Now, Let's Not Get Too Excited

It’s March, and not much progress has been made in repeal since Obama took office. This should not be surprising for anyone with any real grasp on both the Washington machine and the past history of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ though there are quiet grumblings the gay community is being thrown under the bus ala Clinton, etc, etc.

Enter Nathaniel Frank’s new book, Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America. With quite a few interesting bombshells regarding DADT casually placed among some pretty neat stories of some gay and lesbian service members you may or may not be familiar with (plug, plug), Unfriendly Fire may well be this generation’s Conduct Unbecoming.

Well. The book actually launched last Tuesday at an event hosted by the Center for American Progress. Slated to speak were Nathaniel Frank – the author – and Larry Korb, former Assistant SecDef under Reagan and participant in a Blue Ribbon study and panel regarding the fiscal cost of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. I’ve shared a panel with both in the past (preen, preen), so I knew both were quality speakers able to provide an engaging question and answer period much more substantive than you usually get at these sort of talks.

There were rumors that Representative Ellen Taucher would make an appearance at the event, though very few were aware of her intentions to announce the reintroduction of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act (hereafter MREA). Suddenly this talk became much more relevant in the eyes of the media, and subsequently much more politicized and much less candid. Boo.

Now, the fact that MREA was reintroduced was not a surprise by any means. The bill has been in a constant state of limbo since Marty Meehan first introduced it in 2005, and has been a means to bring attention to the issue and show a slowly growing base of Congressional support. What was surprising was the tone of Taucher’s speech: Outside of somewhat outdated talking points you’d hear from pretty much anyone marginally familiar with the issue, Tauscher seemed insistent on framing the argument as a civil rights issue, deliberately and ostensibly dismissing more tangible and politically viable reasons for repeal.

Put differently: Tauscher, one of our more vocal powerful allies in this issue, sees repeal of DADT as a gay issue, not one of national security. And guess which party is more of a stickler for civil rights. Immediately MREA became much more polarized than it needs to be, than it should be. I would argue the movement to repeal DADT is to be blamed for this faux pas.

The week before the announcement, Alex and I had been making the rounds on the Hill, doing behind the scenes meetings with moderate Democrats just so we could get a good gauge on how close we really are to repeal, and to see whether or not Tauscher really has the votes she says she does. I can tell you right now that she doesn’t.

What we were told: [Insert Representative] is not ready to take a stance on repeal as [he/she] does not believe the current bill (MREA in its previous incarnations) fully accommodates all the sweeping changes that are associated with repeal of DADT. The new policy – as it stands – is flawed, and there is no reason to push forward a policy change when the current policy works just fine.

When asked for elaboration on the ‘sweeping changes’ of DADT, the standard responses of people who are simply uninformed would inevitably present themselves, namely new harassment policies, barracks accommodations, etc. While there may be a need for a deeper plan, these particular issues are either already taken care of, or are not realistic.

Other important aspects of the argument for repeal that were for the most part unknown: the usage of testimony from chaplains and psychiatrists as submissible evidence for discharge, the corresponding effects of DADT on the recovery of PTSD victims, the lack of training on the policy throughout the services and the associated non-uniform implementation of the policy by commanders, the many, many cases of open homosexuality within ranks that create no issue whatsoever, and so on.

These Representatives, these moderate Democrats from whom a good many people are expecting positive votes when repeal of DADT hits the floor, do not know the standard, non-civil rights oriented, arguments for repeal, and so do not feel comfortable enough to take a stance in districts they’re holding onto mostly because Republicans are not very popular right now.

I have said this ad nauseum, and I will say it again: We cannot win this fight by creating partisan debate, and we cannot win this fight by framing it as a civil rights or gay issue. DADT is not a gay issue. Unsigned moderates will not flock to our side no matter what the polls say (well, not yet, anyway).

The public may be ready for repeal, but Congress is not. Let’s not get too comfortable, and assume repeal is inevitable. We’ve got a ton of work to do, still. And as the debate becomes more imminent, our time grows short.

Let’s not screw this up again.