Subscribe to Breaking NewsWithers: The day when DADT fell
Do we know what victory looks like? Yesterday, in front of of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Adm. Mike Mullen said the following:
“I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.”
Mullen is no Queer Nation activist, wanting to cut the military budget in half. He’s the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a career military man whose life is spit, polish, and orders. You would think a guy of his standing coming out forcefully against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would have had our message boards buzzing with excitement. Instead it was just piss and vinegar.
I wasn’t looking for dancing in the streets, but if you didn’t see yesterday as the beginning of DADT’s end then the quest for freedom has made you blind. Nothing wrong with moral indignation (actually there is but that’s for later), but it serves no purpose if it can’t recognize a win. Don’t take my word for it. Here is the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.
“We strongly applaud [Secretary of Defense Robert Gates] supporting the President’s view that DADT needs to go. It’s a matter of when and how, he said, not if. We also strongly applaud Chairman Mullen who unambiguously personally supported gays and lesbians serving openly. The top military brass of the United States just laid out a roadmap for full repeal.”
Sure the organization rightfully wonders why the military needs a year of study, and no one suggests we call it a day. Yet when Sen. John McCain, in his defense of DADT, had the tenor and timbre of a Dixiecrat, it’s easy to see the light after 17 years of discrimination.
By the way: the good senator from Arizona is overflowing with it. In 2006 he said if military bosses told him DADT had to go, “we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to.” Maybe McCain forgot that Gates and Mullen are the top military dogs.
Perhaps he was reluctant to mention this, but if I had been in Mullen’s place I might have added that if we can permit convicted violent felons to serve in the military, it should not be that difficult to make room for law-abiding gay men and lesbians to do the same.
It’s great that someone is willing to finally stick his neck out and tell the truth, but these decisions are seldom based on what’s the right thing to do. (And they don’t even all agree that it is the right thing to do.) This issue would have been settled decades ago if that were the case. This issue is political and gets decided by which way the wind is blowing at the moment and whose votes will be needed down the road. Pardon my bitter cynicism, but I’ll celebrate when gays & lesbians have true equality in all aspects of government (employment, benefits, taxes, marriage, immigration, healthcare…).
These words are a nice step forward, but calling it a victory or a win is WAY over the top. It won’t be a victory or a win until President Obama signs the legislation, which is AFTER a Democrat-controlled Congress passes it (the same type of Congress that CREATED DADT), which is AFTER a year’s ’study’ (since it hasn’t been studied at all in the past 17 years, apparently). Things have a habit of falling apart over a year’s time under Democrats’ watch; look at health care.
I was thrilled to hear Admiral Mullen yesterday. But it is way premature to declare victory. Unfortunately, Obama is not a strong leader. He will dilly-dally on this (the idea that a year-long study is needed is absurd) and give the right wing time to organize and concoct new lies. Obama talks a great game and his heart is in the right place. But he does not know how to get things done. LBJ had a smaller majority in Congress than Obama does, yet he brought real change to the country by pushing through unpopular civil rights legislation and a Medicare bill that was heavily opposed by the medical establishment, including the AMA. How we need someone like that now!
PS: James, the day that DADT falls will be when servicemembers can’t be discharged for telling someone that they are gay. Don’t know when that will be, but it wasn’t yesterday and it isn’t today.
Jay,
You act as if Johnson walked into the Oval Office and did all of that minus any hard work (ie–the civil rights struggle starting with Douglass and going up to MLK).
James
Why are none of us jumping up and down James? Because we’ve heard this kind of talk before. We’ve heard it from this president on numerous subjects over and over. A year to study it? In just a few weeks the Republicans managed to Tea Bag healthcare right off the boards while Obama town halled and studied things. In a few months they sandbagged marriage in California and Maine when we started with huge majorities of public support. We’ve only got a few months until the mid-terms….where we are going to lose a host of seats to the Republicans, then I’m afraid it will be a whole different ball game.
If Obama signed a stop loss right now while they worked their way through this “year”, I might fall in line behind you. But more than anything this all sounds to me like a carrot thrown out to an angry gay community that could make the difference come this years elections. Something this administration has been brilliant at orchestrating time and again. He won’t/can’t support marriage equality and knows this will take months or years while he can take credit for doing something for us. Geez guys, my hands are tied, it’s not my fault it’s taking so long.
