Commentary: F*** HRC (Part I)
I don’t pretend to know everything about how politics works, but from my ground floor vantage point as an average gay guy, the Human Rights Campaign pisses me off.
Recently, HRC endorsed Senator Susan Collins, a republican from Maine. They even gave her a two-page spread in one of their recent publications. HRC will probably give her money, and many in the community who look to HRC for insight in regards to political contributions will also give Snowe money. Many Maine queers might even vote for her based on HRC’s nomination. So what’s the problem?
Snowe voted in support of Supreme Court Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito. All of these men are hostile to gay rights and can maintain injustice against us for decades, if not longer. Because of her vote for Alito, we are now within one vote of losing the decision we won in Texas (overturning the anti-sodomy law). Think the Collins supported court won’t overrule it? This Court has shown no compunction about ignoring precedent so far, so don’t rule it out.
As mentioned in a rebuttal letter from the People For the American Way, she also supported:
Leslie Southwick, an anti-gay nominee to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, who voted to uphold the removal of a child from her mother’s care largely because the child would be in a “lesbian home.” He went so far as to join a gratuitously anti-gay concurrence suggesting that he believes sexual orientation is a ‘choice,’ and that one legally acceptable consequence of that ‘choice’ is losing one’s child.
She also supported the confirmation of Janice Rogers Brown, an ultra-conservative judge who said that a decision to allow gay and lesbian parents to legally adopt their partner’s children would “trivialize family bonds.” In addition, Senator Collins supported the confirmation of other right-wing judges whose views on privacy and civil rights should be extremely troubling to the LGBT community.
Collins scored a 78 on HRC’s “report card,” and that doesn’t even include the judicial confirmations. She’s currently in a tight election race with Rep. Tom Allen, a democrat. This Allen guy must be a real dick if HRC is supporting Snowe, right? Wrong. Allen is a great friend to the community. How did he score on the HRC “report card”? 100 percent. That’s right, better than Snowe, and he’s also a hell of a lot less likely to support confirmation of the kinds of judges that Snowe allowed to ascend. So why doesn’t HRC support the candidate that is better on our issues? Good question.
HRC has a history of ignoring politicians that support us completely in favor of those that don’t. Remember the recent Senate race between democrats Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont? Lamont supported gay marriage while Lieberman didn’t, yet despite Lamont winning the democratic primary over Lieberman (Lieberman switched affiliation to “independent” when he lost the democratic primary), HRC supported Lieberman because he was more likely to win the seat (due to republican and independent support). Lamont ended up losing to Lieberman in the general election , but the margin of victory was close enough that a strong argument could be made that if organizations like HRC (and the democratic party, which supported primary winner Lamont in name only) weren’t so afraid of pissing off Lieberman, Lamont could have won. Unfortunately, HRC was more interested in betting on the lead horse and hedging their bets than taking a risk and fighting for the underdog candidate that was better on our issues.
Recently HRC withheld an endorsement in the North Carolina democratic primary between openly gay candidate Jim Neal, and his opponent, Kay Hagan. Some polls showed Neal competitive against Hagan, but eventually the opponent pulled ahead and won the nomination by a wide margin. If HRC had endorsed him and queued people to donate to his campaign, would it have helped? Maybe not, but at what point do you want your main political organization to stop caring about win/loss ratio on their political scorecard or alienating front runners and start fighting for the candidates that are best on your issues? Neal’s opponent, while supposedly good on our issues, has yet to release their positions on a number of gay issues, despite being asked repeatedly. Are these the kinds of candidates we want to represent us? If they’re in the political closet regarding their support for us now, what makes you think they will fight for us later? I recently listened to HRC spokesman David Smith attempt damage control on Michaelangelo Signorile’s (gay activist) radio show, where he laughably kept repeating how HRC would “fight like hell” for prospective candidates, yet the hoops that such candidates must jump through before HRC will “fight like hell” imply that the sissies running this organization aren’t willing to break so much as a nail. Wouldn’t supporting a strong gay candidate in a state as conservative as North Carolina benefit us more down the road, even in a loss? How does HRC expect their “incremental” or “safe” approach to work when they refuse to get bloody and lay the groundwork that creates real change?
First time here? See what we're all about... Get involved... Send us a tip!...
