Mike Signorile: Rewriting History - false narratives of how DADT repeal came to pass

In the March issue of the Advocate, Michelangelo Signorile's column stirs the pot (in a good way) about some of the interesting false narratives seeping in the the discussion about how DADT was legislatively repealed.

These fantasy narratives, in his view, only serve to hamper future battles to win LGBT rights. I'll list them all here (in the interest of ensuring you click over to read the whole column), and focus on one specific false narrative that pertains to the work of blogs/new media.

Revision number 1:The president really did have a plan for repeal.

Revision number 2: Grassroots activists caused more problems than they solved and were wrong all along.

Revision number 3: Putting repeal in the defense authorization bill was wrong. It should have been crafted as stand-alone legislation all along.

I think we all know that the White House didn't have a plan, unless it was to look like buffoons.

If there were a plan throughout 2010, it would have been quite an elaborate and risky one. Was part of the "plan" for the Democrats to lose the House? To allow Republicans to filibuster the defense authorization bill twice? To then remove DADT repeal from that bill and have Republican senator Susan Collins of Maine and independent senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut forge a stand-alone bill? And then to vote on repeal in the lame-duck session with precious little time, only after an omnibus spending bill was pulled because Republicans dropped their support for it at the last minute?

Someone should write this up as a sitcom script; it would surely be more entertaining than most of the crap on TV. And on Revision number 3, that was its own mess of scrambling to get something done, and even that was drama-laden -- there was no plan.

But Revision 2 is by far the most damaging aspect of the revisionist history narrative; it's the attempt to make some of the Beltway players appear competent, successful and, of course, powerful, all while diminishing the efforts, political savvy and will of outside forces - the grassroots.

You'll recall that HRC always said there was "a plan" being worked on with the White House, and as the slow-walking and dodges on questions by Press Sec Robert Gibbs about strategy became, again, almost epic comedy that we chronicled here on the Blend, there was no momentum. There were apologies for the lack of movement as the clock ticked away. The President simply wasn't using any of his considerable powers of persuasion or the bully pulpit to get movement on The Hill. Mike affirmed the role of the blogs in continuing the pressure to make repeal happen, as well as the high-profile actions by activists:

HRC's ineptitude was further amplified when the direct action group GetEqual came onto the scene last spring. The actions of Robin McGehee, Lt. Dan Choi, Autumn Sandeen, and other GetEqual activists arrested for chaining themselves to the White House gates, among other protests, sent a message to the administration and Congress that patience was no virtue to those demanding an end to "don't ask, don't tell." According to media reports, Obama grew angry at the actions of these activists, who also disrupted his speeches at fund-raisers for Dems facing tough reelection bids. But that was a good thing; the pressure needed to be on him. The same was true of Senate majority leader Harry Reid, whom GetEqual targeted when members shut down the Las Vegas Strip in protest during the annual Netroots Nation convention in July (Reid was also later confronted onstage by Choi).

The claim that these actions were counterproductive is ludicrous. These grassroots players became the very people that the White House and Reid ultimately responded to, and they were later invited to the repeal signing ceremony in December. Had they not engaged in civil disobedience, repeal would have stalled further.

So what does this tell us? The more important question is why the seeming need to revise history? Belittling the role of outside forces in order to puff up egos and "the system" makes little sense as there are myriad battles ahead. We all sense that the balance of influence has shifted with the addition of new media paired with direction to the picture; to what degree that affects those with the actual power is still hard to discern. But the shift need not be erased or denigrated as a defensive posture.

In order to win legislative gains at all levels, there needs to be better communication between all forces that work for equality; this isn't some turf battle. I can only speak for myself - I don't want or need a Beltway activist job, I do what I do because I care about equality, and live where I know there is official inequality 24/7 and I hear about it from all over the country. I don't need a reminder. That's all the motivation I need to blog, or engage in offline activism, most of the time for nothing.

Perhaps that's the issue -- an unhealthy level of self-interest in conflict with mission. And whether it be fears about re-election, kissing enough booty for access, or fear of loss of donor support, or just fear of change, there is no need to paper it over. Adapt, acknowledge and move on -- we have more challenges ahead that require all of us putting thinking caps on, not building barracades to protect one's turf.