If you don't mind my saying (4.00 / 5)

I’m not sure you’ve really engaged with his criticism.

Right after what you quoted, he said:

If that’s the best the lobbying groups and HRC can do, then I don’t know how these powerful groups are supposed to represent our community. Kathy Griffin and [HRC president] Joe Solmonese said they would march with me to the White House but didn’t. I feel so betrayed by them.

We all know the political reality now. The only way for the repeal to go through is for the president to take leadership and put it in the Defense Authorization Bill. There’s a sunset on this, and it’s happening quickly. Obama told us at the HRC dinner last year, you need to put pressure on me. I was there at that dinner, in uniform. So this is my mission; the president said to pressure him and I heard that as a warning order.

add that to “There is a tremor right now in every gay and transgender youth that these groups are not grasping” and:

When I get messages from people who want to be a part of this I ask back: what are you willing to sacrifice? We are tired of being stereotyped as privileged, bourgeois elites. Is someone willing to give up their career, their relationships with powerful people, their Rolodex, or their parents’ love to stand up for who they are? I’m giving up my military rank, my unit-which to me is a family-my veterans’ benefits, my health care, so what are you willing to sacrifice?

It just seems to me that whatever the merits or demerits of his criticism, saying the money goes to a good cause or that he went to fund-raisers is not addressing his point. When you compare that to the HRC President blowing off his activism, I have the impression Choi would think you’re saying “HRC’s role is to have parties and be elites” and it will help the little people, so what if they trying very hard to repeal DADT.

This is in no way meant to criticize you or your activism, it is an observation from a reader.

 

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 18:15:53 PM CDT

 

Exactly. (4.00 / 2)

He’s saying that the HRC campaign a) is not doing their job as chief lobbying organization in DC; b) that they HRC is attacking other activists. It seems the chief method of deflecting criticism these days is to distort what people are saying.  

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 18:20:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

Well (0.00 / 0)

He is saying a), but I am not sure how he is saying b).

I’m also interested to hear how exactly I’ve distorted Dan’s remarks. Not responded to a point, perhaps, but like I wrote at the top “what is otherwise a good interview”, in which I’m saying I liked the substance of his other remarks.


Me on Facebook
Me on Twitter

---

by: Adam Bink @ Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 21:32:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

Distortion: That he does not believe we all have a part (4.00 / 1)

He says this:

“[T]he movement seems to be centered around how to become an elite. There is a deep schism [in the gay-rights movement], everyone knows this. But this shouldn’t be about which group has better branding. There is a tremor right now in every gay and transgender youth that these groups are not grasping. I would say to them-you do not represent us if all you are looking for is a ladder in to elite society.”

That comment is about being inclusive. Not exclusive or denying that everyone has a part.

Thus, when you say this:

“I think Dan misses a fundamental point: we all have a role to play. HRC does certain tactics that may, to some, seem very insider or star-oriented.”

To me, this is a distortion, or, at least, a misunderstanding of what he is saying. His problem with HRC was not just that event, but the larger context of how HRC responds to equality.

The discussion of the organization being elitist to me is not about saying that we should not include anyone- it is that such organizations often are not inclusive of us (in my case black, gay and having grown up poor).

I will say when I read his interview, and, his inclusion of people like Harriet Tubman, my sense was that he was having a larger dialogue about social movements in history and what past movements required.

Thus, his whole focus on personal sacrifice.  Let me just say, this issue, of how being gay or trans or queer or whatever, and how the larger organizations often don’t run significant media and political campaigns on lower economic classes is something that is deeply important to me. I wrote about it here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

I am not certain if many of the links even work anymore. The gist of the post was discussing how the LGBT community is affected by class. That, if one wants really get into how the various communities are harmed, one has to look at class and race as factors.

Yet, the elitism of orgs like HRC or those who ran the marriage equality efforts in CA miss this. I liked the fact that he was starting this dialogue of being inclusive. To me, he was saying the opposite of what you are saying.

How are being going to understand why we need each others health care benefits if they don’t know that there are gay people who don’t have enough money to avoid policies outside of their partner’s health care plans? How are they going to understand ENDA if they don’t know that if we lose our jobs then many of us face severe hardship? Why aren’t those faces on the screen when ads are being run?

The whole point about elitism resonated with me because I thought of the instances in the past where political battles were fought, and it seemed like things like class were left out, and yet, it is in the face of being poor in this society and gay that one truly feels the power of discrimination the most.  Why isn’t this being discussed.

