The White House deputy chief of staff, and the political director, have a 2pm conference call scheduled with the members of the gay caucus of the DNC. The administration has also scheduled a meeting this week with the top non-profit gay rights groups.
Privately, I also wrote to four White House contacts on Friday night and asked that they also schedule talks with the top gay rights leaders with constituencies online - the top leaders involved in the uproar over the past week - including, if those leaders are interested, Pam Spaulding, Andrew Sullivan, Joe Jervis, Dan Savage, and Andy Towle (I suggested those names as a starting point, not exclusively), and of course Joe Sudbay and me as well. I received no response.
Joe and I have been talking about this, and we've been fascinated how the White House's response to gay issues has been very 1990s. Thinking that the gays are the third rail of politics, when in fact the polls are pretty darn great on our issues (even with Republicans, conservatives and churchgoers, when it comes to DADT). Thinking that the major issues confronting the community are hospital visits and changing the names on our passports, instead of growing community anger over Don't Ask Don't Tell and marriage. It's as if the White House is stuck in 1993.
Then we started thinking about the White House's last-minute effort to reach out to the gay groups for cover (holding the hastily-arrange benefits memo signing last week, and now holding conference calls and meetings with the DNC's gay caucus and the traditional non-profit gay rights groups. It's all very 1990s in that the White House fails to recognize the importance of the online community overall, but also to this particularly uproar.
Back in the early 90s, if you had HRC on board, you could pretty much write your own ticket as a politician trying to woo the gay community. Towards the middle 90s, you had new groups like Service Members Legal Defense Network (SLDN), and established groups like GLAAD coming into their own. You also had NGLTF, and others of course. Zoom ahead to 2009. Not only is it not a certainty that having any one of the top gay groups on board is enough to win over the community, but it's no longer clear that even having most of them on board is enough.
Why? Because of the Internet.
Traditional gay organizations are, in a sense, the 6 o'clock news of civil rights. They were excellent at what they did, and were all we had - so not only were they good, but there was no choice to go elsewhere. Then cable TV and the Internet opened up the competition for news, so now, if you want to know the latest on the Iran crisis, you no longer have to go to watch ABC's World News, you can watch the BBC on your cable TV, get Al Jazeera's take online, see what bloggers Steve Clemons or Nico Pitney have to say, or just read Twitter.
My point isn't that the traditional news is bad. There are simply more options that are just as good.
Now back to the Obama administration and the gays. In an effort to quell the online uproar, the administration and the Democratic party are reaching out to the offline leaders of the community. Or to continue the analogy, it's two in the afternoon in gay-land but the White House is still relying on last night's 6 o'clock newscast for the latest on the DOMA crisis.
Which takes us back to an interesting fact that most of the media missed during the presidential campaign. Team Obama likes to go it alone. I've written about their "political autarky" before. The Obama campaign tried to defund many of the traditional advocacy organizations on the left, and succeeded in shutting down the key 527 that Democrats had hoped to use to support the Democratic nominee. They weren't interested in reaching out to specific constituencies, like gays. The campaign also restricted its online outreach mostly to networks it created and controlled. Meaning, while the campaign had some blog outreach, it wasn't that great until the final few months of the campaign - and instead, the campaign preferred to build their own blog network on my.barackobama.com.
In other words, these aren't people who play nicely with others - or even play at all. They believe they can accomplish great things on their own, without your help, thank you very much. And the problem that arises, certainly with the recent DOMA uproar, is that Team Obama is dealing with a crisis fueled by an online leadership and constituency that they were never very interested in wooing. So now when they have to deal with this crisis, they're reaching out to the offline leadership of the movement to deal with a very online problem.
I'm not saying the old groups are irrelevant. Hardly. They have many devoted followers, among whom I consider myself (I've often been criticized for my defense of HRC, for example). But the offline groups no longer have the monopoly on leadership. There are new gay leaders, online, who are equal in caliber and import to many of the offline groups: Andrew Sullivan; Pam Spaulding, Dan Savage; Andy Towle; Joe Jervis, to name a few. And I simply don't believe you can get a consensus in the community by embracing the old and ignoring the new - especially when the new are the ones taking the lead on the current crisis.
In the end, the White House and the Democratic party seem interested in doing an end-run around the gay community and its concerns. If they can get enough A-list gays and A-list traditional gay groups to attend enough White House cocktail parties and signing ceremonies, they think they can buy off our leaders and quell the community's anger.
The former is definitely a possibility. The latter won't happen until the White House actually does something real to keep its core promises to our community.
Read More......