Happy Gay Marraige Day!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrFun
Boris, some people argue that Clinton's "don't ask don't tell" policy has done more harm than good.

And didn't we hash over this before, MrFun? There's no way you can say that, overall, the Clinton Administration was a bad thing for gays. His record was not perfect, but it beats out any other presidency so far.

DADT wasn't entirely Clinton's fault, anyway--gay activists shoulder a good deal of blame for that fiasco.

[MrFun]

I can't argue with the premise that Clinton was not as bad -- a half rotten apple is certainly better than a completely rotten apple.

[Boris Godunov]

Or, if you're not prone to activist extremism, you could phrase it that considering the situation facing gays and lesbians in the early 90s, what he did accomplish in the face of enormous political pressure from the Right, and the change of position of gays in American society throughout his administration, was significant and impressive, even with the DADT failure and the DoMA situation.

[MrFun]

I'm an extremist because I oppose the DoMA and DADT??

[Boris Godunov]

No, I opposed them as well. Extremists villify Clinton as somehow being "antigay" by harping on those two failures while ignoring the overall positive effect his administration had for gays and lesbians. No president is going to have a 100% positive record on issues for any group.

[MrFun]

Boris -- but you can't even agree that at best, Clinton was in the very least, pandering to homophobia out of political pressure even if he was not necessarily homophobic himself?

[Boris Godunov]

I never said Clinton didn't give into political pressure on those two instances. But I would hardly call it pandering to homophobia. He basically was innoculating himself in his first term against the Christian right. Remember that DADT was a fiasco largely brought about by the gay activist groups, who forced the issue early on in Clinton's presidency. The administration was not ready for the issue at that point, and when it encountered the staunch resistance from the GOP and Sam Nunn, there was little that could be done that wouldn't end in a fiasco, one way or another. The shrillness of gay groups ensured public support wasn't there, and Clinton couldn't take a more forceful stance without jeopardizing his entire agenda. Remember how successfully the GOP exploited the issue in 1994 to help win control of Congress.

DoMA was purely a political move, as it was a deliberate trap set by the GOP during an election year to pander to their supporters. When a president is faced with a veto-proof majority on a controversial issue during an election year, there's not much else he can do.

Clinton was clearly not homophobic, but he was an extremely clever politician. When you weigh the good with bad, overall his administration simply must qualify as good for gay issues.

[MrFun]

No, Clinton was not homophobic, but by giving into political pressure, as you have pointed out, he WAS pandering to homophobia.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrFun
No, Clinton was not homophobic, but by giving into political pressure, as you have pointed out, he WAS pandering to homophobia.

No, he wasn't. I don't think you know what that even means. You can only pander to people, not a thing. Clinton's moves were mean to appease the majority of Americans, not the homophobic elements of the right wing. Despite what you may think, many people--in fact, a majority of Americans--opposed integrating gays into the military and supported DoMA, for whatever reasons. Clinton's political moves were firmly in line with majority opinion, whatever else they may be. DADT was a compromise to save his agenda, and DoMA was something that couldn't be avoided thanks to a veto-proof majority.

I'm sure it's a lot easier to vastly oversimplify the situations and gnash teeth over lost opportunities, but that neglects the reality of the situations and ignores the fact that presidents have to compromise on issues to secure their long term agenda goals. If your entire administrative agenda is jeopardized by one issue, you're going to try and find a compromise rather than have all you want to do flushed down the toilet.

[MrFun]

I guess I can concede to that.