I’ll be as happy as anyone when they really get this taken care of. But you’ve got the cart way before the horse.
Sorry, but the Headline: “The Day When DADT Fell,” is tantamount to Bush’s “Mission Accomplished.” It is overstating, aggrandizing, at best. Outright misleading at worst. DADT did NOT fall yesterday. And the “beginning” of its eventual total falling has a long, hard road to haul, with McCain-like homophobes fighting all the way. Admire and appreciate Adm. Mullen — most definitely; start yelling “Victory” — not when considering the way these types of things have gone in the past. I would love to be jubilant about Mullen’s testimony yesterday — but McCain’s flip-flopping, to now claim Mullen’s opinion isn’t valid because it is biased and because it didn’t take Congress’ opinion into account, only shows how low these homophobes truly will go: McCain claimed several years ago he’d listen to the experts (at a time when I’m sure he thought no expert would utter the words which came out of Mullen’s mouth yesterday); when he gets an expert’s opinion that is other than he felt sure he would get, he then loses his temper (and his memory) and claims that the opinion didn’t include a consideration of Congress’ feelings, and thus is biased. So, now the expert’s opinion has to be tempered by what Congress thinks? How is that an “expert’s” opinion? Congress isn’t “in the field” – a major consideration in McCain’s statement several years ago. No. Sorry. It is way to early to get overly joyous about yesterday’s comments. I’m hopeful, but it goes no further than that.
James: No, I do not mean that Johnson did not build on the hard work of years and years of struggle. I do mean that he was decisive and understood how the legislature works. He knew how to make people know that if they opposed him, there would be consequences. (Obama rewards Lieberman for campaigning against him.) He knew how to reward his supporters. Hell, even W. knew how to reward his base. Obama seems to think giving speeches is the same thing as changing policy. It is not. He refuses to use the power he has under the current law. I suspect that because they need cannon fodder they will be discharging fewer soldiers under DADT, but the policy is not likely to be changed.
PS: I do not doubt that Obama’s heart is in the right place. I voted for him, I volunteered for him, I donated and donated and donated money to his campaign. In retrospect, I now see that it was a mistake to elect someone with so little experience and no real record of accomplishment. Hillary would certainly have been a better and stronger leader than Obama.
Jay,
“Hillary would certainly have been a better and stronger leader than Obama.” Sure and year into a Clintion White House, with DADT where it is now, you would have said Obama would have been a stronger leader. 
Some goodly joshing with you.
Thanks for the conversation.
James
I wonder if I should tell them now some 46 years later that I was gay when in the Army if they would change my discharge? What I did off base was my business and none of theirs. When I was on base I did my job as any soldier does. Now that’s not to say that I didn’t look and wish alot. When I was off base I dated an Air Force Captain, we did this for 3 years. So if any of you were at Sullivan Barracks, Mannheim Germany after 1963 maybe we were stationed together.
James, I enjoy joshing with you too. You’re right, of course, that we don’t know whether Hillary would be any more effective on our issues than President Obama has been. Had she been elected, I might indeed be writing the same thing about her that I am now writing about Obama. But what bothers me about Obama is the discrepancy between his effectiveness as a campaigner and his lack of effectiveness as President. Quite apart from our issues, he completely bungled the health care bill despite having large majorities in both houses. He also seems stymied on a number of other fronts, including security issues and reforming the financial system. The only thing that keeps him afloat is the disarray and craziness of the Republicans, but he doesn’t seem to know how to parlay that into legislative successes. My point is that despite his inspiring rhetoric, his record as President in his first year (usually the time that Presidents score their most sweeping victories) has not been impressive, and it is terribly premature to assume that DADT will be repealed since he has so often been outmaneuvered by the Republicans and bluedog Democrats.
You are right. It is worth celebrating. Up to a point. But other countries were able to change this policy in days. Why does it take the US over a year (to buy time until Republicans regain the House)? What is so feeble about this military?
Jay,
I would disagree only slightly. I think there is a difference between campaigning and governing. There is nothing poetic about passing laws. It’s messy, crazy, and nerve wracking. Here is a link you might like ( not….grin).
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/02/a-question-of-integrity-ctd.html
In no way am I saying Obama is beyond critique, but I think we need to keep some perspective. As for his first year record, I think it’s better than you claim, but I think we only disagree in degrees.
Enjoy your night.
James