Ben, What gay rights organizations do you support? (Politically not just monetarily)
Disagreeing with HRC’s endorsement is fine, and disagreeing with a lot of what HRC does is also fine. However, I think it’s worth mentioning that the good people at HRC are working hard for LGBT folks and often need to trade in access in a way that other organizations with different priorities don’t have to.
It’s also worth mentioning that while Olympia Snowe has made some poor decisions for the LGBT community, she remains one of the republicans we can count on to at least listen to us and leave the door open, providing an important connection to a party that should be more open to our lives and needs. While not perfect, it’s worth mentioning that her score is better than or equal to quite a few Democrats out there – Ken Salazar, Joe Biden, Thomas Carper, Daniel Inouye, Tom Harkin, Carl Levin, Max Baucus, and Harry Reid to name a few.
HRC is a nonpartisan organization, and many of their decisions don’t sit well with some. I don’t think that’s reason enough to write them off. Nor do I think that endorsing a moderate republican in the hopes of greater access into that party is a particularly bad decision.
Bashing HRC is certainly still in vogue for a certain crowd – a crowd I travel in. As a staff member at another, smaller national nonprofit, I’m familiar with their big-boy-on-the-block attitude and their tendency to not play so nicely with smaller kids on the block. But HRC does has an ability to speak and be heard on the Hill, and they represent a real voice for hope in a less-than-perfect world for many who live far from elitist liberal “new-gay” urban enclaves.
It’s all too easy to forget that the “We” to which you refer in your post is a very big “we” indeed that includes a wide range of political opinions, needs, desires, and “issues”. HRC at least attempts to see the broader “we”. Let’s give them some credit.
Hey Ben-
Appreciate your passion but I think its a bit misguided.
First its Collins, not Snowe.
When senators vote to confirm judges that have been appointed by the president, singular ideological issues really shouldn’t be in play. Its not Senator Collins’ (nor would it be Senator Allen’s) role to affect the Supreme Court nominations in that way. A senator’s role is to advise the president on what kind of judges he should pick and then to only oppose that nomination if the personal is unqualified, or grossly beyond the pale in their judicial philosophy.
Collins was part of the Gang of 14 that prevented the more socially conservative Republicans from implementing the nuclear option which would’ve allowed the President to push through even the most extreme nominees.
Collins voted no on the marriage ban, yes on expanding hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation, yes on more funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes. She was the lead GOP sponsor on the bill that would ban workplace discrimination. She opposes Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell.
Look I am no HRC apologist. But Susan Collins has been on the right side of gay issues her whole career. Not only that, she’s stuck her neck out in vocal support of these issues — which unfortunately is quite the political risk to take as a Republican who could potentially see a primary opponent from the right.
So I think she has earned the backing of a glbt interest group and its silly to oppose her just because she has an R behind her name.
Hey Ben-
Appreciate your passion but I think its a bit misguided.
First its Collins, not Snowe.
When senators vote to confirm judges that have been appointed by the president, singular ideological issues really shouldn’t be in play. Its not Senator Collins’ (nor would it be Senator Allen’s) role to affect the Supreme Court nominations in that way. A senator’s role is to advise the president on what kind of judges he should pick and then to only oppose that nomination if the personal is unqualified, or grossly beyond the pale in their judicial philosophy.
Collins was part of the Gang of 14 that prevented the more socially conservative Republicans from implementing the nuclear option which would’ve allowed the President to push through even the most extreme nominees.
Collins voted no on the marriage ban, yes on expanding hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation, yes on more funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes. She was the lead GOP sponsor on the bill that would ban workplace discrimination. She opposes Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell.
Look I am no HRC apologist. But Susan Collins has been on the right side of gay issues her whole career. Not only that, she’s stuck her neck out in vocal support of these issues — which unfortunately is quite the political risk to take as a Republican who could potentially see a primary opponent from the right.
So I think she has earned the backing of a glbt interest group and its silly to oppose her just because she has an R behind her name.
amoryblaine –
I’m sorry, but are you kidding?
“Its not Senator Collins’ (nor would it be Senator Allen’s) role to affect the Supreme Court nominations in that way.”
John Roberts and Sam Alito are about the two most conservative people in the legal community right now. Their confirmation shoved the Court to the right, and they’ve shown 110% allegiance to the very anti-gay judicial philosophy of Thomas and Scalia. Thanks to Susan Collins (and Snowe) we’re now one vote away from losing on Lawrence v. Texas. (Don’t try to tell me they won’t overturn the decision — I’ve seen what they’ve done to abortion rights.)
