Democrats 2008: Déjà vu, all over again?
By Matt Foreman, Executive Director, August 1, 10:41 am
The Democratic candidates for president, as a group and individually, express more support for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues and legislative and policy initiatives to improve our lives than any prior set of presidential candidates in the history of American politics. These new standards of support for LGBT people are worthy of our applause, our appreciation and our accolades.
Still, no major Democratic candidate has made the kind of sweeping statement of inclusion as did Gov. Bill Clinton in 1992, when he declared to a huge crowd of LGBT people in Los Angeles, “I have a vision for America and you are part of it.” His words brought tears to the eyes of the audience and rang out across the United States. Even the most skeptical of us in the LGBT community knew that we heard something previously unspoken by any major political figure.
We also know and painfully remember that Clinton’s vision of America did not translate into much of anything positive for us at the federal level. We can recount our bitter disappointments during Clinton’s time in the White House: the crash and burn of the effort to rescind the Department of Defense policy of discharging gay and lesbian service members, the secret late-night signing of the Defense of Marriage Act, and an ushering in of abstinence-only sexuality education in the public schools. Clinton couldn’t or wouldn’t deliver on the specifics, but at least he held us in his larger vision of a healthy society.
Since 1980, we have suffered the gross indignities of defamations and slanders from a ravenous and rapacious right-wing anti-gay movement, a veritable industry churning out anti-LGBT propaganda at every turn. We endured the AIDS epidemic and the Reagan administration’s cruel indifference while our people fell to illness and then to death. We saw the U.S. Supreme Court uphold state laws that branded us criminals for our sexuality. We have been clubbed by an onslaught of ballot questions that put our lives up to popular vote. Time and again, we’vebeen thrown under the political bus by politicians either in the White House or those who want to get there.
All of this misery has been exacerbated exponentially by the spinelessness or unwillingness of all but a few national leaders to take a stand for us and denounce the animus unleashed on us. Many of our “friends” have simply looked the other way.
We bear our scars and yet remain unbowed. But, we are still waiting for the country’s political leadership to defend our right to live and thrive as a matter of principle, not parse our dreams as a matter of misguided political calculation.
This far into the 2008 race, things don’t look all that good. People who think GOP candidates are backing away from using us to inflame and divide are simply wrong. Republican rhetoric is peppered with code that thinly disguises — and affirms — anti-LGBT sentiment with references to safeguarding the family, the sanctity of marriage, the foundation of civilization. For example, Mitt Romney said in Derry, N.H., “The source of America’s strength is the American people…family oriented American people.” And, John McCain on his official Web site: “The family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society and John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman.” Let’s be clear: Romney and McCain do not include our families when they speak of “the family.” The Web sites of other Republicans, except for Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani’s, explicitly reject full and equal recognition of our relationships.
But, what of the Democrats? Sadly, mostly silence. You can find our issues explicitly referenced on only three candidates’ sites (Kucinich, Richardson and Gravel). Frontrunners Clinton, Obama and Edwards carefully parse their support of our people into specific reforms. We find no evidence that the Democratic frontrunners counter Republicans’ anti-LGBT speech with routine and positive inclusion of LGBT people in their visions for a whole and healthy society.
It’s déjà vu all over again — the GOP often slyly and sometimes audaciously whips us for political gain. The Democrats include us — sorta — but only in response to a direct question and typically in the language of careful legislative reform.
This must change, starting now, because at this moment in history, reforms are both important and insufficient.
We deserve and we must demand from the Democratic 2008 presidential candidates the simple and straightforward statement that our humanity requires full respect and fair treatment by all and, further, an equally simple and straightforward condemnation of those who seek to use our lives for political gain. This needs to be said in front of all audiences — not just in front of us.
We need leadership. We need strength of vision. And we need to know that the promises of reform come from the candidates' understanding of LGBT people as inseparable from the national community in which we live. There can be no more equivocating or silence about the goodness of our personhood, our families, our relationships. Period.
Matt Foreman is executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Inc.
Want to share your thoughts about Matt Foreman’s blog entry?
Send your comments to OutSpoken@theTaskForce.org.
Please let us know how your name should appear and, optionally, your city and state. Comments may be posted on our Web site and used in other Task Force materials.
