Gays in the Military – Chris Rock
Action on the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is likely to be delayed until 2010, if recent reports are to be believed. This is disheartening. I didn’t exactly expect Obama to get this done on January 20, but a full year or more seems like a long time to wait for something with clear benefits (reducing discrimination as well as helping to deal with ever-growing troop shortages) and no real risks.
Matthew Berger offers two arguments in favor of the delay: one of which I (mostly) agree with, and another which I find deeply troubling. The former is simply that “a change in the military rules would not go down smoothly.” This is obvious. Even the best ideas will provoke backlash and the fact that Bill Clinton’s early failures were attributed in part to pushing this exact issue has to provoke some concern.
I do disagree with Berger a bit, insofar as he emphasizes the effect this would have on Obama’s political capital and the way it would “distract from the economic crisis.” I really think this overestimates the power of this issue in a broad cultural sense. It’s a sign of just how far we’ve come that if the Republicans wanted to start a broad fight on this, they would lose and lose badly. Even more, Obama himself could very easily leave the terrain to surrogatese while he kept his attention on bigger issues.
The real risk, in my mind, is within the military. While repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has broad support with the military at large, a decent portion of the brass is still not convinced. The danger of being perceived as “forcing” this issue early is that it could interfere with Obam’s broad efforts to build a base of support within the military. This is especially important given that he will step into office having to preside over the (relatively) quick withdrawal from Iraq as well as undertake potentially unpopular decisions in Afghanistan. In such a context, one could make a reasonable case for taking the time to build a consensus (or at least the appearance of one) before actually doing anything. The idea is not so much that you will persuade everyone (though perhaps some can be swayed), but that you don’t create the impression of a new, “untested” commander-in-chief immediately pushing people around and stepping on toes.
Now, in one sense this is a clear case of “justice delayed is justice denied” and it’s not really my place as a straight civilian to tell people when they deserve to achieve full rights. That said, if Obama is truly committed to getting this done (which I feel confident that he is), I don’t think a year’s delay will be the worst thing in the world, even if it’s for frustrating reasons.
Berger’s other argument goes as follows:
the LGBT community is at a period of weakness, coming off losses in California and Florida on propositions to outlaw gay marriage. By focusing initially on an issue prominent in the LGBT community, Obama would be essentially ignoring the message he received from two states that helped get him elected, which supported a Democratic candidate but did not back steps forward in gay rights. A repeal now would be perceived as an appeal to a liberal base at a time when he should be reaching out to moderates, including religious moderates for whom gay issues remain a touchy subject.
I find it difficult to believe that Obama will be guided by such ideas, but if I’m wrong, that would be truly depressing. The idea that the “message” from California was that gay rights issues are toxic runs completely counter to the facts. Remember how Obama won a sweeping victory in California despite Prop 8? Have you noticed the intense public backlash following it’s narrow victory? Did you notice how, despite losing, the marriage equality side gained 10 points on the previous California initiative in less than a decade? The tide of history is clear on this one.
Beyond that, the idea that gay marriage and gays in the military are inextricably linked by their “gayness” is silly, and betrays an antiquated notion of the role that these issues will play in the future. “Gay” is no longer a toxic political term. Indeed, the new “compromise” position on gay marriage – full civil unions – was considered a non-starter not that long ago. While marriage retains a strong hold on a (dwindling) majority of the electorate, the broad notion that gay issues are inevitably damaging has lost all credibility. In fact, allowing gays to openly serve in the military is only the most obvious example.
To wit: Berger writes that Obama “should be reaching out to moderates.” This seems reasonable. So wouldn’t it be great if he could push a tremendously popular measure supported by three-quarters of the country, not to mention 64 percent of Republicans?
I sincerely hope that this idea is merely concern trolling on Berger’s behalf and not anything embraced by the Obama administration. There are some potentially acceptible reasons for waiting on this – simply trying to create distance from LGBTs is not one of them.