.
To answer your question to #1, of course not. No one is pleased with the amount of progress at the federal level… but that’s not really an argument in favor of this boycott. It’s simply an expression of discontent and nothing else. Period.
As for #2, I disagree with the premise that the President and Congress should be held on equal terms with respect to having enough “time.” As for Obama, I say no. I never expected him to vocally apply tremendous pressure on Congress on our bills, but to do what he could internally, and sign any bills that came is way. For me, I never relied upon his campaign words of being a “fierce” advocate for LGBT rights–when he has never publicly supported same-sex marriage and when he has stated that his top three priorities were economy, Iraq/Afghanistan, and health care–because, in my opinion, being a “fierce” advocate for LGBT rights requires support for same-sex marriage.
I know that we think that he can put a ton of pressure on Congress, but Congress still moves at its own pace. And as for the referenda, it’s not reasonable for me to expect the President to jump in on Maine and Washington and flip-flop on same-sex marriage. Just because the President can pick a fight doesn’t mean that I expect him to every single time he can. And since there is more to my being a Democrat or a supporter of Obama beyond his LGBT rights position, it is okay with me, as of this moment, if he picks the fights he can win. If I do my personal cost-benefit analysis, I need affordable health care NOW, and if he must expend political capital doing that over me getting more rights as a gay man, I’m okay with that.
As for Congress, I would say yes, but I think we have quickly forgotten how much power a minority party can wield in the Senate. The Republicans are still stalling the crap out of everything, but we are acting as if it’s business as usual. In fact, it’s much worse. Things are slowed to a stand-still on nearly everything now, LGBT bills included, so creating pressure in thinking that our situation demands immediate attention when nothing else is being done is a bit unrealistic to me.
In the end, for most of the bills, it comes down to the Senate. And the Senate is thinking, “If we can’t get 60, a vote is a waste of time because what do you do then?” And as for forcing a vote on DOMA, we know EXACTLY who we need to convince. It is, as it has always been, the 15-20 moderates in the middle. It’s always been that way. It was that way 2 years ago and it’ll be that way 2 years from now. Those are the people we need to convince, and I do not see why a vote is required. Because for me, voting and losing on any one of them is not an option. And although there are people saying “well, if there was the will by Congress and the President to repeal DOMA, it would be repealed,” to that I say, wake up. There is the will to pass ENDA. We are closer to getting the will to repeal DADT. But there is not, right now, the will to pass DOMA.
And frankly, I think this speaks to the whole effect of incrementalism. People are sick of fighting tooth and nail for our rights, and I agree personally that I am tired, but I do not think that this changes the dynamics of the equation, or would in any way, force Congress or the President to abandon the incremental approach.
Now, I know that this sounds very critical. And I do not disagree with the premise of a boycott, but I do disagree with its implementation and echo Chris Geidner’s concerns.
So, I ask, in response to question #3, what is wrong with using this boycott to forward a single piece of legislation–ENDA. This boycott is thrown out there as if, by this pressure, the walls will tumble down and every piece of gay rights legislation will then roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream. And I don’t think it will. If we create a tangible, realistic goal for Democratic leaders to meet, such as passing ENDA, then I agree. But I have a question. How does this boycott that requires passage of ENDA, DADT, and DOMA repeal convince Senators Pryor (D-AR), Lincoln (D-AR), Landrieu (D-LA), and other fence-sitters in the middle, who really don’t rely upon our money as much to win re-election, but who we still probably need to pass our legislation?
And in response to #4, well, I think that it will have little effect, positive or negative. But I think that, especially in the way in which the boycott has been worded (and by the need to clarify exactly who we are boycotting) that this is simply a way of taking advantage of LGBT discontent that has not yet figured out how to voice itself. This discontent is real. It is certainly felt by me. It is certainly felt by Pam Spaulding and the other leaders of this boycott. It is certainly felt by all of us. But I do not believe that by my agreement to this boycott that we have asked the hard questions that we should ask ourselves, or that we have found the answers to these questions, but more than anything, that we are heeding to anger and the need to lash out.
So, in conclusion, I simply ask, “What is wrong with making this boycott about ENDA?” I know that ENDA is not enough, certainly not enough for me. But it is an achievable goal–one that can be accomplished by next year.
Now, I know that this may not be a popular opinion, and I am sure that my voice will get screamed down among the masses, but it’s an honest question.