Wednesday, 8/1/2007, 2:53 PM (EST)
Yes, Mr. Foreman. I'm experiencing deja vu, too. But it's less what you wrote about than "Nader Raiders 2000." Remember them and their scorched earth, all or nothing strategy which succeeded only in raiding enough votes to throw the election in dispute and throw Bush in the White House?
I'm also experiencing extreme indigestion from your stew of indignation, exageration, contradiction, and misinformation. Your boilingrant is all the more surprising after the release of the Task Force analysis of candidates' positions showed all Democrats essentially the same except in the area of marriage. Unfortunately, your latest oratory serves only to muddy the perceptions of those who have not seen that report and, therefore, is untruthful, unnecessary, and counterproductive.
Pray tell how they can simultaneously "carefully parse their support" yet remain "mostly [silent]"? And, how WOULD "our issues" be redressed other than with "specific reforms"? And your assertion, "Democrats include us ... but only in response to a direct question" is simply untrue. While expressing knowledge of what Repug candidates' official campaign Websites say, you demonstrate a reckless ignorance of the official campaign sites of Hillary Clinton and John Edwards while ludicrously trumpeting the sites of well-intentioned but irrelevant losers-before-they-started Kucinich and Gravel. And, again, you contradict yourself. Which is it, "explicity reference" or "only in response"? And are all Democrats betraying us or just some?
Your other hero, Richardson, who has some chance of being selecting as the Democratic VP running mate but zip to lead the ticket, does include support for hate crimes legislation and domestic partnership among his official site’s "Issues" pages, but the language falls far short of the "strength of vision" you call for, and there’s that recent sticky issue of his sudden amnesia about what “maricon” means, as he once used it on the Imus show.
For your information, as of a couple of weeks ago, Edwards' site included OFFICIAL endorsements of gay rights four different times in press releases published by the his campaign for any and all to see. And Hillary's had two. Both candidates encompass the kind of "simple and straightforward statement[s]" and "condemnation of those who seek to use our lives for political gain" that you claim they have not. [Unfortunately, Obama's site had none, though we know he has expressed in other venues essentially the same degree of support as Edwards and Hillary save for Edwards’ strong statement that HIS administration would not interfere with any efforts to advance gay equality INCLUDING gay marriage. [Campaign site details below.]
Yes, I get that you're wishing for them to call some kind of press conference devotely solely to embracing us, but you know that's unlikely to happen and why. If you need a hug so much, talk to your partner. Otherwise, please note that Election Day does not coincide with Christmas so save your wish list for Santa Claus and your litmus tests for Republicans.
Obviously the greater reason your raging is because the leads have not endorsed gay marriage? You already addressed the issue when you wrote earlier, "Politically, being for civil unions but against marriage doesn’t bring a single voter over from the other side.” True, of course, but you're too bright not to understand how many voters are open to civil union but actively opposed to "marriage" and any candidate who would support it. What makes you think they wouldn't club us with an onslaught in the 2008 Presidential election? Unlike our supporters, including too many LGBTs, such ideologues will crawl naked through quicksand to polls if they fear gay marriage has a chance of advancing. THAT is the larger zero-sum loss you're demanding the Democrats engineer in the name of some personally-satisfying "moral victory." Is that so important to you that you'd be content for us to continue living an anemic second-class citizen life under the next Republican President as long as your stentorian self-righteousness can fat and sassy?
One of the reasons I have always believed in NGLTF over certain other groups is that it has a tradition of concern for issues larger than those unique to LGBTs. But may I remind any who remain one-issue that I agree we need greater leadership, but it is from you not them.
Thank you for your attention.
Leland Frances
FROM EDWARDS OFFICIAL CAMPAIGN SITE:
NATIONAL LGBT LEADERS ENDORSE JOHN EDWARDS FOR PRESIDENT. Pull quote: “I am honored to have the support of so many well-respected LGBT leaders,” said Edwards. “They work hard every day to make our country a better place and I am proud to join with them to fight for equal rights for all Americans.”
EDWARDS STATEMENT ON THE MILITARY’S ‘DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL’ POLICY. Pull quote: “It is long past time to end the military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy and to allow openly gay men and women to serve in the military.”
JOHN EDWARDS STATEMENT ON NEW HAMPSHIRE’S RECOGNITION OF CIVIL UNIONS. Pull quote: “New Hampshire’s decision to recognize civil unions and grant gay and lesbian couples the same rights granted to heterosexual married couples is an important step in the fight for justice.”
