The question of issue prioritization

by: Adam Bink

Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 14:00


I like to have a lot of discussions around political strategy with friends, both politically-oriented folks as well as more detached friends. I was e-mailing with one fairly politically-oriented friend of mine back and forth through the day yesterday about Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and the question of issue prioritization.

He wasn't comfortable with me publishing his response or naming him, but his complaint boiled down to why the LGBT movement is prioritizing repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell- which, in his eyes, affects a tiny fraction of LGBT people in this country- over passage of other issues, notably the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), given that employment discrimination at people based on sexual orientation is still legal in 29 states, and legal based on gender identity or expression in 38 states.

I think this question is an important and valid one, and I have a number of thoughts on it.

  • While it is true that the momentum has shifted from ENDA towards DADT, the work to pass ENDA has not completely stopped. There are a number of organizations out there who are focusing almost entirely on ENDA, as well as activists in online spaces such as this one. Frankly, that is probably a good thing. There shouldn't be one collective hive mind directing everyone to do one thing. There is a diverse movement that is moving on many different issues at once, so calls for "the LGBT movement" to do something, aside from being vague and unproductive, don't mean a lot since "the LGBT movement" never moves in lockstep.

  • That said, there is the question of resources. As I wrote when raising questions about the timing of the National Equality March and being spread thin, I have never been a "we can walk and chew gum at the same time"- you have to have enough gum to go around for every issue movement, and there isn't enough.

    The answer to that is that sometimes this is out of activists' hands. President Obama mentioned DADT in the State of the Union (and did not mention ENDA). The result was increased chatter on DADT for the next several days on cable news, in op-ed pages, polling firms choosing to poll on the issue and release the results, and people like me writing about all of it. All of that led to John McCain's comments, Colin Powell and Dick Cheney choosing to speak out, and so forth. In other words, the President helped kick start the momentum- momentum we haven't had since 1993, in my view- and now that it's there, it's important to take advantage of it. You could say that activists like me calling for the President to discuss repeal in the speech, and institutions lobbying for the same, helped lead to all of that, but there wasn't any one major decision that "okay, the LGBT movement is going to collectively shift to Don't Ask, Don't Tell! Go!". Thus, another reason why attacks on "the LGBT movement" aren't entirely accurate. President Obama played a major role in starting this momentum, and when it's there, you have to grab it, and channel resources to that effect.

  • The third point I want to mention is on the question of resources and enthusiasm. The question was raised in the same way around how activists working on marriage equality were "sucking the energy out of the room" around ENDA. On this, I turn to the words of Kos- "it's a big internet". If you don't like the direction being taken in terms of strategy or prioritization, you can always do it your own way. I also would refer back to what Chris wrote here- "how to start your own netroots organization". One thing I mentioned in Dallas at a panel on the blogopshere is that a number of institutions- including OpenLeft- have sprung up in response to disagreement with the strategy or prioritization taken by other institutions. Hell, that's one big reason people started blogging. Now OpenLeft even has its own tools like an e-mail list and a fundraising apparatus, and with your help, together we got a public option in merged Senate bill, elected Rep. Donna Edwards in the face of establishment backing for Al Wynn, got every major 2008 Senate Democratic challenger to come out in favor of net neutrality, and other wins, not to mention some close losses like in Maine, and changing the debate on issues like no residual forces in Iraq. All of that came because a number of us didn't like the way other institutions were acting, so we built our own, and so can you.

The bottom line is that there are entirely valid questions about channeling resources and issue prioritization. Some of it is in activists' hands, and some is not, but there is no collective focus on just one issue, nor is it wise to just ignore all of the momentum on Don't Ask, Don't Tell and insist on focusing on ENDA. Opportunities must be taken as they come.

Adam Bink :: The question of issue prioritization

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Clean own house first (4.00 / 2)
To me, focusing on DADT first makes a lot of sense because that law directly discriminates against gays.  ENDA, on the other hand, is outlawing discrimination by others.  It seems like one should clean ones own house first.  In fact, ENDA is a bit hypocritical in the context of DADT; given the U.S. government discriminates directly, who are they to say others can't do what it does?

