Click here to subscribe today or Login.
Sunday, August 01, 1993 Page:
Clinton doesn’t owe a thing to gays
One thing cannot be denied about these gay activists who’ve been blasting
Bill
Clinton’s new policy on gays in the military: They’ve got plenty of
nerveWhat they don’t have is a shred of common sense. What they also don’t
have is the modicum of class that would inspire them to demonstrate an ounce
or two of gratitude toward a president of the United States who may be the
best friend they’ve got at the moment.
No sooner had Clinton announced his new policy on gays serving in the U.S.
military than gay activists were taking to the streets in protest of his
efforts to help them. No sooner had Clinton put his head on the block in their
behalf than gay leaders were swarming the public airwaves, accusing him of
selling them down the river.
It seems the gay leaders were angry because Clinton accepted a compromise.
It seems the so-called “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” policy adopted by
Clinton is totally unacceptable to the leadership of the gay-rights movement.
Shortly after Clinton’s announcement, Tom Stoddard of the Campaign for
Military Service and several other gay activists held a long-winded news
conference at which they all tried to outdo each other in expressing their
contempt for Clinton and his policy.
This was a curious way for Stoddard and his friends to show their
appreciation to a man who took on their cause –and took it on at great risk,
not only to his own political future but to everything he is trying to
accomplish as president.
From the moment Clinton set out to lift the ban against homosexuals serving
in the military, he had everything to lose and nothing to gain. He simply
believed it was the right thing to do.
For some reason, gay activists were under the impression that he owed them
something — and, somewhat ironically, the anti-gay crowd agreed, claiming
that Clinton was paying off a political debt to gays.
This is nonsense. Clinton didn’t owe anything to gays. It is true that a
lot of gays voted for Clinton. Who else were they going to vote for, George
Bush?
Clinton wanted to lift the ban against gays in the military because he
believes any qualified American who wants to serve his or her country ought to
be allowed to do so. For Clinton, this was a matter of conscience, not
politics.
Unfortunately, for the president and for proponents of gay rights,
Clinton’s conscience was dashing headlong toward a noisy collision with the
reality of politics in America.
The reality is this: The military, the Congress and large numbers of the
American people simply are not ready to accept the dramatic change in the
status quo that would result from a total lifting of the ban against gays in
the military.
If you believe gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military, you
can blame the country’s attitude on prejudice, on ignorance, on the
disproportionate influence of the religious right in this nation’s political
decision-making. In fact, you can blame it on all of the above.
If you are opposed to gays in the military, you can take heart in the
collective widsom of your countrymen.
The reason for the political reality is academic, at least for now. It’s
just the way things are, and there is nothing that Bill Clinton or Tom
Stoddard can do about it.
Clinton is smart enough to understand all this, and pragmatic enough to
believe that a little progress is better than no progress at all.
Although Stoddard and other gay leaders have condemned the new policy, an
objective reading of its provisions leaves little doubt that it will make life
easier for gays who wish to serve in the armed forces.
It defies explanation that gay leaders should have nothing but scorn for
such a policy.
Or maybe it doesn’t defy explanation.
Maybe it is true, as their critics have charged, that Stoddard and others
are much less concerned with improving the lot of gays in the military than
they are with promoting a political agenda that goes far beyond any discussion
of military service.
If that is the case — if gay activists are merely using the military issue
to campaign for widespread acceptance of homosexuality — they ought to say
so.
And they ought to cut Clinton some slack.
Bill Thompson, former associate editor of The Times Leader, is a columnist
for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.