Thy Brothers' Keeper

I'd like to honor my fellow Americans, just now emerging from the darkened recesses of legislative oppression, on the eve of our President's signing what will undoubtedly be considered yet another historic piece of legislation. An era of discrimination has finally ended, and now that it has, I think it's important to view the evolution of a potent and divisive debate.

Congress, always on the cutting edge, has finally caught up with the majority of Americans and given equal rights to our nation's fearless fags. In honor of this momentous occasion, let's review the life and death of the military policies and guidelines we all affectionately called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

__________

30,000 BC - First homo gets erectus for a dude. Cave-paintings appear as popular home decor. Local cave values skyrocket.

1924 AD - The Society for Human Rights begins advocating strange new ideas, apparently misconstrued from a literal interpretation of the Constitution.

1948 - Kinsey publishes Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, alerting the public to the growing dangers posed by the personal lifestyle choices of others. Also, people get all weird about how many gays are actually out there. Lurking.

1950 - President Harry Truman signs the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which details proper procedure for punishing homosexual activity among troops. None of the methods you're now imagining were ever implemented -- expulsion chosen instead.

1962 - Illinois legalizes sodomy. Gay people have sex for the first time. Initial reports indicate the fabulous nature of such encounters.

1973 - The American Psychiatric Association stops classifying The Gay as a mental disorder.

1982 - President Ronald Reagan signs Defense Directive 1332.14, which states that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. History in no way proves this to be the ranting of an increasingly senile former actor.

1993 - President Bill Clinton, trying to fulfill a campaign promise, pushes hard to let gays into the military. Opposition is, ironically enough, very stiff. DADT, a compromise between civil rights and homophobia, is adopted as official US military policy.

1994 - Col. Grethe Cammermeyer becomes the only person allowed to serve her country and be openly gay at the same time. Waits three years, changes her mind.

2000 - Vermont allows gay marriage. The institution of marriage immediately dissolves. Every citizen of Vermont marries their favorite pet or vehicle by mid-2003.

2001 to 2008 - George W. Bush.

2009 - President Barack Obama campaigns on repealing DADT. Doesn't seem weirded out by gay dudes. America approves. Also that year, the Supreme Court disagrees with America. (Again.)

2010 - Republicans grant the conceit that gays are people too, in exchange for tax-cuts.

2011 - DADT officially dead. Nothing bad ever happens again.

(Timeline via Infoplease, The Washington Post, Wikipedia, Google.)

Republicans Celebrate Status-Quo

I'll admit, even I -- a die-hard Obama worshiper -- had my faith shaken when I first heard about the extension of the Bush tax-cuts for the wealthiest Americans. It seemed nonsensical -- why would Republicans, who have shifted their entire brand toward closing the budget deficit, fight to keep the single largest non-defense aspect of said terrifyingly large spot of red ink? And, what's more, why the hell would Obama, that supposed fascist commie socialist, let such a thing happen despite it being the driving thrust of his election campaign?

I was bewildered. I grabbed the nearest bottle of alcohol and began what can only be described as a drug-fueled descent into madness. There was property damage, yes, and a few people may or may not have been mortally wounded (one should never, in those circumstances, stick around to hear the prognosis), but when I finally awoke and replenished my fluids, I had an epiphany. This is what I voted for.

Not this, specifically. I voted for the opposite. Screw the wealthy - they can have their tax cuts when my friends and family can exist without government aid. But this process, the idea of political compromise, of both sides getting what they want, that's what I wanted.

RATIONALIZATION

First, it's important to remind my fellow liberals that this is how government is supposed to work. It was a compromise between right and left, and Republicans -- still basking in the glow of victory after decisively retaking the House and reversing many Democratic gains in the Senate - got the better end of the deal. Welcome to Democracy.

And when one picks this tentative framework apart, there are quite a few things there that Democrats wanted that would have, under any other circumstance, resulted in a drawn-out battle with these supposed budget-hawks on the Right. The extension of unemployment benefits being the most ready example - it assured economic stability to families just before the holidays.

Liberals are grousing, nonetheless. In the modern view of legislation as win/lose for Republicans or Democrats, this seems to be chalked up as a win for the Right, not a product of bipartisan negotiation. But criticism so far seems purely reactionary, and a little thought on the political strategery shows this single deal could be the most significant step toward a possible second term for the President.

I know, it sounds hyperbolic, but hear me out.

This bit of legislation will essentially act as another round of stimulus. The bill amounts to more than $870 billion, and though liberals like to complain that tax cuts are an inefficient way to gin the economy, it will help. At least a little. And the economy is a notoriously effective barometer for presidential political success. Recall the fierce debate from the previous rounds of stimulus and the Republican inability to allow Congress to function and multiply it by a few hundred billion, divide that by its own square root, carry the two, then do nothing for a few months. Congratulations, you've just acted out what Congress would have done were Obama to propose such a stimulus under any other circumstance.

THE IRAN STRATEGY

The act of inviting Republican leadership to the White House and essentially brokering a back-room deal is beneficial, too. Obama may have sowed seeds of good will among Republican legislators (unlikely, but possible), and looks at the very least to be attempting bipartisanship. If this is but the first of a series of such efforts, he can take either of two possible beneficial positions. One, he lead the charge in a new, more prosperous era of bipartisan legislation. Or, more likely, Two, he reaps the political goodwill as Republicans reject his overtures yet again and keep their image of Do-Nothing obstructionism.

Call it the Iran Strategy. Just like our policy toward Iran, alluded to in the most recent Wikileaks dump of diplomatic cables, this could be a play-nice-then-stab play. If Obama at least appears to exhaust all other options, he can make a show of throwing up his hands just before declaring all-out war.

The President's also tacking toward the center in light of a Right-leaning election. This is an important and difficult task, but one that nonetheless has to be taken by anyone seeking national election. He seems to be using the spirit of bipartisanship to ease into the hearts of moderates. He may be angering his base a bit, but there are minimal risks to that (it's not like they'll vote Republican anyhow), and any of a handful of legislative actions could offset any ill-will. And, let's not forget, this is the sort of thing he said he would do if he were elected President.

Before you join in the chorus of criticism, remember compromise, not idealism, is the key to negotiation. And, when voting for a candidate, one must be careful what one wishes for.