Mike gets feisty with the Human Rights Campaign (the largest gay rights group, for those who aren't aware).
But a week later, HRC's heterosexual board co-chair Michael Berman was quoted in a front-page story in the New York Times explaining why gays need to tone it down in order to reach out to red-state America. Berman, who will take a leadership role until a new executive director is found, went on to say that the group would be willing to back George W. Bush's radical plan to privatize social security if it meant gays and lesbians and their partners could be included under the benefit. This was like throwing gasoline on a fire, sending activists across the country into fits of anger.If you read the rest of the article, there's a discussion of how Cheryl Jacques, the former ED, was fired for being too gutsy and bold on the marriage issue. No offense to Cheryl, I met her and she seemed like a good person, but no national gay group was gutsy and bold on the marriage issue last year - no one (other than perhaps Log Cabin, the gay Republicans). I'd really rather we didn't lose sight of the larger problem here - it's not an issue of whether Cheryl was gutsier than the board. It's an issue of why practically NO national gay group (or any other lefty non-profit in DC on ANY issue) showed ay balls this past year. There's a larger problem here - a problem of the lack of backbone and new ideas in the left in America - and until we all start focusing on that problem, it's not going to be corrected.
Far be it from me to criticize someone for their sexuality—some of my best friends are straight—but when you're firing your lesbian executive director and telling the world you're going to moderate your positions—on the front page of the New York Times, no less—it's perhaps not the best time to make a straight guy the mouthpiece of your organization. Imagine if a man popped up as a spokesperson for the National Organization for Women, telling the press that NOW will be "moderating" a bit on the issue of abortion. What if a white guy took over as NAACP honcho to explain why the group should consider "compromising" on affirmative action in light of Bush's victory?