I have a friend.  A white guy. He used to run a program for queer people of color in low income areas. Its a big issue for him. He says that the greater gay community ignores these folks. So, I think he would agree that it takes all types. His point is that the type that is focused on is the exact same type every time.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 00:34:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]  

Okay (0.00 / 0)

Dan’s comment in no way talks about how donors play a role, or funding streams that events he ridicules provides, or anything that would indicate he understands that being an “elite” is sometimes a role people need to play. All he has for such people is ridicule. While it’s great that he understands there needs to be a role for others, what you’re saying is not coming across at all in his comments, hence EDGEBoston printing “Dan declares war on gay elite”.


Me on Facebook
Me on Twitter

---

by: Adam Bink @ Thu Mar 25, 2010 at 08:34:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]  

We have two very different views of what it means when one (0.00 / 0)

talks about others wanting to be elite. For you, it seems the point is exclusion like me. For me, when he mentions exclusion he’s referencing the elite excluding others. When you hear elite, you seem to think it means he wants to include gays who want to be elite by excluding others. This is a reading of elite that I have never heard. It is sort of like tolerance means tolerating those who are intolerant. I think my definition makes more sense or like with the analogy we surrender to absurdity regarding language having any meaningful value to us regarding action.  

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Thu Mar 25, 2010 at 20:36:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

that you should read (0.00 / 0)

“he wants to exclude gays who want to be elite” and let me add that some how his problem with them is something other than that they are excluding other gays.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Thu Mar 25, 2010 at 20:38:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

A couple of things (4.00 / 1)

It doesn’t make his thoughts ridiculing rallies or dinners any less off-mark. I understand what he’s saying, I’m just responding to a particular point that I took issue with. Just because I chose to respond to a particular point doesn’t mean I’m dismissing it or don’t understand it.

On the merits of his other point, e.g. “the best the lobbying groups and HRC can do”, that’s pretending like they don’t have any organizers in the field and haven’t spent months working the Administration and Congress and that we’ve already lost.

I have my own set of issues with HRC, but Dan’s treating this as if all HRC ever did on this issue was hold a rally and 1,000 people came and then we lost the DADT repeal campaign. If that’s the case, then by all means, write “if that’s the best they can do”. But that’s a dismissal of other efforts, not to mention that we haven’t lost yet.

And by the way, I am saying much more than “HRC’s role is to have parties and be elites”. They play a much more fundamental role in many respects.


Me on Facebook
Me on Twitter

---

by: Adam Bink @ Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 21:16:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

thanks for developing your remarks (0.00 / 0)

And I’ll agree with your last two sentences too. Sorry that my comment left a different impression than what you actually said.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 21:40:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

Filmed for Griffin's show? (4.00 / 3)

It’s been reported on various blogs that Bravo was at the rally filming Kathy’s participation for incorporation into an episode of her teevee show.  It’s also been said that HRC gave control of the rally program to Bravo, and that that decision helped create and/or exacerbate the conflict with Choi.

I’d like to have HRC explain exactly what agreement they made with Bravo and hear more about who on HRC’s side decided to pursue it in the first place.  What’s been reported sounds likely to me; it sounds true.  If it is, HRC has then essentially pimped the gay rights movement out as a prop for reality teevee.

It’s important because HRC is not just one of many advocacy organizations comprising the LGBT movement.  It’s the organization–the one who has made itself into the de facto national leader of the whole thing.

You mention $150,000 dollars contributed to the Maine ballot fight.  There was no greater priority for the community in 2009 than Maine.  But Joe Solmonese draws about $350,000 each year in salary and benefits as executive director.  It’s fair to look at what kind of leadership he is providing and to think about what kind of leader with what kind of vision might make the organization more effective at its mission.  The community has the right to oversee how community resources are being spent, and to demand accountability.

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 18:32:40 PM CDT

 

Sources (0.00 / 0)

Please link to the various reports, thx, I’d be interested to see.

On accountability, anyone who reads my work would know I don’t need to be reminded about the right to demand accountability. I’ve written pieces exploring structural failures by NGLTF/No On 1 campaign in field, talking about fuck-ups in leadership during the vote-counting in the NYS Senate marriage vote, talking about how the National Equality March was a waste and diversion of resources, etc. etc.

So I’ve demanded my fair share of better performance and accountability, and everyone has the right to do that. It is entirely fair of you to question whether Joe is providing the right kind of leadership, and to have a discussion about that.

What Dan does is sneer in a blanket manner at “dinners and cocktail parties” while not only attending them, but benefiting from them. If he has a specific criticism about their lack of value, by all means, he should make it. Otherwise, I fail to see how that is helpful or on point.


