Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976. In 2016 it will be 40 years since he was elected.
I bring this up because of a statement by Joe Solomese from the Human Rights campaign:
I've written that we have actually covered a good deal of ground so far. But I'm not going to trot out those advances right now because I have something more relevant to say: It's not January 19, 2017.
On Daily Kos, we are all quite used to the back and forth hyperbole: "Obama needs to keep his promises" versus "Jesus Christ, he's only had 10 months, he has a lot on his plate, give him time!"
What I want to say is this is a false debate. The issue is not about what happens now or even five months from now.
It's what actually happens in 2016 if we don't get the major gay rights issues taken care of. What many Obama supporters want to say is that this is about "blame". Do we blame Obama if ENDA isn't passed, the repeal of DOMA, the repeal of DADT and we don't have any federal protections for same sex couples at the federal level?
What is wrong about this debate is the pretense that this is not a very old argument and a very old issue.
During the 1976 presidential election, Democrat Jimmy Carter also actively sought the gay and lesbian vote. Even though he backtracked on campaign promises to the glbtq community after he gained office, in 1977 his Assistant for Public Liaison, Margaret (Midge) Costanza, invited fourteen gay and lesbian activists to the White House for the first-ever official White House meeting between presidential staff and lesbian and gay activists. Additionally, in 1979 President Carter appointed lesbian Jill Schropp to the National Advisory Council on Women in a White House ceremony.
Does any of this sound familiar? You could almost substitute the names and places and, presto, be at nearly the same place, 30 years later:
The appointment has generated media attention because President Obama is currently facing criticism for acting too slowly on gay and lesbian rights issues. Obama is expected to address a Human Rights Campaign dinner this weekend.
Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solomonese welcomed Huebner's appointment.
"The selection of David Huebner as Ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa is not only good for the LGBT community, it is good for America," he said. "The appointment of openly gay and lesbian Americans, by this Administration, continues to show their dedication to diversity and making decisions not based on someone’s sexual orientation, but based on their qualifications. We congratulate David on his appointment and look forward to his service to our country."
So when this gets debated, the subject naturally turns to the topic of blame:
"I hear ya. I'd have a cuter boyfriend and a better paying job and a hot gym body but I don't and it's all Obama's fault. Oy vey."
-overheard on facebook.
The question is not about whether you can get something done in 10 months with the fate of the world on your plate. It's about whether you can get things done which have languished for 40 years with or without the fate of the world on your plate.
And it's not about blame. It's about a fundamental question of whether the non-Republican politicians in Washington, politically, can get anything done, and the GLBT issues of not being able to get anything done go far beyond the issues of importance to the GLBT community:
The myth is that Bill Clinton made the first major mistake of his presidency by trying to lift the ban on homosexuals in the military. The story is that he forced the issue, and when military leaders pushed back, he settled for the disheartening compromise of "Don’t Ask.’’ But in fact, Clinton did not raise the subject. He had promised to lift the ban during the campaign, but it was not he who set the postelection agenda.
The issue was imposed on him, first by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs at the time, General Colin Powell, who in his memoir says that he raised the question himself in his first meeting with the president-elect in November 1992; then by the Joint Chiefs together, who themselves brought it up as an "urgent’’ concern in their first meeting with Clinton shortly after the inauguration.
Powell and the chiefs were preempting the president by making their opposition clear. That the commanders were all but open in their insubordination is what set the Republicans free to eat Clinton’s lunch. The "don’t ask’’ policy was a foolish Clinton attempt at compromise, but it was made law in September 1993. Powell and Senator Robert Dole crossruffed Clinton and swept the tricks.
In many different places this rhetoric has been heard from the Obama administration, even from Barack Obama himself:
We've been in office six months now. I suspect that by the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration.
The issue isn't for me about doubting President Obama's word. And, in 2016 it won't be about blaming him if the things that are important to a given community or a given set of agendas if certain things aren't done. After all, what use would blame be at that time? Obama's Presidency in 2017 would be over. And, President Obama may be prescient in exactly what he says: Maybe we will be very happy with the results of his presidency, not only on GLBT issues but on a myriad of other things.
My question is, what happens if we are still languishing, not only without substantial GLBT justice, but without reigning in abuses of the rule of law, fixing the health care crisis, curbing the runaway military industrial complex and ending two wars?
It's not as if no one has justification for these fears. Whatever people might say, the politics on many issues goes to pattern: a record of "can't get it done" followed by blame and failure, and then a new round of promises of success and strong-arming people into support of the next promiser, regardless of failure again and again and again.
It is said that politics is the art of the possible. In all of this, I don't think this is very far from the minds of many people.
But at some points in history, politics is also the art of the necessary. In 2017, it would be fair to ask, if a political party cannot get something done in 40 years, can they ever get it done?