I've written a rather long piece over at AMERICAblog Gay, explaining why I believe the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" compromise is, on par, a good thing.
We had to pass something this year on DADT or, I think, the fall congressional elections would have precluded action on DADT for years to come. Most observers, all really, think that the Democrats are going to lose seats in November. The question is how many, and whether it will be enough to lose control of at least the House. Some people say it will be enough. If Democrats lose control of the House, you can kiss pro-gay legislation goodbye for years to come (the last time we lost the Congress it took 14 years to get it back). And even if we don't lose the House, but "simply" lose a ton of Democratic seats, we all saw how Democrats flipped out after simply one electoral loss in January (to Scott Brown in Massachusetts). Imagine how they'll react to even larger losses in November. They won't want to touch what they call "controversial legislation" until they rebuild their super-majority, which again could be years.
Simply put, this compromise keeps DADT repeal alive. It permits us a vehicle for seeking full repeal in December of this year, after the Pentagon study is completed, and after the November elections. Had we said "no" to this compromise, I challenge anyone to explain how we could have gotten anything better this year, or for years to come.
Why do I think this compromise protects a future repeal option? Because as weak as this compromise is, most of the media, and a large swath of the American people, think that Congress just voted to repeal DADT. Even the President's own Organizing for America group is calling this a "repeal" vote:The House of Representatives and the Senate Armed Services Committee have already voted in favor of repeal...And what's more, everyone knows for a fact that the President repeatedly promise during his campaign, and as recently as during this year's State of the Union, to fully repeal DADT. When the Pentagon finishes its study in December as promised, most of the country - and most of the Congress - expects the Pentagon to immediate prepare regulations fully repealing DADT once and for all. If that doesn't happen, the President is going to face a serious political problem just as he launches his re-election campaign.
Whether you agree with my assessment, no one can accuse Joe or me of being soft on this President. We came out swinging for Obama during the primaries, before it was cool, and ended up raising $43,000 for candidate Obama, a sum that usually makes you at the very least a well-respected donor. But when the President went back on his word on health care reform, went soft on the stimulus, and seemed to be backtracking on his gay rights promises, we publicly held him accountable when the easy thing to do would have been to sit back, shut up, and ride his victory to our good fortune. If I thought this compromise were the end of the world, I'd say so. I'm not happy with the compromise, to be sure, and I'm not happy that the President chose half a loaf instead of just lifting the ban now and being done with it. But I do see a path forward under this compromise. And I see no chance whatsoever if we reject it.
That is why I say that, on balance, this compromise does more good than bad, and is certainly better than the alternative - doing nothing.
