White House Press Secretary Jay Carney entertained almost eight minutes of questions on the White House's decision to kill hope of an executive order requiring companies to have an non-discrimination policy that covers sexual orientation and gender identity to qualify for taxpayer contracts.
Carney talks more about the Employment Non-Discrimination act in eight minutes than the administration has in three years. It's an effort to get the heat off the administration and onto Congress. Carney is shilling that there exists some false choice between executive action and legislative action, which of course has no precedent in history. In fact the talking point Carney is selling is "the good is the enemy of the perfect."
And oddly, he is denigrating incrementalism to a community who has been consistently counseled to be "pragmatic" and accept incremental change.
Instead Carney is encouraging LGBT people and their supporters to believe change will come not by gradual incrementalism but an enormous, historical, pie-in-the-sky, Earth-shaking achievement, that after 38 years of languishing in DC is finally imminent.
We are encouraged to believe the administration has finally acquired the magic wand to get congress to bend to its will. And this would be the same congress the administration has built its entire We Can't Wait campaign around the idea it is a hopeless pit of obstructionism?
He says the decision is "absolutely not" political. It's disingenuous and aggravating because he isn't saying what we all know to be the plain and honest truth:
Obama and his people are afraid that if he signs this Rick Warren's Saddleback Church will not vote for him. He is afraid Family Research Council's Tony Perkins will call him the anti-Christ (again). He is afraid Fox News will say he's implementing the radical homosexual agenda (again).
They haven't yet figured out that the Saddleback Church, Family Research Council crowd and Fox News viewers aren't voting for the Kenyan, Muslim, socialist radical anyway. They just can't accept they're just not that into Obama.
I really wouldn't be so aggravated if the administration's efforts at political spin were not so damaging to the movement, and even the country's understanding of how progressive change comes about.
But for the sake of cynical political expediency the administration is in the process of radically rewriting the history of what policies create change, or suggesting the path that worked for others in the past does not work for LGBT people. Carney is suggesting that the long history of non-discrimination executive orders by presidents from Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, even Eisenhower, were somehow bad, undemocratic approach to policy. But these policies worked, and delivered relief and change for the people who were affected by them and continue to do so to this day. And all our lives are better today because these men took these steps, that were not as popular in their day as they are today.
Desegregating the military by executive order was not at all damaging to the ultimate movement of the civil rights. It wasn't everything but it was a lot. And everyone understands it ultimately made the passage of the Civil Rights act not only more possible, but inevitable.
But by Obama administration's flawed political math, it's somehow better not to cover 22% of the workforce today by executive order and wait for some magic realignment that everyone knows isn't coming. The LGBT people get to wait for the bill to clear the Senate, even though it has only 41 sponsors (and 15 Democrats are not on that list).
But we all are invited to accept all this revisionist history and pretend that ENDA will be passed so we can avoid openly acknowledging that the Obama administration is afraid to confront Rick Santorum's dangerous base of rabid, theocratic voters head on.
America has unfortunately, apparently arrived at a place where a president simultaneously has almost unlimited, unchecked, unilateral authority to take lives, but is presented as having none to improve them.
It's a little odd that the White House delivered this news at a behind closed doors meeting with the advocates most involved in the movement: Winnie Stachelberg, of Center for American Progress; Rea Carey, of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; Tico Almeida, of Freedom to Work; Joe Solmonese and David Smith, of the Human Rights Campaign; and gay Democratic lobbyists Steve Elmendorg and Robert Raben.
Dr. Jillian Weiss delivered this wry take on the unusual move at the Bilerico Project:
We usually don’t call people to the White House to tell them we’re not signing an Executive Order, but someone had to do something to call off the dogs. You all were starting to get some traction, but we can’t afford that. Now don’t go thinking that chaining yourselves to the White House fence is going to work a second time. You’ve already played that card. We summoned you here to let you know our resolve — we’re not gonna sign that Order, no way, no how. So just stop with all the pressure. It’s not working. These are not the droids you’re looking for. Not…working…must get away…from political kryptonite…
Well, it will be interesting to see what
Freedom To Work does with the
$100,000 donation it received from a GetEqual benefactor to pursue this further.
Transcript after the fold, with annotations.
Transcript courtesy of Think Progress.
The question begins with an NBC reporter.