EDWARDS STATEMENT ON SURGEON GENERAL NOMINEE. Pull quote: “Dr. James Holsinger’s anti-gay writings and beliefs suggest that he will undermine, not advance, the cause of equality and fairness in health care.”
FROM HILLARY’S SITE:
CLINTON CAMPAIGN ANNOUNCES LAUNCH OF LGBT AMERICANS FOR HILLARY STEERING COMMITTEE. Pull quote: “I am proud to have the support of such distinguished leaders in the LGBT community,” said Clinton. “Together, we can move our nation closer to the promise of fairness and equality that all Americans deserve.”
STATEMENT FROM HILLARY CLINTON ON GAY & LESBIAN PRIDE MONTH. Pull quote: “For six long years, the Bush Administration has only seen the families that matter to them. It’s been a government of the few, by the few, and for the few. And no community has been more invisible to this administration than the LGBT community.”
Wednesday, 8/1/2007, 5:58 PM (EST)
Leland —
Thanks so much for your feedback. It’s always appreciated, positive and negative.
As to the facts, none of the frontrunners includes us in his/her Issues pages. They do have references to us in various press releases, etc., and that's all fine and good but it misses our central point - namely, that we really do need candidates to speak affirmatively for us - or at a minimum denounce the ways we are used by others to divide and distract the electorate - in front of all audiences. We're not saying we want candidates to go through a litany LGBT-related policy issues - just the opposite. Go forward or hit back with non-nuanced, simple conviction about our place in society.
While none of us like it, we have been put squarely in the "culture wars" bullseye by others. When candidates who support us do not respond affirmatively, it is not just gravely disappointing to our community, it's plain dumb politics. The proportion of the electorate that bases its votes on a candidate opposing marriage equality, for example, is tiny and would never go for a Democrat. On the other hand, the proportion of the electorate that bases its votes on a candidate's perceived leadership skills and strength of conviction and character is huge. Perhaps a better way to say this is that - contrary to popular wisdom - defending us can be a powerful, positive "wedge" for candidates.
Matt Foreman
Wednesday, 8/1/2007, 6:28 PM (EST)
There can be no doubt that Hillary Clinton and John Edwards will not push our agenda, and are such opportunists that they would have us all shot between the eyes if they thought that would help them get elected. The only candidates speaking up for gays, including gay marriage are marginal candidates in the polls (and not because they back gay marriage). I truly believe we would have more chance with Guiliani than with any of the leading Democrats. Or Mayor Bloomberg, the former Democrat and former Republican, who now says he is an independent. Without gays the Democratic candidate cannot get elected in 2008 and they know it. We have the leverage; why not use it to negotiate with the candidates to change their positions on gay marriage, ENDA, and the priority of our issues?
Michael Callaway
Houston, Texas
Wednesday, 8/1/2007, 7:39 PM (EST)
I agree with everything you say, except that I do hnot have a lot of hopes for the dems. They are certainly better than ANY Reep and gay issues in general, but I have yet yet to hear a wholesale condemnation of the prejudice and RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY at the bottom the the Reep position. Furthermore, the Dem contributions to the runaway deficit, idiotic spending priorities, insane monetary policies, tax cuts for the rich, farm bill, Iraq war, lack of national health, decline of useful political discourse, immigration fiasco, etcetcetc do not bode well for the future of this country.
As a gay man, I will benefit from the Dem victory. As an American, I'm not so sure that any of us ewill benefit in the long run.
Ben Janken Photography
Wednesday, 8/1/2007, 8:02 PM (EST)
Amen, Matt. I remember Bill Clinton's words and also remember seeing a rainbow flag on the floor of the convention during one evening's televised speeches. I fiinally felt like I had a place at the table.
I'm not feeling that way now.
Terry Teeter
Thornton, Colorado
Wednesday, 8/1/2007, 9:41 PM (EST)
Mr. Foreman,
You write:
"All of this misery has been exacerbated exponentially by the spinelessness or unwillingness of all but a few national leaders to take a stand for us and denounce the animus unleashed on us. Many of our 'friends' have simply looked the other way.
We bear our scars and yet remain unbowed. But, we are still waiting for the country’s political leadership to defend our right to live and thrive as a matter of principle, not parse our dreams as a matter of misguided political calculation."
