Andrew Sullivan quotes Choi:
"When I get messages from people who want to be a part of this I ask back: what are you willing to sacrifice? ... I'm giving up my military rank, my unit—which to me is a family—my veterans' benefits, my HRC health care, so what are you willing to sacrifice? They say freedom is not free, but it doesn't have to cost anything either. Jesus up on the cross did not have a party with all his major donors to raise money for his cause, his cross was free. Ghandi did not need three-course dinners and a cocktail party to get his message out. These are people who sacrificed their lives. For them it was hemlock, a cross, the bullet that shot Harvey Milk … it was not the size of their distribution list, but their message that endured...
When I heard Kathy Griffin was going to be a spokeswoman for Don't Ask, Don't Tell, I wondered about that. I have great respect for her as an advocate. But if [the Human Rights Campaign] thinks that having a rally at Freedom Plaza with a comedienne is the right approach, I have to wonder. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not a joking matter to me. To be at Freedom Plaza and not at the White House or Congress? Who are they trying to influence? I felt like they were just trying to speak to themselves. If that's the best the lobbying groups and HRC can do, then I don't know how these powerful groups are supposed to represent our community."
One of Sullivan's readers reacts:
I read your quote for the day and agree with Dan Choi. I also agree with you on all things HRC. However, I don't think Dan Choi is the right poster child for the DADT repeal movement either. I met many people at the SLDN [Servicemembers Legal Defense Network] dinner that told me something along the lines of, "Dan Choi does not represent the LGBT military." Chaining himself to the White House fence was an attention grab, just like Kathy Griffin marching in Freedom Plaza was an attention grab. Neither action invited the opposition into real discussion, and neither action provided much sympathy from the opposition. Over-activism usually works against a worthy cause, and chaining yourself to a fence and making a spectacle makes it easy to dismiss the seriousness of DADT. This kind of behavior makes us look like the radical fringe that the right wing wants us to be. Most gays in the military are neither radical, nor fringe.
I want to point out, both to Sullivan's reader and those at SLDN, that this is not an either/or choice. Yes, chaining himself to the White House fence was an attention grab, and there you have, in a nutshell, the whole problem with the establishment gays: they don't want the attention. I'm not going to impute motivations for that stance, but you can see how effective it's been -- HRC has been working on DADT repeal, DOMA repeal, ENDA, and hate crimes for well over a decade and we finally have hate crimes legislation on the books. And all HRC can think to do is say "we're working on it" and lock down the building when some real activists hit down. Dan Choi may not "represent" the LGBT military, but he is the public face, by default -- and that is SLDN's doing.
Pam Spaulding published the results of a reader poll that bears me out:
Spaulding has a good, succinct post that lays it out:
As you can see, putting more LGBTs into office is a great way to change the landscape, and more notably, direct action is effectively tied with letting the professional gays and grassroots activists do the heavy lifting. The element of surprise and action does have a positive impact and breaks movement inertia.
We have an arsenal of effective ways to effect change. Each of us can and must find and use the avenue that is most effective to help the equality effort -- just do something.
We cannot rely on someone else to move Congress or the White House; the reality is that we have more freedom to act because we don't have relationships to maintain with the White House or elected officials on the Hill.
They work for us and it's time to treat them that way. If they don't listen, then it's time to ratchet up the pressure. We, as peons without access, don't have to worry whether we are going to be invited to the next tea or cocktail party at the White House. We're not on the invite list anyway so there aren't any social or political bridges to burn.
It's not about being liked, it's about obtaining our equal rights denied us by our government -- progress blocked by purported allies who are paralyzed by political homophobia and CYA mentality.
This is related to comments I left at PHB at this post:
Solmonese, et al. made a huge blunder by not marching with Choi. Every officer and staffer of HRC should have been there. You can't get anything from people who take you for granted. In my heyday I had the reputation of being a nice, easygoing, patient guy who was very reasonable and realistic and who would eat your liver if you crossed him. Nobody's afraid of Solmonese or HRC because they won't, and now can't, call down thunder and lightning. If you expect to get anything from anyone you're negotiating with, you have to make them a little nervous. Otherwise they'll just nod and do what they were going to do anyway.
I guess my bottom line here is that HRC has no credibility with anyone, that I can see. That doesn't make for effective advocacy.
There's a synergy that develops when you have more than one prong to your attack. We need HRC to be our reasonable face. We need Dan Choi to be our confrontational face. And, I might point out, HRC needs Dan Choi to put some teeth behind its smile. The ufortunate part is that we out here in the boondocks see that, as witnessed by the response's to Spaulding's poll. HRC doesn't get it.
I realize this is kind of scattered -- as usual, I'm trying to do two or three things at once while pulling together threads from the past few days, so be patient. I think I've hit all the major points, though, so -- well, connect the dots.
Update: Here's another dot. Dr. Jillian T. Weiss makes a point I missed: people blogging on our civil rights are necessary, too.
No comments:
Post a Comment