Q Jay, the President has decided at this moment not to sign an executive order that would ban workplace discrimination by any federal contractor on the basis of sexual orientation. Based on the fact that the President has made past statements saying that he supports non-discrimination policies in the workplace, why not sign this executive order?
MR. CARNEY: Thank you for the question. The President is dedicated to securing equal rights for all LGBT Americans. And that is why he has long supported an inclusive employment non-discrimination act which would prohibit employers across the country from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The President is committed to lasting and comprehensive non-discrimination protections, and we plan to pursue a number of strategies to attain that goal. Our hope is these efforts will result in the passage of ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which is a legislative solution to LGBT employment discrimination.
And I would make the comparison here that pursuing that strategy, the passage of ENDA, is very similar to the approach the President took for the legislative repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”'
The administration has so far not lifted a finger to pass ENDA, not in 2009, not in 2010, not in 2011 and not in 2012. What new sponsors have they corralled? The bill is moribund.
But apparently we are to believe that the administration has now acquired that magic wand to compel Speaker Boehner and the blue dogs in the Senate to do Obama's bidding.
Q Can you make the distinction between ENDA and signing this executive order? In other words, if he does support ENDA, why not sign this executive order, which relates to a smaller part of the population and get that policy started?
MR. CARNEY: Again, I think that the DADT repeal is instructive here in terms of the approach that we’re taking at this time. And while it is not our usual practice to discuss executive orders that may or may not be under consideration, we do not expect that an EO on LGBT non-discrimination for federal contractors will be issued at this time. We support, as I just said, legislation that has been introduced -- the Employment Non-Discrimination Act -- and we will continue to work with congressional supporters to build -- sponsors, rather, to build support for it.
We’re deeply committed to working hand-in-hand with partners in the LGBT community on a number of fronts to build the case for employment non-discrimination policies including by complementing the existing body of compelling research with government-backed data and analysis, building a coalition of key stakeholders and decision-makers, directly engaging with and educating all sectors of the business community -- from major corporations to contractors to small business -- and raising public awareness about the human and financial costs of discrimination in the work force.
The Executive Order would be very helpful for making the case to Congress on the viability of passing ENDA. Once the Office of Federal Contract Compliance was empowered to entertain discrimination and hostile workplace complaints there would be even more data, from as much as 22% of the American work force. The OFCCP could well present a very compelling case that the companies it oversees experienced little, if any problems complying with the new law to institute non-discrimination policies.
Sen. Jeff Merkley
Oregon
Sen. Jeff Merkley agrees, saying he is "deeply disappointed by this decision he this to say:
“I appreciate the President’s support for ENDA and will keep pushing for legislative action. However, an executive order would be a very constructive step forward and help build momentum to pass the bill. It’s disappointing that the White House is passing on an opportunity to make immediate gains for equal opportunity in America.”
Sen. Merkley's commitment to seeing ENDA passed is in no way in doubt.
Q Tico Almeida, who’s the president of Freedom to Work, has issued a statement saying, “This is a political calculation that cannot stand.” Is this a political calculation?
MR. CARNEY: Absolutely not. The President is committed to securing equal rights for LGBT Americans and that is why he has long supported ENDA. I think the President’s record on LGBT issues speaks volumes about his commitment to securing equal rights for LGBT Americans. The approach we’re taking at this time is to try to build support for passage of this legislation, a comprehensive approach to legislate on the issue of non-discrimination.
And I think, again, the approach that we took in bringing about the repeal -- working with Congress to bring about the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” is instructive here. And as it did then, our approach to this piece of legislation demonstrates the President’s very firm and strong commitment to non-discrimination and to securing equal rights for all Americans.
Of course it's all about politics. Don't piss on our legs and tell us it's raining. Please don't presume we're stupid.
Q Jay, if it's not going to happen at this time -- some sort of commitment to or issue an executive order at a later time?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I’m simply saying that our approach is to focus on trying to build and expand support for passage of ENDA. That is our support. In terms of, again -- as a rule -- and we try to stick to it here -- we don’t talk about executive orders that may or may not be under consideration. In this case, I can tell you that at this time we are not considering such an executive order. We are, however, actively working with stakeholders to build support for passage through Congress of a piece of legislation that would be far more comprehensive than an executive order.
Hey, guys, one at a time.