The only friends we can *consistently* count on are ourselves. Instead of waiting for the country's political leadership, it's time we *became* part of the country's political leadership -- in the state legislatures, in the statehouses, in Congress, and in the White House.
And until that day comes, we need to concentrate the minds of the current crop of candidates -- in all parties -- by making them mindful of the "noose" that is our votes and our money being taken away from them. And we need to follow throught on it. If candidates want to push our issues to the background for *whatever* reason, then no matter what kind of support they've given us in the past, we need to hold their feet to the fire. Otherwise, we get taken for granted -- and the results are what you list as the disappointments of the Clinton administration.
-- Allen Neuner
Thursday, 8/2/2007, 4:46 PM (EST)
Thank you Matt. You are indeed correct.
After the candidates' bumbling around the issue of gay marriage vs. civil unions I sent Edwards (who I have been personally supporting) and Obama submissions to their blogs criticising them on their comments regarding the issue. Only the Edwards campaign posted. Here is my post and the nearly 40 comments made since. I think I mixed the pot a bit.
http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/7/25/11263/5643
Sincerely,
Darrell Tucci
Friday, 8/3/2007, 8:09 AM (EST)
It doesn't matter so much who is elected, but who is going to be making appointments to the Supreme Court. We need to keep in mind that Democrats are going to be more likely to appoint judges who are at least open-minded and fair-minded. Whoever interprets the constitution should be someone who is willing to think of ALL citizens as part of this country and ALL citizens as deserving of equal rights. It is in the courts that the real battles are being fought and won. Politicians are always going to be politicians.
Rose Akerman
Sunday, 8/5/2007, 4:58 AM (EST)
Hi my name is Brandi. I'm from Texas and I agree with you completely. As a student in college, I am finding it very difficult to find acceptance. In high school I was always taught that America is wonderful because we are free and all are considered equal. Well, with everyday that goes by, I have learned that when my teachers told me this, they didn't mean me and others like me. Our country is a hypocritical one. Throughout history we learn that people in higher power have always tried to control others who they thought weren't as good as them because there was something different about them. First there was slavery; man thought he had the right to control African Americans because they did not have the same color skin. While we eventually did away with slavery, there was still the issue of segregation. People actually thought they had the right to tell others which water fountain to drink out of! Although the majority of segregation has also been overcome, there is still another minority that is has been forgotten: homosexuals. Nobody has the right to tell someone what they can and cannot do in the same household. We are Americans!! We pay the same taxes that heterosexuals pay! It's our world too, we live in it and we are no different!!! I can't possibly express in words the aching feeling I get inside when I picture all the horrible things that homosexuals go through everyday. We are just as alive and human as anybody else. We can love just as deeply as a heterosexual couple can. The fact that people have the audacity to tell us that we can't get married, and the fact that they would even debate whether or not we can teach in public schools, and receive the same benefits just tears me into thousands of tiny pieces. I'm 19 years old and already facing the horrors of everyday life because people think I'm some kind of disease. I wish that one day all Americans, not just those who consider themselves to be worthth, will all truly be equal. From slavery, to segregation, and now the bans on homosexuals, it frightens me to think of what people will do to the future generations. I may not be able to have my voice truly heard today, but one day, the world will hear; people will see. It has to change.
Brandi Ramdohr
Sunday, 8/5/2007, 6:33 AM (EST)
I don't feel any party has supported homosexual citizens in this country anymore than they have citizens of color. My daughter is gay (I've known since she was 2 years old). Talking about "deja vu". Her journey as a lesbian feels like exactly like my journey as a black female in the 60's during the civil rights movement-to the present day. It is a shame and inhuman for any politicians to think they (male, female, black or brown) have the right to deny or restrict any citizens rights to anything anyone else (conservative, rich, white, heterosexual males) gets without question. I'm sick and tired of hearing them spout the 'misunderstandings and ignorance of life in the future' from an archaic constitution as their justification for religiously discriminating. Don't fall for their campaigning rhetoric. Most of US (american blacks) have for over 100 years. Democrats were originally the party of the racist south and SOMEHOW they persuaded an enslaved people to vote for them???? They will do anything for that popularity contest vote, which has very little to do with how the electoral college makes the final presidential choice anyway. Without diplomacy in public meetings on the senate floor, nothing will get done, no matter who gets in. I am of NO party affiliation. What's the point? Vote if you must, but vote for the things they have proven they can do because they have done in them in their past services, regardless of party...
