While it’s clear that there’s a national security cost to the Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) ban on gays serving opening it the military, I’m not sure I agree with the folks at the Palm Center (which has done a lot of good work exposing the folly of this policy) that there is also a political cost to repealing this Clinton-era law.
Dr. Nathaniel Frank, senior researcher at the Palm Center and author of Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America, believes President Obama
. . . apparently took the wrong lessons from the 1990s fallout with gays in the military, believing that Bill Clinton’s error was moving too quickly. In fact, it was not Clinton’s speed, but his delay, and the appearance of a weakened resolve, that allowed his opponents to rally and defeat him. . . . With the firing of First Lieutenant Dan Choi, the costs of the gay ban delay are beginning to register with the public and the media.
While I agree that the firing of Lt. Choi hurts the military, I don’t yet see a public fallout over his dismissal. Maybe if more people were aware of his skills and his record, they might see the folly of DADT. To that end, I comment MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow for inviting Choi on her program last night. It would be nice if other media would similarly feature this honorable American.
The more people see this man and hear his story, the more they will question the wisdom of DADT and the easier they will make it for their representatives and the President to act to repeal the ban.
That said, I disagree with Frank’s contention that there is a political cost to delaying repeal of DADT. I just don’t think this issue registers with all that many voters. And that is unfortunate. Those who support repeal and lean left won’t desert the Democrats for not acting.
The main issue is to give politicians cover for acting. And to do that, we need show why the ban is not in the national security interest of the United States. By removing a man like Lieut. Choi, with a distinguished record and skills needed to confront the forces of radical Islam (he’s fluent in Arabic), the policy deprives us of a service member who can serve our nation in an hour of need.
His dismissal helps better make the case why the ban is not in the national security interest of the United States. And that’s how we need frame the case for repeal. That notion will resonate with pro-military conservatives wary of supporting an item high on the agenda of the various left-leaning gay organizations.
Repealing the ban is not just a gay issue; it’s a national security issue.
Thanks for blogging about this! I agree that one can certainly come to different conclusions about the political route and consequences. But I also wanted to note that the contention that there are political costs is not entirely unfounded or based only on conjecture. My colleague Aaron Belkin recently published a study (available on the Palm Center website) including empirical research about how the gay ban is harming the military’s reputation.
Regardless of the timing of repeal and the political maneuverings of that, I think this study points out that as long as the policy remains, national security is indeed compromised.
Indra Lusero, Palm Center Assistant Director
Does anyone believe that Frank’s contention that there exists a “gay ban” in the armed services is anything except a lie? I can only assume that Frank and those who agree with him hope enough people are ignorant enough to believe homosexuals are not allowed to serve. Perhaps if the actual issue were addressed, an honest dialogue might benefit both sides — but I doubt that’s what the advocates for change want.
Personally, I think that everything that comes out of Bawney Fwank’s mouth is a lie – well, almost everything. You really can’t fake 8 inches, can you? 😉
Regards,
Peter H.
#3
Is that standard inches or gay.com inches?
What political cost? He dithers then says “Oh, we can’t spend the capital on it now, it’s too close to the election. You don’t want those evil conservatives getting power and undoing it do you?”
And Like Rhianna, they keep going back…
#4 – LOL! 🙂
Regards,
Peter H.
#5 – Didn’t you hear, LW? Liberals love America the way Chris Brown loves Rhianna.
(Hey, there’s a bumper sticker waiting to be printed!) 😉
Regards,
Peter H.
Of course there will be no political cost in DADT delay. After all The Gays have been slaves on the Democrat Plantation forever. Being stabbed in the back repeatedly is old hat now.
Dammit, Dan. Now I’m going to have to watch that vid of Choi being interviewed, even though I do not care for MSNBC or Maddow. Yet you’ve piqued my curiosity.
*sigh*…
John, sorry, but I gotta give credit where it’s due. And she did do the right thing in bringing him on to publicize his case. 🙂
Kudos are definitely in order–or this issue at least. And perhaps on this issue alone. 🙂
Just watched it and had to post it on my blog, Dan. Not bad at all. She should try being like this more often… 😉
If the Obamessiah were to executive order DADT out of existence tomorrow, it would not cause any dust-up whatsoever. The Republicans have no interest in the issue since the Obamessiah has begun the systematic redefiniton of the military already.
I can not help but snicker at the thought of a gay dirty dozen sent to taunt the Taliban. I’m not making a cheap joke about effeminate gays, I am thinking of vengeful gays set on stomping some radical Islamic butt. Would they have to stick with the Army Field Manual or would the Obamessiah “empower” them to act with an awesome fury? Maybe they could get some affirmative action torture rights.
Many of the gay people I know in the military don’t want DADT repealed. Why? Because they like the whole mysterious macho sex thing that they frequently come across in the military (not that they are seving merely for the sex, of coures). It’s the macho gay marines, for example, who are more concerned about the prospect of queens serving in the military than Mr. and Mrs. Middle America