The Politics and Optics of DADT Repeal

Following up on some earlier reports about Lieberman and DADT repeal earlier, the Hill, Blade, and Advocate are all reporting on Representative Barney Frank’s assertion that a DADT repeal will be folded into next year’s defense reauthorization.

Frank said,

“The House will take up and the Senate will take up ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal,” he said. “That will again, like hate crimes, even more so, will have to be done, I believe, in the context of the defense authorization. You can’t do the standalone bill. It belongs in the defense authorization.”

and

“Military issues are always done as part of the overall authorization bill,” Frank said, insisting that this has been the strategy for overturning the policy all along. “’Don’t ask, don’t tell’ was always going to be part of the military authorization.”

So there are a couple of optical things here that are worth commenting on. Namely, the most politically necessary quote in the article, “The Administration is totally committed to this and has been from the beginning,“

The White House needed this and it needed this now. After two years of campaigning, Team Obama went from fierce advocate for the gays to marginally better and slightly less insulting than the Bush team in about six-seven months. I think the lack of enthusiasm on the left has Democrats worried and, frankly, they need the gays. They need their money and their energy. So you can bet looking at 2010 and the immediately subsequent Presidential re-election campaign, this is the start of their “remind our constituencies why they need us/have supported us” campaign.

First stop, gays. I’d bet money that it’s a race to the environmental lobby and hispanics next. Throw in some anti-Wall street populism and the Democrats will be firing up their base by early next summer. The flip-side of this or its complimentary campaign is to convince people that the Republicans are scary and out to get them, which is basically the GOP playbook from 2002-2004, with some slight substitutions.

That said, a DADT repeal, domestic partner legislation, and ENDA will be an effective trifecta, throw in a gay marriage expansion in at least one state by 2011 and come re-election time, LGBT groups will affectionately love the Obamas the way African-Americans loved Bill Clinton in the 90’s. This, of course, assumes that Senate Democrats remember this is 2010 and not 1994.

The timing here is important for a reason beyond electoral proximity. There’s a wide, grey line between just what I needed and too little, too late. The carelessness of the administration’s treatment of gays and lesbians was running out the clock on gratefulness and approaching too little, too late. In fairness, they did inherit serious problems. However, that explanation only holds as long as people think you’re preoccupied. When less urgent issues find their way onto your docket and you actively insult a group, a perfectly valid explanation looks more and more like a poorly-crafted excuse.

Let me emphasize, I’m not concern trolling here, just highlighting that Barney Frank just did the administration a huge favor because the administration was having optical issues – many of their own making with gays despite the “everything’s fine” prostrations of HRC. Optically, the administration was headed towards less benefit from action rather than much. Politically, the sweet spot for DADT repeal passed and now the White House is going to have to wait till after this Afghanistan kerfuffle gets dealt with. So they get, Barney Frank to tell people that it will happen at a more opportune time and to reveal their secret plan.

Which is funny because there was no reason to make the plan secret in the first place.  None. The President and his staffers had made very clear, unspun commitments on this issue. Which makes me personally skeptical that there was some secret plan to repeal DADT in the first place.

I would guess that originally they wanted to do it at a time of benefit to themselves, probably in the summer or late spring. However, optically it would look radical right before pushing liberal healthcare reforms and the military was not on board. So they shelved it until gaining the respect of the military establishment and wrangling DoD into line. Smart.

As for disappointment, I only have two things. First, the likeliness that Democrats will throw something anathema to Republicans into the defense reauthorization so as to force the R’s to vote against repeal. It’s smart politics but I’d like to see an honest vote so we can really see how Congress would vote on this one issue. The second is that I think a separate bill for repeal is the stronger symbolic statement. There are plenty of executive and judicial rebukes of  discrimination. This would be a momentous legislative one. Not to mention it would open up the bill to restore benefits to those directly affected by the legislation. That said, I’ll be pleased when it passes. In this case the good is great and the perfect can wait.

~ by Kyle on November 13, 2009.