There's a momentum for DADT now. (4.00 / 1)
And that has to be exploited now. And, well, there once was a momentum for ENDA, too, and it could have been passed, but as we all know there was "a tiny fraction of LGBT people in this country" who wouldn't have been included, and so a majority (?) of LGBTs decided to let the opportunity pass...

Somewhat inadequate (0.00 / 0)
Clearly DADT is a discriminatory policy, but I've always been a bit uncomfortable prioritizing it as a prime issue area for activists. My mind goes to this place: "Wow, I can't wait for the day when gay and lesbian Americans can also be used as freely as others to kill and die for dubious interests".

But the thing about Adam's response that troubles me is the constant look to what doors Washington cracks for activists as being the prime mover of where activist energy should go. I'm all for strategic thinking, but real change occurs when activists set the agenda proactively, not reactively. All I see here is reactive thinking, which is hardly groundbreaking or revolutionary.

Washington has to be extra strategic in the issues it addresses. Should not activists build support for issues that matter most, rather than for what appears most opportune at the time? Obama will be around for a few years, gay and lesbian Americans will be around forever.

With all of this in mind, I find the set of responses here to be woefully inside the box.


Opening for activist energy (0.00 / 0)
I certainly did not say the prime mover, but it is one way. Other issues have been moved into the "mainstream" without mentions in big speeches or Congressional legislation being introduced or whatnot. It has to be both. I fully agree that real change occurs when activists set the agenda.

The bottom line, though, is that there is an opening, and with repeal having a far smaller shot at passing Congress next year, if a shot at all, that opening must be exploited. I'm not for ignoring this opportunity just because it's better when activists set, rather than react to, the agenda. Change is change, and agenda-setting efforts continue on a range of other issues.


Me on Facebook
Me on Twitter


[ Parent ]
"woefully inside the box"? Maybe. Just like the hetero supporters... (0.00 / 0)
...of LGBT issues. Like me, for instance. And without broad support by heteros, not a single one of those bills will make it. The lawmakers simply won't climb on a limb for you if nobody else is having their back. So, sry, but that's the reality, and activists would be ill adviced not to go "for what appears most opportune at the time". Grab what you can, when you can get it. And don't expect the public to support all of LGBT issues at the same time, or to jump from one LGBT issue to another, when there much hotter topics also demanding attention.

[ Parent ]
I have a few additional responses (4.00 / 1)
1) DADT may have more impact than other reforms beyond the particular issue at hand.  Historically, military service by some people in disadvantaged groups has been a major force in improving the civil rights of the group as a whole.  

Second class citizenship is about citizenship  - as is military service.  Given that it seems to be the low lying fruit, this seems like a no brainer.  I simply don't see ENDA having the same kind of symbolic impact.  

2) ENDA won't end discrimination in employment.  It will make a difference.  But laws against discrimination only lead to real change once it becomes widely believed that the discrimination at hand is wrong. Passing a law to stop that discrimination will help that, and I am all for it as a result.  But a big public statement that GLBT people are people (which is what DADT could be) will help with that too.  The momentum provided by DADT will also likely help on ENDA and marriage equality (and this is true regardless of whether we are talking about the federal, state or local levels.)

3) DADT has the potential to advance progressive politics in a way that ENDA does not. ENDA will add one more characteristic to the list of things one cannot discriminate on the basis of.  What does this say anything about GLBT people? I am not sure the message of "we are all full and equal persons" will be sent by ENDA.  DADT could be a major vehicle for a progressive world vision, while at the same time operating as a wedge issue against Republicans (national security versus cultural conservative.)

4) Failing to enact DADT does nothing to advance peace or a less imperialistic foreign policy.  Enacting it does nothing to advance war or a less imperialistic policy.  I am all for addressing those issues directly, but I don't think that they are relevant to DADT.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox