The Public Policy
Do Ask, Do Tell
Congressional Democrats blow the lid off the culture war lockbox.
Congressional liberals’ misplaced priorities again were on display last month as Democratic lawmakers ramped up efforts to repeal the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy prohibiting homosexuals from serving openly in the armed services.
True, the economy is in shambles, the federal government is mired in deficits, two wars are ongoing in the Middle East, unemployment continues to spike, and your next-door neighbor might be a terrorist. That won’t stop Democrats from trying to blow the lid off the culture war lockbox, which has remained mostly closed since the administration changeover in January.
Congress is reportedly set to reignite debate over “don’t ask, don’t tell” this fall. President Barack Obama supports rescinding the policy but has been reticent to back it aggressively — understandably so, preoccupied as he is with remarking health care and reshaping the United States into a command economy.
His allies in Congress aren’t so patient. Michigan Democratic Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has agreed to hold hearings on the policy this September. It would be the first Senate review since former President Bill Clinton approved the policy in 1993.
Levin’s committee will likely topple “don’t ask, don’t tell” when it comes up in two months, and the full Senate might follow suit. Supporting the policy has become nearly untenable politically since the left has successfully cast the issue as one of civil rights rather than common sense.
But truth be told, the ban is about as common sense as you can get. Unless they negatively impact operations or are illegal, the private sexual practices of individuals should remain just that — private. Neither, however, should they be flaunted.
The current policy fulfills this twin goal by barring commanding officers from seeking information on soldiers’ sexual practices unless and barring soldiers from disclosing their sexual orientation in a way that might disrupt military operations.
Back when Clinton approved the policy, it was considered a compromise between the two extremes: keeping the armed services straight only, or allowing homosexuals to serve openly. Today, it remains a neutral policy that balances the pitfalls of discussing sexual orientation in a military setting with permitting homosexuals to serve.
Regardless of the policy’s merits, however, now is not the time to reopen debate. The federal deficit is expected to reach $1.8 trillion this year. Thanks to bailouts and stimulus packages from both Republican and Democratic executives, inflation is set to skyrocket. Unemployment stands at 9.4 percent, and economists predict it might hit double digits before the recovery begins. Given the situation, Congress should have more important priorities than debating “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
In reality, many Democratic congressmen, preoccupied with the health care overhaul and thoughts of defending their seats in 2010, would rather leave contentious social issues on the table for now, including the “don’t ask” policy. Opening yet another cultural rift, when so many economic rifts are already open and getting wider, could cost the Democrats more political capital, or at least divert attention from their economic goals.
But as evidenced by recent events, Obama’s leftist social base won’t allow inaction on their pet issues much longer. They’ve grown aggravated since the president took office in January. They thought he would champion their issues right out of the gate. For the most part, he hasn’t.
Obama’s principal goal, no doubt, is to avoid blowing too much political capital on lower-rung issues. Conservatives shouldn’t put stock in his reticence, though. Unlike the base of his party, Obama has to prioritize and plan with the mid-term elections in view. He’s spending his political capital on destroying private health care and growing the size of government to unprecedented levels. He can afford to put off his social agenda to another day. But that day will come, sooner rather than later.
About the Author
David N. Bass is a journalist who writes from the Old North State. Follow him on Twitter.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (51) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by David N. Bass
More Articles From The Public Policy
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/08/11/do-ask-do-tell
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Paul| 8.11.09 @ 6:51AM
David, come on now. Listen, I do understand that the president does have a ton of issue to deal with, that we agree. What we don't agree on is how allowing gay people to serve openly in the military will impact morale or cohesion. You say, now is not the time? Tell that to Lt. Col Ferhenbach who is in jeopardy of losing his 18 year career. Can you for a moment put yourself in his shoes and seek first to understand before being understood?
Think about this: Everyone knows that Lt. Col Ferhenbach is gay, hmmm doesn't appear that unit cohension has been interrupted? Did they segregate him out of the ranks and put him in the gays only class? No. He has continued to do the job he was hired to do. There have been other cases where gays have served honorably and openly with no ill effect.
I served 10 years in the submarine force and I ended my career hopes because of this idiotic law. It is 2009 let's move on shall we? The younger generation of sailors, soldiers and airman don't have an issue with this; why? Because they know it's not about sex - it's about respect.
Flaunting? No. It's not about flaunting, it's about equality and fairness - not lying about oneself. Not being afraid to give your loved one a hug and kiss on the pier. But you wouldn't know anything about that because you have never had to hid - right?
Mike| 8.11.09 @ 7:13AM
"Don't ask, don't tell," was sensible and humane. It also preserved discipline. So naturally the new regime has to destroy it.
Richard Baker| 8.11.09 @ 7:26AM
Homosexuality is STILL perversion. What next, child molestation is ok? Oh, I forgot, the American Psychological Association already says that. I forgot.
Jeremiah| 8.11.09 @ 8:32AM
Update!
A vicious muckracker was recently outed:
http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/08/mommy-why-does-my-kindergarten-teacher.html
Give that griffin a.sshole your best regards whenever you can...
P. Aaron| 8.11.09 @ 8:42AM
It doesn't matter if the enlisted-person-officer is gay/straight. It's THE MILITARY! where INDIVIDUALS serve the mission.
The Armed Forces is not a social program where folks go to get their needs met. It's about conserving a disciplined collection of warriors to preserve the constitution.
There are plenty of other areas where folks can go and "be themselves". Military service is not one of them.
G. A. Kevis| 8.11.09 @ 8:48AM
Lamentations, lamentations, the cry - woe is us queers.
We can strut our stuff in city parades and Disneyland and adopt children and have
Hollowwood pimp for us movie-wise, but - we so earnestly want to be 'accepted' by he-men in the armed forces.
Clingers unite - to oppose national security
Obaminations via democrat party masters.
MikeN| 8.11.09 @ 10:30AM
Don't ask don't tell isn't the law right now, it is just what Clinton ordered. Congress passed an outright ban.
L. Ross| 8.11.09 @ 10:31AM
All together now, shall we?
IN THE NAVY
You can sail the seven seas
IN THE NAVY
You can put your mind at ease
IN THE NAVY
Come on, Protect the motherland
IN THE NAVY
IN THE NAVY
THEY WANT YOU,
THEY WANT YOU
THEY WANT YOU AS A NEW RECRUIT
Cooper Anderson| 8.11.09 @ 10:44AM
Lets review, shall we?
Queer As Folk (Horrifyingly bad; characters are either weak pathetic losers or sociopaths).
Queer Eye (minstrel show)
Perez Hilton (freak)
Harvey Feirstien (whiny)
Barney Frank (national embarrassment on many, many levels).
Prop 8 protestors (unruly mob and surprisingly poorly dressed, not the Brooks Brothers crowd I guess) .
Gay Pride Parades (floats devoted to drag queens and various fetishes).
DODT should be repealed, the sky wouldn't fall down and life would go on.
Unfortunately, this is gay "culture."
I think I'm gonna vomit.
Carlos| 8.11.09 @ 10:59AM
Do these people actually think that combat soldiers, sailors and Marines would take orders from poofy officers and NCOs?
Not in this or any future lifetime. Put it out of your mind, Mr. Levin.
Paul from SA| 8.11.09 @ 11:29AM
I still think it will be too expensive to provide the gays with separate bathing facilities. After all, there is a reason why they have separate facilities for men and women. Now what, add a third or fourth? Or just get rid of separate facilities and have one for everybody?
I don't believe women would tolerate having to bathe and dress in front of ogling men.
What about transvetites and cross dressers? What about bi-sexuals and tri-sexuals and multi-sexuals? What about people who like animals? Wouldn't they eventually have to accomodate all sexual orientations, including those oriented toward children and violence and other perversions?
The liberals never think about all the consequences.
The same objections still apply. How would it help the military? The military doesn't exist for social experiments.