Carney is misinformed that ENDA would be "more comprehensive." In scope yes, but the mechanisms are not interchangeable. ENDA would place complaints into the realm of EEOC. But OFCCP is empowered to investigate proactively in ways that the EEOC is not. Recently the OFCCP settled a lawsuit on behalf of
women who were paid less by pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca than their male peers. OFCCP was able to do this by spotting the discrepancy in an audit of the contractor's payroll. This is not a power vested in the EEOC.
Q It’s highly unlikely that the Congress will pass it given its current makeup. And the President has issued numerous executive orders under the theme “We Can’t Wait” -- has been unable to pass job legislation. Why is the President making this distinction with this LGBQ --
MR. CARNEY: We believe that this is the right approach to achieve success here in a broad and comprehensive legislative action. And at this time, we’re not considering as a part of that an executive order.
Now, there are executive orders that this President has signed and there are executive orders, either real or imagined, that the President has not acted on, and that’s because we look at each issue and we decide on a strategy that we think makes the most sense to achieving the President’s policy objectives.
Except the approach is wrong. Executive Orders were used by Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton to expand opportunities and forbid employment discrimination. There is absolutely zero evidence that issuing the executive orders provided a chilling effect on similar legislation. It is only this president who does not have the courage to lead when the call of his generation comes in. This president has consistently hide behind the gridlock of congress rather than lead.
Has your all-eggs-in-the-Congressional basket strategy accounted for the possibility the President may lose? If so, the window of opportunity for any federal addressing of LGBT employment discrimination will be closed until 2017. The LGBT community will have no hope of relief by either executive order or legislation. Is that a concern?
Is the administration so cavalier about this possibility?
For what it's worth, President Clinton issued an executive order covering Federal employees for sexual orientation in 1998. It stands today, and was not rescinded by George W. Bush, although he had eight years to do so.
Q Does the President believe that Executive Order 11246 that has been in place since 1965 is redundant to Title VII?
MR. CARNEY: You’re going to have to --
Q That’s the federal contractor executive order that has been in place for race, religion and sex since 1965.
MR. CARNEY: I haven’t had that discussion with him, Chris. What I do know for a fact is that this President is absolutely dedicated to securing equal rights for LGBT Americans. I think his record speaks volumes in support of that statement. And I think that the strategy that he pursued and the work that he did with Congress, with allies, in support of repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” testifies to his commitment. And you can --
A good question. I guess we won't get an answer.
Q But unlike “don’t ask, don’t tell”, the executive order route on employment nondiscrimination for federal contractors has a separate portion even in addition to the legislative route that has been in existence since 1965. So this is not the same as “don’t ask, don’t tell.” And why has the President not approached in a similar way to that law?
MR. CARNEY: It is a similar approach to the approach we took to “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Again, I haven’t talked to him about other executive orders here. What I can tell you is we’re not considering an executive order on this at this time. We are focused on a legislative approach, a comprehensive approach that would be much broader through legislation. And we are going to work with stakeholders to try to build support for passage of ENDA.
Can this administration honestly say with a straight face they are "focused on a legislative approach?" Because, I hate to break the bad news, you're doing a piss-poor job. ENDA was introduced into the 112th congress with
92 fewer sponsors than the 111th, even though we only lost about 40 sponsors to midterms. Will the gay community have to take a similar approach to lobbying for ENDA as they did with DADT?
Q One question before we move on. You’ve said that the President legislatively repealed “don’t ask, don’t tell.” While that’s true, he twice took in this sort of action to (inaudible) discharge authority twice before that repeal legislation was passed. So to say that you need to have legislation to go with administrative action first is not true.
MR. CARNEY: Well, that’s actually not a correction, Chris. It is a separate statement of action and fact. We are not approaching this at this time through executive authority, through an executive order. We are, however -- in another demonstration of the President’s firm commitment to securing equal rights for the LGBT community -- aggressively pursuing passage of ENDA. And that requires working with stakeholders and building a body of persuasive evidence that this is the right thing to do. And that is what we’re committed to doing.
One parallel to DADT repeal that Carney doesn't bring up is the
administration oversaw the excising of the non-discrimination language in the original bill and subsequently the Department of Defense made the decision to
bar LGB soliders from access to the Military Equal Opportunity office for complaints, a situation that persists. Is there a pattern here? When it comes to LGBT non-discrimination protection, the talk is better than the goods.