Me on Facebook
Me on Twitter

---

by: Adam Bink @ Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 21:25:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

Aravosis was covering the rally and aftermath in realtime (0.00 / 0)

There are a good series of posts at http://gay.americablog.com/ beginning on 3/18/2010.  The specific bit of hearsay that I was hoping to have verified of refuted came from a different blog:

He asked to speak. What he was told depends upon whom you believe. The HRC claims their president Joe Solmonese told Choi that it “wasn’t his sole decision to make on the spot.” Reports from the scene on the backchannel say Choi was told, “This is Bravo’s Show.” Choi cannot tell us, because he’s in jail tonight….

I wasn’t suggesting by any means that you are against accountability, Adam.  I really appreciate all your gay rights related postings here and think you do great analysis.

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 10:12:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]  

For anyone interested in activism for civil rights , please check out (4.00 / 2)

Get Equal:

http://getequal.org/

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 19:21:06 PM CDT

 

The problem (4.00 / 3)

is that such money doesn’t come without strings. The people with wheelbarrows of money have their own agendas, and their own preferred ways of getting things done.

There is a serious qualitative difference in the behavior of an organization that raises $150,000 from ten gifts of $15,000, or from ten thousand gifts of $15. One is in the mold of the milquetoast beltway non-profit-industrial complex, and the other is in the mold of aggressive, successful social movements.

Choi is speaking to that difference, and, having myself worked in both kinds of organizations, he does so quite rightly.

Join the fight to give students a real voice on campus: Forstudentpower.org.

---

by: Liberaltarian @ Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 19:35:35 PM CDT

 

I once read a description (4.00 / 1)

of sports team owners as “rich people who pay talented people for the privilege of hanging out with them.”

I think there is some of that going on here, too — rich people paying “cool” people for the privilege of hanging out with them.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 19:39:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

I don't disagree with that (0.00 / 0)

Except you’ll never get the kind of funding streams non-profits and other groups need through entirely small donations. For better or worse, these kinds of groups will always exist to provide funding streams, and many, on balance, play a positive role.

So while you’re right to point out the difference between such organizations, no, Dan does not take the time to speak to that difference, but should if he wants to make a useful point. Otherwise it just amounts to sneering at big gay donors and their events.


Me on Facebook
Me on Twitter

---

by: Adam Bink @ Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 21:30:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

there are some assumptions here that need to be unpacked (0.00 / 0)

1. “you’ll never get the kind of funding streams non-profits and other groups need through entirely small donations”

This works on the basis that:

funding is among the highest priorities for organisations rather than a necessary but secondary aim;
that formal non-profit organisations are necessary;
that ‘in-kind’ donations don’t exist like being lending their living rooms;
that the combination of wealth inequality and homophobia are so entrenched that they will exist forever to the point where it will always be impossible to provide resources for a local community organisation;  and
that funding does not exist on a spectrum whereby you can get MUCH of your money from a paticular way of raising funds and supplement it with things you’d rather not do rather than the other way around.

I don’t completely disagree with all of these, but I disagree with them as assembled into a package of beliefs.

2. “For better or worse, these kinds of groups will always exist to provide funding streams, and many, on balance, play a positive role.”

This works on the basis that:

a) again, concentrated wealth will ‘always exist’ to provide funding for groups like this;
b) there aren’t other mechanisms for centralizing and redirecting funding streams than large private unelected organisations with a lot of economic resources (e.g. the equivalent of trade unions, but for LGBT people; trade unions themselves – see the organisation Schools Out in the UK which initiated LGBT history month in that country; etc.)
c) that ‘playing a positive role’ trumps considerations of accountability, structure, and other ways you might consider whether that use and organisation of resources is playing the MOST positive role that it possibly could given a variety of kinds of limitations in the world;
d) that organisations like these need a defence rather than more constructive criticism (and I do take and agree with the point from the tone of most of your posts that the criticism should be constructive rather than vitriolic).

In any case, from the above, if I have it right, there is a model of organisation for a privatised non-profit industry that you’re defending here.  In its place, I would substitute a model where there ARE policy groups, but they are more accountable to membership groups rather than the power working the way it does now – bass ackwards, they may not be based in DC, there are middle level organisations, and there is a greater reliance on more democratic and non financial sources of funding.  If there is going to be a non-profit industry.

There are further alternative models one might think about – for example, a mass democratic organisation that values diversity and equality for LGBT people.  If everyone LGBT contributed $5 a year to such an organisation (guessing that you have about 5% of the population), that’s around a $75,000,000 annual budget OWNED by LGBT people.