That is not a minor concern.
You’re saying that it’s ok for Susan Collins to rubber stamp anti-gay judges who will be on the bench for decades, and then we’re supposed to support her? I call bullshit.
The Constitution gives the Senate the power of advice and consent for a reason — to check an extremist President. When it came to choosing between the pro-gay position and the pro-Bush decision, she marched in lockstep with Bush. If that’s what she wants, fine. But for HRC to say now that she’s the best candidate in that race is insane.
All they’re showing is that Senators can completely ignore HRC (and all the progressive groups) on judicial nominations and still get the endorsement.
HRC was incredibly short sighted on this, and they deserve all the attacks they get.
Simba said – “But HRC does has an ability to speak and be heard on the Hill, and they represent a real voice for hope in a less-than-perfect world for many who live far from elitist liberal “new-gay” urban enclaves.”
Ben,
I support everything that you said!!! I am commenting only because your previous commenters seem rather naive and negative to you. Simba’s comment reads like a cheerleader for HRC, which I don’t begrudge them, but it hardly passes the “heartfelt comment” smell test.
If HRC has such an ability to be heard on the Hill, why don’t they use it as an advocate FOR the people they claim as their constituents, the GLBT, (yes, for the purpose of this argument, I include the “T”, which is quite a stretch given their actions last October) instead of lying to the largest Transgender convention (SCC)in this nation, saying they would ONLY support an inclusive ENDA, (I was there and heard this with my own ears) then within a couple of weeks this position changed to drop Trans people. They then circulated a ficticious “poll” that said gays and lesbians support passage of the non-inclusive ENDA by 2/3rds, but have never released any information on how it was taken (perhaps in their office, or among their board??),then, just before the vote, they threatened to hold any negative votes against the legislators who in conscience would vote against this broken bill, to force it back to the original goal of inclusion. Finally, when the dust settled and the entire community rallied against this through United ENDA, they refused to backtrack their position and are the only group to not be a part of this effort to change the minds of legislators on this issue. This is beyond betrayal of trans people. All their other positions only serve to support that they have their heads firmly planted somewhere that is not in this real world.
Leigh Smythe – Minnesota
i’m totally confused–are you talking about collins or snowe?
I fucked up and got the two white female republican sentators from Maine mixed up. I was thinking “Collins,” but for some reason wrote “Snowe.” Sorry about that. I need an editor.
SfFrost: Not sure why you’re interested, but I’ve supported the Sierra Club, Amnesty International, and the ACLU previously. Politically, I used to give money to the DNC, but I now only give directly to candidates–usually congressional races. It’s never very much, regardless.
Leigh -
First, apologies if I sounded less than sincere in my non-heartfelt-smell-test-passing comment. Let me clarify:
First, I agree wholeheartedly that HRC’s abandoned promise to the LGBT community around ENDA was and remains despicable. I participate in United ENDA
I’m simply mentioning that HRC has the resources and clout to open some congressional doors on both sides of the aisle, and to reach people in all areas of the country in ways no other organization can.
Second, I’m a bit exhausted by the culture of liberal elitism that is pervasive within LGBT movement organizing. It’s time to wake up and be real. The Task Force – an organization many have commented on in the course of this series of blog posts as an alternative to HRC – is not exactly the paragon of uprightness and justice, despite their PR effort to that effect.
In my humble experience, The Task Force is absolutely no ‘better’ than HRC. They are just as fundraising-oriented, they neglect the diversity of opinion and thought within the community they claim to advocate for, they are involved in the same turf wars, and they claim a position of moral superiority that is counterproductive in their work with other organizations.
My point is not that the Task Force is worse than HRC – simply that organizations, particularly of a certain size, inevitably have problems. To me, the type of HRC-bashing we’ve seen on this blog is counterproductive and somewhat self-congratulatory. “Let’s all congratulate ourselves on our progressive thought and our trendy-left soundbites” is very easy for those on the outside. The HRC/Task Force debate does not represent real divisions within the community – it represents turf-wars and pissing matches – and all sides play that game.
Leave your response!
Recent Coments
Most Commented
Most Viewed - 30 Days