In a phrase: neutralize the blue-dogs.
The attempt to "lobby Congress" has to morph.
I'd suggest, for discussion, a change to actually target and move the electorate, in state and local races. Despite the failure in California, I suspect the data will show that the visible "No on 8" campaign had a positive effect (it's just that it was scuttled by ugly, but clever counter-measures).
Moving opinion requires a long-term perspective, local sourcing, and plenty of resources (a strategic ad campaign is very expensive and requires serious patience, but it's indispensible). If the Obama campaign has shown anything, it is that there are resources, if the targeting is refined and the goal clear.
There are plenty of ideas about how this should be structured. If they can accept the humility, one "role" for the HRC is to offer seed money, to facilitate the functioning of other groups in a national-local partnership that is far more robust.
The old methods of scoring the Congress and informing and educating can continue, but there ought to be a "red line", not just percentages. Passing out "lobby money" is a waste and is against the spirit of the times.
The netroots has already had success in opposing "business as usual" Democrats. The HRC ought to consider adopting that attitude, alongside a pressure campaign to pull in "Alan Simpson Republicans". Any red-line will cause problems, no doubt, maybe even serious problems; but change is needed, and, with skills, can be managed.
In exchange for the privledged positions they hold, the leadership ought to be expected to take some serious risks. Trying to move opinion is no easy task. But, trying to hide failures or paper over serious efforts to measure and show accountability is no substitute either.
Last, there has to be a new, assertive leadership role for non-gays. Frankly, the general organization of the gay groups, a result of many factors, is so bad that outside leadership is almost a requirement, if one wants to have hope.
Friday, December 19, 2008
A New Mission for the HRC
