The Boston Globe today has
another article on the soul-searching going on within gay political spheres. The article, in particular, focuses on the departure of Cheryl Jacques--it's a local story here--but places that within the larger context of gay movement actors trying to figure out where to go from here.
When Jacques resigned Nov. 30, she and the HRC board released a joint statement citing ''a difference in management philosophy."
But friends of Jacques, a former Massachusetts senator, have said the difference was more substantive. Jacques was a casualty of the debate over whether the gay community should lower its sights, said her friend and former colleague Scott Harshbarger, who has spoken with Jacques since her departure.
Last week, the New York Times published an article (discussed
here about HRC's introspection about future directions for the organization (and, because of HRC's size, large parts of the movement). Basically, HRC wants to pull back, to not push so hard on marriage (because HRC was right out in front on that battle...) and to push for other ways of getting the same rights for same-sex couples. Again, from the Globe:
HRC officials began outlining a more pragmatic strategy for the group at a meeting last weekend in Las Vegas. They decided to inject themselves into debates over Social Security, pension, and tax policy to try to win incremental rights in addition to sweeping ones. They floated the possibility of supporting the Bush administration plan to privatize Social Security, for example, in the hopes of winning survivor benefits from more open-minded private companies that might administer the funds.
More broadly, HRC strategists are hoping to reintroduce gays and lesbians to the American people, an attempt to replace what a spokesman called sensational television images of gay and lesbian couples -- footage of them kissing after they were married in San Francisco earlier this year, for example -- with fuller stories. The group will focus on approaching people personally, through churches and local communities, and appealing to voters' sense of fairness by focusing on the rights denied to gays and lesbians, he said.
A couple of points follow. First, not all gay organizations are falling in line with HRC. The NGLTF, along with several other organizations, has drafted a letter for every member of Congress. The full letter can be found here (and you can sign it and send it to your Representatives and Senators).
A larger point, though, is dealing with their secondary strategy. First of all, we need images of gay and lesbian people in the media (which I discussed a bit here). We can't back away from stories showing two women kissing after their wedding...indeed, we need more stories showing that--those images become "natural" and "normal" over time. Yes, we must personalize our own stories, but it seems that, again, HRC is running away from anything that's publicly gay. "Eeek, images of real queer people. Hurry, find something that won't upset anyone." We need more public discussion about gay people, not less. We must use those images as springboards for conversation, as opportunities to make inroads; we shouldn't run away from them.
The last point is perhaps the largest, though, and it does point to some of the problems inherent in identity politics. That's HRC's potential support for some of the administration's Social Security privatization plans, if gay people can be included. We don't agitate for a more just society by backing off on our social obligations, which is what privatizing social security does, in order to get a few more of us included. In doing so, we would still be making the situation worse. That's the problem with HRC's brand of identity politics: identity trumps the quality and worthiness of policy. I'll be honest, even if same-sex couples are included in any social security privatization scheme it should be opposed (and HRC is being naive as hell if they think any such thing will emerge from this Congress; the HRC board need to pull their heads out of their asses if they seriously think anything like that is going to happen).
Flush HRC. Get rid of 'em. The beyond worthless and not worth salvaging.
Power cedes nothing without demand. We deserve groups that will demand something, not cower in the corner. And we need them to demand justice, not just inclusion within piss-poor policy.