NEWS: Activists Say Barney Frank Needs to Get Gayer

POLITICS: Activists Say Barney Frank Needs to Get Gayer

Representative Barney Frank, D-MA is truly one of the nation’s legislative treasures. The first openly gay member of Congress, Frank is generally considered to be one of the most liberal members of the House of Representatives and has been actively promoting his immoral and subversive gay agenda since he took office in 1972. He founded the National Stonewall Democrats, a Democratic GLBT organization. He’s also widely known for being an outspoken critic of institutional homophobia and heteronormative hypocrisy. In short, Barney Frank is probably the gayest member of the U.S. Federal Government. Yes, even gayer than Larry Craig.

Unfortunately for Frank, it might not be quite gay enough.

Indeed, that liberal base includes even the National Stonewall Democrats themselves, who are urging Congress to re-insert protections for transgendered people back into the ENDA.

The NSD’s position is completely understandable. They are an organization that attempts to fight for the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals, so for a piece of legislation to specifically exclude one of those groups is going to be galling. And not just to them, but to thousands of others as well.

That said, it does present a quandary for legislators attempting to both do right by their constituents and work to promote achievable goals at the same time.

The tension that Frank describes is one of the things that our intentionally inefficient legislative system was based on, and it’s also the thing that causes the most frustration amongst the electorate. It’s an age-old problem, and one that will never go away. But is Frank right to call on “responsible” Democrats to side with him on this issue? After all, if Bush is never going to sign the damn thing anyway, what’s the difference if it gets defeated in Congress or it gets struck down by Bush’s pen? Why not just stick the trannies back in the bill and roll the dice?

The Democrats' answers to those questions aren’t very sexy.

Whether you believe the Dems reasons is immaterial. Really, they are concerned with something quite larger than potential hostile amendments. As my Media and Politics professor used to say, “Politics is perception.” If Frank and Nancy Pelosi (another supporter of the altered bill who is taking heat from her political base) were to pass this bill through both houses of Congress, it would force Bush to come out against such protections for gay folks via a veto. In doing so, they’ll be sending a message to middle-of-the-road voters and leftists alike that the GOP is the party of discrimination and homophobia (and, of course, conversely that the only way to work against that is to vote Democratic.) If they can’t even get the bill through the House the message is diluted and their leadership appears ineffective. Neither option actually achieves anything legislatively, but the former at least lets the Democrats win the perception battle.

Is it pretty? Absolutely not. Is it satisfying? No, it’s the legislative equivalent of blue balls. But that’s politics, and these are fights that the Democrats desperately need to win. Our system is designed to encourage compromise and foster gridlock. Unfortunately, some will always hold the existence of that exact compromise and gridlock as evidence of the ineffectiveness of the ruling party. That’s OK, and there’s some value and generally truth in that belief. But there is also value in practicality. There is also value in realism. Sometimes, leadership is taking the safer road rather than the one you’d prefer to travel by.

Whether the Democrats choose realistic or idealistic goals for the ENDA bill will remain to be seen. A vote to decide the issue in committee has been delayed until later this month.

Subrosa - I always read and appreciate your posts, even when I don't agree with your conclusions (sometimes I do, sometimes I don't). Your arguments are clear, concise, and thoughtful. And you manage to do all of this without using the F word 57 seven times per paragraph.

Thanks for adding a great deal to this forum.

As for this particular post, I see your point. You are correct in saying that Bush would never sign this legislation. It is reasonable to argue that compromising on the front end of a losing battle isn't the most politically savvy approach.

I count myself as a Republican, but discrimination (in all forms) makes me sick.

Thank you.

Well, it looks like I could have been clearer. I meant to imply the opposite. I think the Democrats should do everything they can to get the bill in front of Bush for a veto. The perception battle is what's important here, since the legislation itself has no chance of being implemented.

+1
I'd add that the right and left both have a habit of allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good. That's not always a bad thing, considering some of the legislation the two sides have offered, but it also means that sometimes we get no progress instead of some progress.
And if more members of Congress (of all ideological stripes) approached their job like Mr. Frank, the nation would probably be better for it.

You did say:

That's pretty clear.
If Bush were smart, he'd call the bluff and sign it. But Bush ain't smart.

