 |  |  |
 |  |  |
 |  |  |
Select leaders, including Victory Fund, Equality Ohio, GLAD & GLAAD, Freedom to Marry, NGLTF, HRC, Gill Action PAC & Foundation. [this set doesn't render right in I.E.-use Mozilla]
Now that we know what the Presidential Candidates can do for "GLBT", perhaps it's timely to ask what our own leaders are planning, right? And what we can do for them?
Now that the closet is no longer the overwhelming factor it was, now that 'virtual community' is cheap and freely available via the Internet, the leadership bar in the LGBT community is higher, no question about it.
What is "leadership" in our own community if we are satisfied with just coasting on the tide of generational changes in attitudes? Can you get paid to be an LGBT 'leader' if you just say the right things and push the buttons at the right time, while waiting for our opponents to fail or waiting for generation Y, Z, or Z-prime to arrive?
The alternative is to drive opinion polls on the key issues, to move the vote.
Are we willing to have our leaders commit to
- Overturning 2-3 State Constitutional Amendments on marriage over the next 5-7 years?
- Doubling the size of the Victory Fund and the number of GLBT candidates every two-three years for the next decade?
- Delivering key swing states to gain lasting political influence and more than just 'moral clout'?
- Developing accountability and organizational standards for political action, especially in key swing states, without sacrificing a spirit of community?
- Shifting community resources to projects and plans, dividing responsibilities (and sharing credit) for greater overall effectiveness?
- Matching legal actions with concerted political action campaigns, so that "dialogs with the community" are not reduced to dialogs with the court.
- Successfully anticipate and play interference with the various groups working to frustrate every step?
I think all these things are in reach, if we ask for them. Let's have our leaders on the LOGO podium, eh? The journalists, too.
The crisis in followership (the inability to prioritize and decide goals) that many feel will be mitigated greatly if the crisis in leadership is managed.
It's more than just moral leadership and thought leadership on issues. It's plans that can inspire follwership and push honest disagreements to the side, while a sense of forward momentum is attempted that can build upon itself.
The Next Generation is no hard guarantee. While the LOGO debate was going on, the Young Conservatives (under Morton Blackwell) were being inspired to map out strategies of how to cut back on sexual expression on campus. TNG isn't going to come along without a fight, it seems. There isn't a super-majority in the Senate coming along for Dems easily, that I can see.