Ray| 8.11.09 @ 11:54AM
"President Barack Obama supports rescinding the policy but has been reticent to back it aggressively "
If Obama want's to rescind the policy, there's nothing preventing that. The policy is a PRESIDENTIAL policy, one that he has the authority to change. So, why, if he supports a change in policy, doesn't he change that policy? It' obvious that Obama is HIDING behind Congress as he knows this is a very popular policy with the actual members of the military and he doesn't want to go against his own military, so he's waiting for Congress to make the changes he, himself, should be implementing, all so he can try to blame Congress when the military voices their displeasure as this change.
It's time he ether show real support this policy or change it. Sitting on his butt, waiting for someone else to do it for him because he's afraid to do it himself, all, isn't showing very good leadership abilities. He's the Commander in Chief. It's HIS policy now, so he better accept respectability for it. He NEEDS to show leadership in this matter, or morale will suffer.
LTJG, USN| 8.11.09 @ 12:07PM
You are right, the military doesn't exist for socila experiments, but at the same time the professionals serving in the military have every responsibility to show that we are professionals who serve, regardless of race, religion, creed, sexual orientation, etc.
Back in the 50'2 when President Truman integrated the military, I'm sure people said the exact same things as some of you ignorant people. "Blacks can't serve with us. because they're not as smart as us." Everytime, right wing conservatives have some excuse as to why we can't serve.
I have served, almost openly, for 3 years in the United Stated Navy. Not once have I ever had any problem with cohesiveness within my unit. I go to work to get a job done. I get it done. And my sexuality doesn't even come into play.
Does that mean, that I should live in fear of someone outing me everyday? Because of something as simple as who I like. I'm sorry to say, but you aren't in my bed. Why should it matter?
Proud to Serve| 8.11.09 @ 12:15PM
"The younger generation of sailors, soldiers and airman don't have an issue with this;"
What a load of crap! I wear the uniform everyday and we have a great big issue with it. America's Professional Warriors will not trust, follow or tolerate homosexuals in the ranks; point blank.
The evidence is in the number of homosexuals still being discharged every year for feeling the need to "express" their sexuality. Whom do you think turned them in? Their fellow sailors, soldiers and airman did, idiot!
" Lt. Col Ferhenbach who is in jeopardy of losing his 18 year career."
He joined before "don't ask" so he lied when he entered the military on his federal enlistment forms. That's a felony and would also invalidate his security clearance. So, after 18 years of lies and criminal activity (under the Uniform Code of Military Justice) he's worried he won't get paid by the very people he deceived, in the form of retirement checks. Damn straight! (pun intended) He should be prosecuted, incarcerated and dishonorably discharged, post haste.
davod| 8.11.09 @ 12:39PM
"The policy is a PRESIDENTIAL policy, one that he has the authority to change. "
It is a law.
Big Leo| 8.11.09 @ 1:18PM
The services also have terminated the services of military personnel involved in adultery. If homosexuals have protection against this, why not adulterers? After all, it's not illegal, it's a lifestyle choice, and so on.
The military system is one where a great deal of power over subordinates is vested in people. Adding sexual orientation to the list of possible abuses of power doesn't do anything to improve unit cohesion. The problem of mixed bathing with people who find you sexually attractive is a real problem, regardless of how the PC crew sneers at it. If not, then any suggestion that open homosexuality be allowed should be accompanied with the rule that there will also be no segregation of bathing and sanitary facilities. That should reveal who is sincere and who is just talking, as well as who is foolish and who is not.
Paul from SA| 8.11.09 @ 2:02PM
Gay marriage, gays in the military, hate crime laws against gays... this is all a ruse by liberals and the gay rights lobby to force society to respect, affirm and approve of their behavior. It has nothing to do with legal committed relationships, improving national security or protecting citizens from physical harm.
americanLatina| 8.11.09 @ 5:04PM
If you think that straight/normal or gay guys showering with women is ok and that it is ok for gay guys to shower with you, then don't ask/tell should go.
Close quarters, showers, etc. No spank you.
