Master of your own fate

Andrew Sullivan continues to be peeved at President Obama and Democrats for their lack of action on issues of true equality for gays, instead focusing on what he perceives as pointless hate crimes laws. Much of his critique focus on the Human Rights Campaign, and what he sees as a perverse alliance with Democrats who claim to want change but don't really want to do anything to recognize equality.

Andrew isn't entirely wrong on this. But I think his critique with respect to President Obama and much of the Democratic party gets it all a bit backward. This may be a reflection of my own bias, but I don't think the issue is the President or Democratic leadership. Not that they are taking the right approach - they're clearly not, and they need to learn to be more aggressive in repealing DOMA and DADT and moving our society toward greater equality. (Just imagine if the President had pushed aggressively on repeal of DOMA and DADT, rather than health care. He couldn't have created more ire on the right, but he'd almost certainly have had success by now, and fulfilled an important goal.)

But, as I said, Sullivan has his causation backwards. The fundamental problem is the recognition of HRC as the "gay establishment" by those who don't know any better. That is, the problem is those who are in the position in the gay establishment to tell the President and elected Democrats what the right approach is, those who have played the political game and are now in positions of influence to set the gay rights agenda. Two related dynamics are at play. First, Democrats want the support of the HRC, and so they approach the issues of gay rights in a manner that appeals to the HRC and its hapless, overly cautious, manner. Second, they've been told that the HRC is the legitimate representative of gays, and they accordingly believe that the HRC's viewpoint is correct and its approach reasonable. If you're a elected Democrat and you are being told that aggressively addressing gay rights issues is risky, counterproductive and could lose you votes, and you're being told that in smoky rooms with HRC big-wigs, well, what do you expect? HRC may think that their approach is currying favor with the Administration, but what they're really doing is influencing their approach.

It's basically the same dynamic that has been playing out in the Jewish community and Congress with respect to Israel. For as long as we can remember, AIPAC has been the pro-Israel lobby. I went to Washington as a teenager almost 30 years ago with several other of my Hebrew school classmates to learn about issues affecting Jews; we met for a half-hour with our local Congressman, who was Jewish, and spent the rest of the trip with AIPAC. Still today, despite the backlash (and in some ways because of it - Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer provide an invaluable foil for AIPAC to mobilize against), AIPAC continues to pack its meetings, both nationally and locally, and fills the coffers. The funds come, in no small part, from pro-peace Jewish liberals who support a two state solution, are deeply troubled by settlements, and were horrified by some of the events in the Gaza offensive, yet who nevertheless finance AIPAC as a proxy for their love for Israel. AIPAC can somewhat legitimately claim to speak for most Jews because, other than those who are really paying attention, most Jews think AIPAC represents their views. If you're pro-Israel and you can financially afford it, you are expected to go to the annual AIPAC dinner in your town, and most do. When I expressed anger at my local Republican Jewish Coalition members back in 2004 for the RJC's dishonest attacks on John Kerry and Howard Dean on Israel issues - as the RJC misrepresented statements of both to imply that they were soft on Palestinians and would endanger Israel's safety - I was informed that if I cared so much about Israel, I should become active with AIPAC. Which of course gets it all wrong, but that's not what we're here to talk about at this moment. Is J Street the answer to breaking the perception that AIPAC represents the viewpoint of all Jews? Maybe, maybe not - to do so, J Street probably needs to find its own coherent message in a positive way that will allow it to be an effective voice in favor of a strong and safe Israel living in some form of peace (or lack of war) with Palestinians and its neighbors, rather than just being (perceived as) the anti-AIPAC.

Similarly, gays needs to find a way to break the HRC's perceived monopoly on addressing gay policy goals. While most of my gay friends want strong movement on the same issues that concern Sullivan - equality, the right to live their lives just like anyone else - almost all of them financially support HRC. And so, just like AIPAC can lay claim to being the voice of American Jewry on Israel, HRC can make a claim to being the "gay establishment" because a significant portion of the gay community enables that claim. Gays who want to encourage our leaders to take a different approach than HRC need to mobilize for that purpose, create their own J Street, or G Street. While HRC members at a local level may want a more aggressive approach, the message doesn't reach the HRC leadership. As long as the message to the President and the Democratic leadership is that HRC, which sure seems to represent the "gay establishment", wants slow, cautious movement on those issues, that's what you're going to get from a meticulous, cautious president.

Which doesn't mean that Andrew should stop knocking the President for that approach. The only thing that will create movement on issues of equality is continued pressure on President Obama and the Democrats, both because that's part of breaking the monopoly, and also because it's the right thing to do.