Of course, real life is not so simple and I am aware of bureaucratic obstacles, and that HRC raises funding from small donations as well as cocktail parties, and that not everyone would be willing to or could give $5 a year, and that the resulting organisation would be imperfect and all the rest – but at the end of the day, I think that it’s impotant to recognise the failure of the MODEL represented by HRC and to shift to a different organisational and industry-wide (hopefully to the point where it’s no longer an industry 😉 ethos for social justice work – for LGBT issues and many others.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 06:29:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]  

Woah (0.00 / 0)

I don’t think that’s what I’m saying. Rather, I would say I look at the world as it is at the moment and how I see it for, at least, the near-future. If you or anyone can come up with a funding model for tiny non-profits that helped gay kids kicked out of their homes that doesn’t in some part depend on organizations raising from elite moneyed interests and their dinners, by all means, let’s hear it.

But yes, I do think concentrated wealth will always continue to provide some funding streams, however large or small.

And it’s pretty interesting how folks in this thread spin my comments that, I would say, simply note how Dan is a bit off the mark, into “Adam is against accountability/favors money over accountability” or something. Please. See upthread- I have called for better performance on lots of occasions, including HRC. If there is a specific criticism to be made, then let’s make it, but keep from tossing around accusations about accountability.


Me on Facebook
Me on Twitter

---

by: Adam Bink @ Thu Mar 25, 2010 at 08:42:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]  

i think my critique was fair (0.00 / 0)

in the near term – and the far term – these kinds of inequalities exist.  that’s true.  but there is a different between accepting that as inevitable and actively building models that MAY provide a way out or at least mitigate the effects.

I’ve given you a model – the trade union model.  LGBT people give small amounts of money to an organisation that represents their interests but which is owned by them – financially, socially, morally, and in other ways.  organisations like hrc and national immigration forum and others could become that type of organisation if they wanted to.  they would have to fundamentally restructure and shift its priorities not just in terms of what it spends its money on and how it goes about doing its work but also in terms of how it sees itself.

And they require that organisation to be democratic, in whatever way they see fit – for example, through elections, through having smaller branches at local levels, etc.  that organisation has structures and accountability mechanisms, not just a promise to be accountable.

another model, which is not mutually exclusive but is perhaps more imaginable in the short run, is for small grassroots organisations to take on these principles to come together and use some of their funding to create another small organisation that is accountable to them and engages in policy campaigns and electoral work.

Another model is for LGBT people to participate in broader struggles to restore government services so that small grassroots organisations are no longer overburdened by things that are a social function and can focus to a greater extent than today on active campaigning.

all of these models have something in common – they rely on a principle of organisational democracy, they presuppose the organisation is accountable to grassroots work not just in theory but in how it allocates resources and is suffused by a culture of democracy (that is bolstered by both an ideological attachment to internal democracy as well as internal structures).

I work at a trade union – though it’s imperfect – especially with regard to issues affecting disempowered groups like LGBT people, people of color, women, and others, and it is way more bureaucratic than it needs to be, far more middle of the road than i would like, etc etc etc, it does a fairly good job in comparison to groups like hrc in being a big powerful organisation that is accountable to its grassroots.  And it has to engage in ways to keep doing that because otherwise it loses its funding and eventually ceases to exist.

Nothing is perfect – but what I am saying is that the statements I cited by you were either not reflective of what you believe or they do reflect the sorts of assumptions that keep people from moving towards these models.  There is simply no world in which a privatised social justice industry will lead to social change to the extent that it can practically be accomplished unless it significantly moves away from that model.

my two cents.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Thu Mar 25, 2010 at 18:57:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

here is the problem in a nutshell (4.00 / 1)

Choi, emphasis added:

When I heard Kathy Griffin was going to be a spokeswoman for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Here you have the face of the campaign, one of the people who actually is directly affected by this issue, and rather than spearheading the choice of tactics and strategies or working in partnership to make such choices, he receives news.  

Maybe this is his choice – I don’t know enough about the nitty gritty of the campaign, but if it is not, it is anathema to me that we have allowed a situation where a privatized bureaucracy is making decisions about the issues that affect the lives of people who are most directly affected by them while employing the faces of those people as credibility and justification.  And it is not atypical.

Everyone who has been involved in social justice work at close to a grassroots level knows that when the demonstration is coming, that’s when the larger organisations start contacting you and asking you for ‘stories’ and ‘spokespeople’ rather than imagining that the ‘stories’ and ‘spokespeople’ should be, at minimum, the heart of the movement on a day to day basis.  And at maximum should be in a position to influence the direction of said movement.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 06:38:09 AM CDT