Why do you insist on being so level headed about things?

I hate political maneuvering that is designed solely to make other people look bad. But, in this political climate it seems that the only way to let normal people* back into the process is to force the ultra-conservative hatemongers to show their true colors as many times as possible. Then, maybe someday we will actually have real debates about real issues that result in real progress. Maybe.

* I.e. people who think like me.

PS: Barney Frank is awesome.

Maybe I could have been more clear. I agree with you that the bill should have been all inclusive and sent to the President for a veto. Rather than compromise on the front end and remove the language related to the transgender population.

I have to respectfully take exception with something you said. Unfortunately, in my opinion, there are just as many ulta-liberal hatemongers in this world as there on on the conservative side. Both parties have been hijacked by the most extreme elements of their base. The moveon.org crowd doesn't represent my interests any more that the Christian right, but it is to that base that the democrats (especially those running for President) have to play in order to get through the nomination process. Don't get me wrong, Republican candidates have to do the same thing and it is just as frustrating. Everyone plays to the fringe during the nomination process and then fights like hell to get back to the middle for the general election. The "normal" folks get left out of the process until the very end.

I'm afraid you're going to have to remind me of who exactly I hate so much. It seems to have slipped my mind, or gotten lost somewhere in all my Marxist cant.

Or maybe I was just so drunk with power at the prospect of choosing my party's presidential candidate (another extreme leftist like Kerry would be peachy), that I just lost track.

This is one of my favorite phrases, and it's absolutely applicable to this situation. If the early women's suffrage or black civil rights movements insisted on getting everything they wanted all at once and devoted themselves to sabotaging any half-measures, I'd be an even wealthier misogynist slave-owner than I am today.

Wait, which side am I arguing again?

precisely...as important as it is to make everyone as equal as possible it's also important to give our president every opportunity to deny rights to individuals so everyone can see how much of a dick he is.

That being said I really wonder how effective it is to remove gender identity from the bill anyway? I mean, firstly do republicans really make a distinction between transgender and homosexual? my guess is probably not...furthermore aren't they going to see through the thinly veiled ploy to make the act more "marketable" to their "Family Values" and just laugh at how ineffectual the attempt is? Maybe I just have a bitter view of republicans though.

Did I misunderstand? I thought the point Subrosa was making was that as much as it sucked to have to make the compromise, it was a necessary evil in order to get the bill in front of Bush.

So he should become a stereotype? Maybe he should take up interior designing, drink feminie cocktails, buy Will and Grace dvds and start listeningf to Streisand. Let the man be who he wants to be. It's just like when Black people say Barack Obama isn't balck enough because he doesn't say yo. He should follow what is in his mind and heart and not be a slave to gay rights activists.

Yes. That is what I was getting at.

What on earth are you talking about?

the headline saysthat activists want Frank to be gayer. I'm asking why does he have to? He has done a lot for gay people and if he against something some gays are for then he shouldn't have to cater to them.

Well, to be fair, the Democratic Party doesn't really have to cater to the MoveOn.org crowd a lot of the time. I know a lot of people like to think that that's the party's base, but it's not. A lot of people in that crowd support Democrats only begrudgingly; those tend to be the people who refuse to call themselves Democrats under any circumstance, who say the word "Democrat" like it leaves a bad taste in their mouths, and who'd jump at the chance to throw the party under the bus if another Nader or whoever the fuck shows up. The Democratic Party isn't dumb enough to think that those people are their ticket to Washington. Hillary Clinton, for example, isn't bending to those types of people and she's doing awesomely thus far.

Leftist extremists don't make up the Democratic Party by any means. They really don't. I know that's a side point, but I thought it was one worth making.

Yeah, you should probably read the rest of the article. Or get your irony sensors checked.

+1

Further proof that the Democratic Party is being hijacked by conservative, closeted, right-wing homophobes... Hmm, is this sarcasm or prescience?

Erm... yes?

I thought that the leadership were pretty clear in their assertion that it wouldn't to the president in its current form.

It's my understanding that they thought they could get the votes by including homosexuals but excluding transsexuals/transgendered.

U HATE R FREEDOM!