President Obama tried to reassure gay leaders last night that he was still with them on eliminating the military's don't-ask-don't-tell policy. His press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said that it would be gone by the time that Obama sees reelection. At this point, I take them at their word, but what's interesting is that two Democratic presidents have now stumbled on this issue, showing the gap between campaign promises and what's at least perceived to be political reality. A third Democratic president offers a better way.
Remember how we got DADT in the first place. Bill Clinton vowed to end
discrimination against homosexuals in the military. But when he got to
Washington, he hoped to put the issue aside, as Obama has done, so he could concentrate on his economic and health-care agendas. Democrats like Sam Nunn,
who opposed the new president's policy, forced the issue as did other
critics who offered the old saws about nondiscrimination being bad for
unit cohesion, etc., etc.--arguments that now appear thankfully dated.
DADT was the compromise position chosen by the Clinton administration to stave off critics on the left and right.
It represented a modest change from the ask-and-discriminate position
that was the norm beforehand. But it was obviously a long way from a
ban on discrimination, as evidenced by the numbers of homosexuals who continue to be discharged simply because of their sexuality.
Obama's miscues have been different. He vowed to get rid of
don't-ask-don't-tell. But this time it's gay-rights advocates who are
holding the president's feet to the fire. It seems to me Obama has the
political space to get rid of the policy now. It's not that politically
onerous, even with his very full agenda. The political atmosphere is one where tolerance is on the march. Gay marriage, once the province of a few thinkers like my colleague and former boss, Andrew Sullivan, is now reality in a growing number of jurisdictions, something that was unthinkable in 1993.
If you think about Harry Truman ending the ban on racial discrimination, you see what real political courage is like and why finessing something like this may be more trouble than it's worth. It's hard to fathom now the political risks that Truman took. He ended the ban on racial discrimination in the military in the summer of 1948 while running against Strom Thurmond
and Thomas Dewey and Henry Wallace in a country where Jim Crow was
institutionalized, where Democrats depended on the South, and where millions of Americans had just served in World War II and had a more personal familiarity with he military. What Obama's
carefully avoiding seems pathetically easy by comparison. Why drag it
out? There's no indication that the military will do anything but
salute smartly and carry out the president's orders. Will Democrats in
marginal districts fall because of this? I doubt it. If they oppose the
president, they can still oppose him.
July 26 will be the 61st anniversary of the executive order against
racial discrimination that Truman signed. It's not a bad day for Obama
to do the same. And if he wants to take another page from Truman, he
could appoint a commission to oversee the implementation of his order
like Truman did. Unlike Clinton and Obama, Truman was the Democratic president who understood
that there was really no way to finesse an issue like this if it's what you believe. You just
have to do it.
Obama finally said that DADT "weakens our national security." I really hope that means he's going to finally do something about it.
http://www.gotchamediablog.com/2009/06/obama-still-wants-to-repeal-dont-ask.html
So it took Truman roughly 3 years of his administration to issue his executive order? If that's the metric for courage, then I guess we should just all chill out for a few years, eh?
Exactly.
The Truman comparison (or should I say arguement) is a flawed one.
Many seem to overlook the three year aspect of the Truman storyline.
Matthew: DADT can only be overturned by an Act of Congress; the president cannot issue an executive order overturning it. He could, in theory, issue an order instructing the military to not enforce the law, but this would be a breach of his obligations under the Constitution.
Calprof and Grant: What you're saying is not quite right. As we explain in a Palm Center study released last month, Obama has the authority to halt all discharges with an executive order. True, this is not the same as repealing the policy, which we recommend he then move to accomplish after issuing an executive order, which is the only way to stop the bleeding immediately. But it is not true that using his "stop-loss" authority to end the policy would be either a breach of his obligations under the Constitution or would be declaring federal law null and void. This is not a matter of deciding not to enforce the law; rather, it is using authority granted to him by Congress in a 1983 law that invites the President to halt military separations in a time of national emergency. He does not have to declare that we are in a national emergency either; the statute already defines that based on having the National Reserves activated, and that is already the case. It would not be temporary either, but would last so long as the National Reserves are activated, which is likely to be a while, at least long enough to then point to the existence of openly gay troops and work with Congress to end this once and for all. See our study at http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/New+Study+Says+Obama+Can+Halt+Gay+Discharges+With+Executive+Order
Ummm, Matthew?
