When Hillary Clinton asserted last week that the Reagans started a "national conversation" on AIDS in the '80s, she did something she has repeatedly done throughout the 2016 cycle: launched a national discussion about LGBT rights.
Let's add a trigger warning right here—if you're a die-hard Hillary Clinton fan, this may not be the column for you. Not because it will be anti-Hillary, but because it's an unvarnished assessment of how LGBT issues have fared in the campaign thus far relative to other progressive concerns and what that might mean for either a Hillary or Bernie administration.
As Michelangelo Signorile pointed out earlier this week:
This election cycle, it took Nancy Reagan's death, ironically, to get a discussion going among the candidates about an issue important to LGBT people.
Signorile's point is well taken—LGBT issues haven't been at the fore of this campaign season in any way. Compared to 2008 when repeated coverage of LGBT concerns led Barack Obama to pledge repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" and 2012 when we watched a candidate evolve on marriage equality before our very eyes, queer rights have been decidedly absent, save some nice tweets and the occasional speech.
But in the few instances where gay rights have drawn national headlines, Hillary Clinton herself has jumpstarted the coverage. Her first rough patch came in the summer of 2014 during a now-infamous NPR interview in which Terry Gross interrogated Clinton about her evolution on marriage equality and she grew noticeably defensive. Clinton was not yet a candidate then, but everyone assumed she was building toward an announcement and most commentators found it quizzical to watch Clinton stumble on an issue related to a constituency that has largely adored her.
Clinton believed Gross was implying she had changed her marriage position for "political reasons" and took umbrage at the suggestion.
"That’s just flat wrong," she responded. "So let me just state what I feel like I think you are implying and repudiate it."
The second headline-generator emanated from a Rachel Maddow interview last fall in which Clinton claimed that her husband signed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act in order to head off passage of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. It was utter nonsense and incensed many LGBT activists. It also launched everything from a round of fact checking to an exhaustive review of the Clinton presidential library records.
Which brings us to the latest uproar around her praise for the Reagans' handling of the HIV/AIDS crisis in the '80s. Clinton corrected course quickly, issuing an apology within hours and following up the next day with a Medium.com post detailing her plans for curtailing HIV/AIDS. The kerfuffle also produced some concrete commitments from the Sanders campaign and a series of asks from AIDS activists around the goal of eradicating the epidemic nationally by 2025.
It's worth noting here that, despite these instances, Clinton proved to be a strong advocate for LGBT issues as secretary of state and arguably the most aggressive among her counterparts in President Obama's Cabinet. She moved fast when it counted the most, during the early days of Obama's presidency in 2009, and that produced tangible results for LGBT Americans, Foreign Service Officers, and our international community.
But what's so glaring about the times LGBT concerns have bubbled up this election cycle is how that compares with the headlines other progressive constituencies have drawn. Some of the most prominent examples that spring to mind include Black Lives Matter activists confronting Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley on stage at Netroots Nation last year. Shortly thereafter, they confronted Clinton following one of her campaign stops in New Hampshire and later posted video of the spontaneous exchange.
DREAM activists have been equally as dogged—challenging Clinton on the campaign trail starting as far back as the 2014 midterms. In fact, they were so effective that just weeks after Hillary launched her campaign, she came out with a very aggressive immigration platform and a pledge to expand on President Obama's immigration orders.
What followed was an all-out war between Sanders and Clinton for Dreamers and immigration votes. Bernie hired Cesar Vargas away from Dream Action Coalition and touted Nevada entrance polls that showed him beating Hillary with Latino voters in the state (those numbers were later disputed). Hillary hired Lorella Praeli away from United We Dream and has consistently cited her strong support with Latinos nationally.
Set LGBT issues against this backdrop and the difference is absolutely stark. We barely know the names of the campaigns’ LGBT liaisons, and while we've gotten some nice speeches, there's been very little jockeying for position among LGBT voters. Sure, Bernie and Hillary supporters have faced off about who has the better record, but in terms of national headlines that have really drawn in the mainstream media, not much besides Clinton's self-inflicted wounds.
So why does all this matter? As someone who sat in the White House briefing room during the first two years of Obama's presidency, I’m convinced it matters in terms of accountability. Reporters remember what they see on the campaign trail and they are keen to figure out whether a president is making good on her or his promises. The relatively scant attention that LGBT issues have received means they will not be raised as readily in the briefing room.
Also, activists need benchmarks. They need something to help them judge whether a president is progressing apace on their issues. Currently we have no timelines attached to the relatively low-profile pledges that have been made.
In fact, at this very moment, we have no LGBT benchmarks for the first 100 days of a Democratic administration that I know of. On immigration, for instance, both Clinton and Sanders have promised to take certain actions on immigration reform. No similar commitments have been on LGBTQ equality issues.
So what say you, dear reader? What do you think would make a solid goal for the first 100 days? I invite your input. Right now, I think the goal of a president giving a major policy address on the Equality Act in the first 100 days would be a positive step, among others. Perhaps that's not aggressive enough, but very few progressives even know the legislation exists let alone what it would do.
In fact, ask around among your politically involved, progressive friends who aren't queer and see if they know anything at all about what might need to happen next on the road to LGBT equality. I’ve tried this experiment. One of them mentioned killing the anti-transgender bathroom bills. It's a well-informed answer, but not part of the agenda we've set—rather, it’s the agenda that’s been forced upon us by the right. Another mentioned the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA)—also reasonably well informed, yet unaware of how our legislative goals are evolving. But that's not their fault. That's on us. We’ve got some work to do.
So go ahead and weigh in below with what's important to you as an LGBTQ American.