The differences between W and O are largely rhetoricalCan you explain, please, how Obama saying he supports ENDA constitutes the “action” you claim he has taken? And how much is it worth to say he supports domestic partnerships during the campaign when he gave us nothing but silence when they were up for a vote in Washington? What kind of support is that?
Is it really enough for you for someone to say they support us and then work against us, as Obama’s DOJ did in the hateful DOMA brief, which Obama still stands by? Maggie Gallagher, the Mormon church and the Conference of Catholic Bishops all say they support us too, except for marriage. Do you believe them as well? If Obama were to say he’s a vegetarian while he’s eating a Five Guys hamburger, would you believe him about that, too?
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Simply put…no one wants to answer your question about the moderates and Democrats in right leaning districts.
I asked point blank for people to find a way for these legislators to support our causes without losing their seats in these districts.
That question was too rational and too rooted in political reality. Political reality is not welcomed by alot of people. Its why they stay so angry…their hopes are not based on the world as it actually is. They don’t want to be told the same truth that every other minority has learned…the quest for civil rights is always a LONG and torturous struggle.
What’s really needed, at the end of the day, is pragmatism. Activists that really wanted to create change would sit down and seriously consider finding a way to ensure Democratic politicians that voting for pro LGBT legislation will not be political suicide. We should be constructively engaging with the “conservadems” and let them know that if they do make the right decision, they will not face the opposition alone.
ExcuseENDA polls at about 80-90 percent! The idea that a Democrat will be voted out for supporting ENDA is ludicrous. So why couldn’t ENDA be enacted at the outset of this Congress, like he Lily Ledbetter Act? Because of the political bigotry of people like Rahm Emanuel, who treat all gay issues like it’s still 1993 and smugly say “you don’t have anywhere else to go, so we can stab you in the back with impunity.”
My only additionWould be add Comprehensive Immigration and ridding ourselves of the anti-CHOICE Stupak amendment on the grievance list.
get Latin@s and women engaged in the boycott too.
I mentioned this idea on HuffPo having a COUNTDOWN CLOCK of less than 360 days for Stupak to be a REPRESENTATIVE.
I do agree, actually, with you on hate crimes, butwhat I was trying to say (and not very well apparently) was that the “seperate set of laws” for one group of people, us, is the big fish.
True
There are districts in which we can improve our voting power in CongressExample: Joe Lieberman her in CT is pro-gay-lite. He supports all our causes except DOMA repeal because God is in the mix. His chances of winning in 2012 are slim (polls are way down on him). But, if the Democratic candidate is not pro-DOMA-repeal, we could run an independent pro-gay-marriage candidate to run against him/her drawing gay votes away from a hopefully tight race. Basically triangulating. We could then use that pressure to flip the Democrat on DOMA and then withdraw from the race endorsing the newly pro=DOMA-repeal candidate.
Of course, each district is different and requires a unique approach.
We are very focused on getting Dems elected when we should be focused on targeting anit-gay or gay-lite candidates.
my typing skills are atrocious – sorry
Well, here’s my not so carefully thought out answers…1) Are you satisfied with the amount of progress in LGBT equality at the federal level? What time frame are we talking about?
2) Has the President and Congress had enough time to accomplish more? Perhaps not in legislation to be passed and signed but in terms of discussion and debate and bills to be submitted, yes.
3) If you believe progress is being stalled, then what might be a more effective approach to break the logjam? I think this, in tandem with developing a more militant branch of our activist community is good. However, our community must also make efforts at educationg about our issues as opposed to simply being self-righteous and assuming that people either must know that this is equality or they are bigots.
The Democratic Party needs to join us in those educational efforts.
4) What potential harm to LGBT equality do you think will result from this particular boycott (given there is not a call to stop donating to individual candidates supporting civil equality)?
1. It will be perceived as being against President Obama and racist by communities of color. In turn, homophobia will be further fomented in those communities to the detriment of LGBTs of color.
2. Where do we go, now? I still maintain that until the Democrats are threatened electorally nothing much will be accomplished. Where is the plan for that?
SupportI’ve never contributed to parties or their committees in any case. It would be rare for me to support a candidate who is not appearing on my local ballot as well. What’s the point?
Yep.
I wasn’t taken in about Obama’s DOMA BS either (I though Hillary was far more realistic in regards to DOMA, actually) either and that won’t be ended in the first term.