Truman could end racial discrimination in the military by executive order because that discrimaination was a policy... *not* a law.
DADT, on the other hand, is a federal statute.
Unless you are suggesting that Presidents have the power to declare federal laws null and void by decree, which would effectively make them absolute dictators with unlimited powers, this constant attempt by people (and I've been seeing it a lot) to say Obama can end DADT with an executive order just because Truman ended military segregation with one is either ignorant, or dishonest.
Congress made DADT a law, Congress needs to repeal it. The end. That's how it works. Obama should be (and I believe is) pushing them towards doing that... but he can't just end it himself. It isn't within his authority. At the very best, he could temporarily suspend DADT discharges IF he declared that we were in the middle of a national emergency that required it to be done... but that is a stopgap measure at best. The law is on the books, it needs to be taken OFF the books, and only Congress can do that.
The DHS just announced that they were going to not enforce a law requiring the immigrant widows of US citizens (married within two years of death) in order to give Congress time to 'fix' the law. No big outcry about the DHS ignoring the law. Why couldn't Obama announce he was suspending discharges under DADT in order to give Congress time to fix the law?
The policy is "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue." The policy was envisioned to allow gays and lesbians to serve in the military if they did not reveal their sexuality. The quid pro quo for that was that the military would neither pursue gays and lesbians, nor would they ask gays and lesbians about their sexuality. Absent gay conduct within the military or the soldier reporting him or herself (or, according to the statute, marriage to a same-sex partner), nothing was supposed to happen.
Needless to say, this is not the policy as it is currently pursued. If someone reports that someone else is gay or lesbian, it was not supposed to be investigated, nor was that person supposed to be asked about their sexuality (hence the name of the policy).
Obama therefore has a lot he can do, even if he believes, despite the many laws he has contravened in other areas since taking office, that he cannot contravene this law without an act of Congress. Specifically, he can enforce the law as it was originally intended to be enforced. He can stop asking, and he can stop pursuing.
Exactly. There are options-- he's just not taking them, for whatever reason.
While I'm not exactly an expert on constitutional law, there's plenty of precedent from a prior president on not enforcing the law (often in very creative ways). While I'm sure Obama is more cautious in that regard, and doesn't want to upset Congress while he's moving legislation through Congress, he could instruct the services not to enforce the law, or carve out exceptions (i.e. clarify the rules and/or issue new ones). Daring, yes, and Congress might take him up on the offer by relaying a challenge to the Supreme Court, but in the meantime it would demonstrate that military cohesion isn't falling apart, and could stand more than a few gays (and lesbians) performing their service in the defense of their country. On the other hand, can Obama risk losing support (votes and cash) from the gays, particularly when the so-called swing group of independents are liberal on social issues, and might not even care if the whole ban goes away? Really, this move is just plain ol' stupid on Obama's part, although I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't originate from the Clintonite's Rahm's desk rather than that of the President himself.
Matthew, can you provide support for your statement that Bill Clinton vowed to end discrimination against homosexuals in the military? That sounds like he made a campaign promise. But my recollection is that he first made this vow within days after his inauguration and it came as a surprise to everyone. Part of the surprise was it had not been part of his campaign but he was making it one of his first priorities, costing him political capital too early in his term. At the time I thought "good idea, bad, bad timing."
When the Obama Administration refers to the DADT mistakes of Clinton, I think they are referring to this too-early expenditure of political capital. I think they are reading things wrong, though. I think Pres. Obama would spend very little political capital on this, and actually gain some.