This diary examines a trend in gay electoral politics in the next decade for a vital voting bloc that either party can win until we see substantive outcomes.
Lost in the discussion of gay rights like marriage equality is the rising tide of gay power at the ballot box. I want to take this time to discuss a recent post by Chris Bowers at Open Left. This is mostly just an idea that I am developing about what I believe will be a rising time of gay political voting power in the next decade.
In the diary titled "Electorate Becoming Increasingly LGBT," Chris discusses the impact of self-identifying LGBT communities on Democratic and Republican electoral outcomes.
Bowers states the following:
"Specifically, this means that 5% of the electorate will self-identify as LGBT by 2016 at the latest, and that 6% of the electorate will self-identify as LGBT by 2028 at the latest. It is possible, though not a certainty, that this number will rise to 7% in the 2030's, even as early as 2032. Further, if the self-identified LGBT percentage of the population under the age of 45 increases rather than remains stagnant, then the 7% figure will definitely be reached in 2032, and even higher percentages might occur in the future."
LINK
This rising time could make or break the party in closet elections in the coming decade.
I should point out that Chris's estimations are an underestimation of the influence of LGBT voters. Since this is self-identified, it is well understood in the LGBT community that not everyone, including supporters, will want to identity as part of the community for the purposes of these sorts of studies. He mistakenly assumes that a lack of self identification tells us the political bent of the voter. What that actual number is above the self-identified community I can not say. The point is that self identitication is a low bar, not high bar, of the voting bloc.
While this is interesting regarding Democratic versus Republican politics, what is more interesting to me is what this will mean regarding a rising tide of gay electoral power at the ballow box.
It is often said that politicans care about two things- votes and money. The LGBT community has been giving money for years, but now it seems we are on the horizon of being able to deliver a voting bloc that can determine the outcome of elections. That is to say the more people become entrenched in protecting their rights as an LBGT voter the more politicians will have no choice because to ignore the LBGT voter will have the same impact as ignoring any other vital bloc.
At present, rightly or wrongly, the feeling amongs the gay press (sites like Towleroad and Pam's House of Blend) as well as print press such as the Washington Blade is that the Democrats and President Obama are throwing the LGBT community under the bus. Certainly, gay groups are also starting to voice similar concerns such as the Service member's defense fund which issued a scathing critique of the DADT and Democratic complicity. Whatever, you think of the present situation with the retreat on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the point here is that the Democrats maybe forced to face these issues sooner rather than later in the coming years due to this key voting bloc. I advocate they should address at least issues like DADT and ENDA to build loyalty amongst the voting bloc. The irony is that such a move would cost them nothing with other voter blocs since these two issues are supported by the great bulk of Americans in polls. The least favorable polls place it at 55 percent. Most place the numbers in the 70s.
Unlike the African American voting bloc, it is not clear to me that the Democratic Party can take this bloc for grant for long. I am black in addition to being gay. The patience of AAs with the Democratic Party is amazing. We put up with a lot of stuff. I am not so sure the LGBT community will. There seems to be a poltical awakening happening right now that I think the Democratic Party is underestimating.
Nor is it clear to me even outside of this political awakening that the LBGT is going to be all that loyal to a party from whom it has not seem much results. It is estimated that nearly 30 percent of the LBGT community voted for McCain over President Obama. It is true the GOP votes against LBGT interest. But its also true on the whole there is not much that I can point to as substantive outcomes favoring the Democratic Party on gay rights issues. Certainly, when people entertain the notion that a justice of the S.Ct. can not be gay, that's not going to endear you to the voting bloc regardless of you talk about what is in your heart of hearts. Now, these people may have never and may never vote for a Democrat, but the underlying point is that there is not the equivalent loyalty to the Democrats that the black community feels. My sense is that the votes must be earned.
What can change this? I believe part of the solution is to realize that the LGBT community will be gaining a great deal of electoral power in the coming decade, and to build a sense of loyalty to the Democratic Party through legislative action being passed rather than simply campaign promises.
So, what are practical implications? Well, one can start to see this in small ways in battles such the one for marriage equality in New York state right now.
Here's a quote from Danny O'Donnell:
"Mr. O'Donnell, the gay older brother of the comedian Rosie O'Donnell, has emerged as a tenacious, ingratiating, playful and sometimes prickly leader of the effort to pass the legislation.
He has helped gather nearly 90 votes in the 150-member Assembly... But he is also using the Assembly vote as a way to pressure members of the Senate, where the legislation's fate will be decided, and demonstrate to wary senators that there is support in their districts for the bill.
Mr. O'Donnell's unsubtle approach has endeared him to some colleagues in the Capitol and rankled others. While using flattery on certain wavering lawmakers, he has been aggressive with others, threatening to withhold support from fellow Democrats, for example, who declined to be listed as sponsors of the measure.
"Some might say you get more bees from vinegar, sugar than vinegar, whatever that stupid expression is," said Mr. O'Donnell, who is from the Upper West Side. He added: "If you want to run for attorney general or for governor or lieutenant governor or senator or congressperson, and you're not in favor of my equality, then I'm not interesting in helping you. And I've made that clear."
LINK
The deeper point is that he is making a threat that may actually have teeth behind it. Picture a Republican running in a close election in New York, and losing a vital voting bloc like the LBGT community. Part of the means by which they hope to pass the marriage equality bill is through a few Republican votes.
The take away as our electoral power increases there may be consequences at the ballot for any politician who does not support our equality. The additional take away from this is that there is no guarantee that the GOP will always follow the Christian right on this issue.
As the GOP seeks after more near-term loses to re-invent itself as a winning party nationally, one of the ways they may seek to do so is through appealing to groups such as moderate and conservative LGBT voters who do not see any substantive outcomes different from the GOP's own policies. I say outcomes- not verbiage.
Certainly, some part of the GOP are already seeking to distance itself from the Christian Right and are seeking to moderate the party's position on gay equality. For example, Steve Schmidt, McCain's advisor during his Presidential bid, says the party needs to moderate its views on homosexuality.
Meegan McCain has been making similar statements. Now, as the moment, I think these people are voices in a wilderness against the dominant GOP machine. But, I do not know what will happen if the party starts to become more reasonable on gay rights. Could the Democratic Party have lost its chance to solidify the loyalty of a bloc of voters by leaving this window of opportunity to open? Perhaps. Or, perhaps not. The key element is to recognize these shifts are occuring. Part of what placed the GOP in his predictament is that it kept and continues to run on a strategy first started by Nixon and then reinforced by subsequent GOP leaders like Reagan and later Bush. This strategy relied on certain demographic "truths" that were slowly changing.
Democratic pollsters identified these changes in the late 90s, and, more specifically discussed how these changes would lead to a Democratic majority. Indeed, some strategist right now are claiming that the Democrats can have a 40 year run if we play our cards right regarding demographic shifts.
We should not assume that the GOP not willing to moderate in some regions to obtain vital voting blocs. In CA, for example, I recently read that the GOP is seeking pro-choice and minority candidates.
The mistake Bill Clinton made was to sacrifice the long term on the altar of his short term goals. I hope the party as a whole is not making a similar mistake on gay rights.
The point of all of this is to realize that there is a vital voting bloc here that the Democrats could eventually lose if the Democrats continue to throw that voting block nothing but verbiage with little action nationally to back it up.