There is an interesting debate going on in the LGBT movement around strategy of where to focus resources. It had been coming up more and more around discussions of the usefulness/cost-effectiveness of the National Equality March vs. the Maine campaign to defend marriage equality, but then jumped into high-octane when Cleve Jones, the principal proponent of the March, made a remark in an interview with Bil Browning at the Bilerico Project:
We're trying to change the strategy of the movement. We believe that the strategy that we have followed thus far - which was what made sense at the time and a strategy that was advanced by good, dedicated, hard-working people - is nonetheless a failed strategy. I am tired of fighting state by state, county by county, city by city, for fractions of equality. I am tired of compromises and I am tired of the strategy that divides us from each other. It is time for us to unite across state boundaries in a truly nationwide movement to win full, actual equality, which can only come from the federal government. That's not my opinion. That's a fact. If we want to be equal under the law, we must now - as the great heroes of the Civil Rights movement of 1963 and 1964 showed us - turn our attention to the federal government.
"We are trying to change the strategy," he said. "We are doing this because we are tired with the endless state by state, county by county, city by city hoped for victories that, even when achieved, are incomplete and impermanent.
"It's our perspective that true equality can only come from decisive, unequivocal action from the United States Congress, the United States Supreme Court, and the president of the United States," he said. "We're really engaged in an effort to shift the strategy to open up a new front in this struggle at the federal level."
A few thoughts on this. One is the old adage, that the states are the laboratories of democracy. Toni Broaddus of the Equality Federation (the coalition of state-based LGBT orgs) nails that point in her response open letter to Cleve. If by chance a cautious Senator gets over his or her hand-wringing on anything LGBT, one big reason is because the states have done it first. One of the best predictors of a federal legislator's position on something is where his/her state is on the issues. That means that, however unfortunate, a state has to demonstrate that legalizing same-sex marriage does not cause the man upstairs to rain fire on the populace of Massachusetts as the haters have forecasted, does not force churches to marry couples, does not cause businesses to go bankrupt providing benefits to same-sex partners, etc. before federal action is taken on DOMA. This matters at the Supreme Court level too. It's the equivalent of planting the seeds before expecting the plant to yield fruit. You can't run off to DC expecting fruit to be borne by not investing in a state and local strategy.
Second, his "true equality can only come from federal action/state by state is incomplete" argument rings true enough. My quarrel is with his dismissal of the efforts altogether. It's one thing to make an argument that there needs to be more of an investment in federal efforts, and quite another to say you're tired of "failed" state-focused efforts (which is altogether weird, as Cleve is a Senior Advisor to the Courage Campaign, one of the pioneering groups working largely at the state level). In the first place, state-focused efforts have been somewhat successful. In 21 states and DC, there are LGB employment protections- even for transgender people in 13 states. In six states, same-sex couples have the right to marry, several more (like NJ) are close, and several more (NY and DC) recognize such marriages for couples wishing to reside there. Aside from that, issues like adoption for same-sex couples is considered at the state level, not federally. You have to focus on the states. What do we have on the federal level? Virtually nothing. What will we get without state-based investments? Nothing. Saying you're "tired" of "failed" state-based efforts is unstrategic and frankly offensive to many LGBT individuals and couples living in those places.
Third, two of the main criticisms of the march are that poor planning set it up to fail, and that it's not cost-effective in terms of what it will accomplish. Cleve, in a clever bit of PR jujitsu, is trying to pivot away from that criticism by arguing such critics are following a failed strategy in the first place, so why should you listen to their criticism. It doesn't actually answer a lot of the basic logistical arguments against the march- such as Congress not being in session during the event and serious budget cuts in orgs across the country leading to problems such as no resources for the planned AIDS vigil at the Lincoln Memorial. State or federal strategies aside, there is still a basic failure in how Cleve ran this show, which is announcing on June 7th there will be a march and then going to plan it, leading to the problems I describe above. Arguing critics have a failed strategy doesn't change that valid argument.
Two interesting dialogues resulted the other day in response to my post on the National Equality March, resource allocation, collective responsibility and moral hazard (both here and over at The Bilerico Project).
While I asked three questions in the post, nearly all of the conversation concerned just two. One concerned whether, given the other fights in Maine, Washington State and elsewhere, folks should direct their time and money towards the March, and encourage others to do so. The other concerned whether LGBT folks had a responsibility to drop what they were doing and help make sure the March was a success.
The third question didn't get as much play, it's been bothering me for several days, so I'd like to put it to you here.
Cleve announced this march idea on June 7th, proposed for October 11th. It received near-universal criticism and even many people privately and publicly asking for it to be called off, primarily for the resource allocation issues, and partly over questions re the cost-effectiveness. This proceeded for several months until conversations were had that amounted to "well, if this thing is going to happen, we might as well make sure we don't get embarrassed in front of a national audience if it's poorly organized/no one shows up." And so 140 "leaders" in LGBT world, along with HRC and NGLTF, after three months of refusing to, endorsed the March publicly. It represented a tipping point.
Now we come across the question of how those people, along with others who outright opposed the March, have to contribute. Some of the best minds in our movement, particularly in the media training world, PR world, fundraising and logistical organizing, have rightly complained they have to drop what they are doing and make sure an idea they opposed from the start is a success. Some have privately told me they're even even being asked to do so without any compensation at all by the March folks (and this is what they do for a living). It seriously angers me because it represents not just a lack of planning and a lack of fundraising to account for this, but because others are being forced to clean up after a poorly organized and pretty dumb idea. There are a lot of dumb ideas put forward in progressive politics, and we don't even realize how many we dismiss/ignore- some even put forward here at OpenLeft. Now imagine having to work to execute the ones you opposed as part of your day job.
So, my question is how to keep this from happening again. The en masse endorsements created a serious moral hazard question for the future. They insulated Cleve and his cohorts from the twin risks of (a) this effort failing and our movement being scoffed at on national TV by talking heads, lawmakers, and the general public (b) looking like fools for trying to throw it together in four months with poor planning and execution.
Let's imagine the next time any major name with a microphone and a following proposes a mass action that requires mass commitment of resources and, regardless of the success or failure, will receive intense media coverage. Let's imagine there is near-universal agreement that the idea is a stupid one. Let's imagine the proposed action affects everyone else in that issue space, be it environment, LGBT, or other, in terms of resource allocation and media perception. So there is a serious incentive for everyone opposed to it in that issue space to make sure it's either a success, or that it's called off.
If you're an organizer opposed to the mass action, how do you get it called off to prevent (a) a moral hazard issue that keeps any and every individual with a microphone and a following from proposing their random stupid ideas, and (b) forcing the best in that issue space to drop what they are doing and help with an idea they opposed in the first place?
STATE BLOGS