Ron Holt| 8.11.09 @ 5:53PM
To get a real glimpse of homosexuality in the American Army, under combat conditions, one must read the best book to come out of World War II and one of the best in all of American Literature, James Jones' "The Thin Red Line." I served two tours in Vietnam, 1968-1969, and I can tell you that homosexuality among the troops is exactly as Jones described it: debilitating and psychologically devastating.
JimE| 8.11.09 @ 6:17PM
In my 30 years of service I never heard anyone say that they wish they were living with a homo.
This destroy morale becuause the gays won't stop at just being able to serve, they will continue to push an agenda.
Solo| 8.11.09 @ 7:12PM
LT, JG USN wrote:
"Back in the 50'2 when President Truman integrated the military, I'm sure people said the exact same things as some of you ignorant people. "Blacks can't serve with us. because they're not as smart as us." Everytime, right wing conservatives have some excuse as to why we can't serve. "
Excuse me!
Those weren't "right-wing conservatives", they were bigots. Most of whom were democrats, I might add.
philfl63| 8.11.09 @ 9:15PM
These writers just do not get it. If you advocate perversion Mr. Bass, that is your right. The issue of homos in the military is not about civil rights or respect. The military stands for and advocates values. Homosexual sodomy and perversion are not anything the military will advocate. I can not control the behavior of sodomites, but I can tell you that I do not want to be in a combat zone and fear providing first aid to another wounded/bleeding soldier because he is openly homosexual. I would not provide that aid because that soldier might have AIDS. You see in the military we get tested once a year for HIV. A negative reading on the test is accurate only on the day we get the test. If homos were allowed to serve, they could go home that same day, engage in their homosexual perversion and become infected with HIV that same day. One week later they might be in the combat zone and some poor normal soldier could get infected by exposure to the homos blood because the flamer took it in the a** a week prior. A final note. Homosexuality is about two guys f**king each other in the a** and sucking each other's c**ks. It is sick, twisted perversion pure and evil. Do not try to dress it up with euphemisms and compassion. If you enlightened writers are so gutless as to not be able to tell it like it is, then please find a homosexual website to peddle your swill.
Aaron| 8.11.09 @ 9:16PM
This issue all comes down to making gays out to be on the same level as a race issue, a religious issue or a gender issue. Sexuality is not on that level. If (when) gays are allowed to serve openly those of us that are or have served in the military will have to immediately accept their sexuality as if they were all of a sudden... green! Our entire culture will have to change from something as minute as changing forms to upgrading facilities to accommodate. I despise the coming tragedy that will be the homo sensitivity training, as if what we already have to endure isn't enough.
The unspoken truth in the debate is that the conservative, religious, testosterone filled military is a target for the left that must be taken out. This liberalisation will be the down fall of the worlds greatest war machine.
Oh, and please spare me with your comparisons of the gay pride push to that of women and minorities in the military. That argument only serves to cheapen their God given, hard earned rights. And don't forget, we in the military are 85% Republican, you remember the party of Lincoln right? The ones who defeated the party of slavery and saved a nation, the ones who integrated the military.
Thats right, I'm swimming in the red Kool-aid and you rainbow speedo isnt allowed!
philfl63| 8.11.09 @ 9:16PM
These writers just do not get it. If you advocate perversion Mr. Bass, that is your right. The issue of homos in the military is not about civil rights or respect. The military stands for and advocates values. Homosexual sodomy and perversion are not anything the military will advocate. I can not control the behavior of sodomites, but I can tell you that I do not want to be in a combat zone and fear providing first aid to another wounded/bleeding soldier because he is openly homosexual. I would not provide that aid because that soldier might have AIDS. You see in the military we get tested once a year for HIV. A negative reading on the test is accurate only on the day we get the test. If homos were allowed to serve, they could go home that same day, engage in their homosexual perversion and become infected with HIV that same day. One week later they might be in the combat zone and some poor normal soldier could get infected by exposure to the homos blood because the flamer took it in the a** a week prior. A final note. Homosexuality is about two guys f**king each other in the a** and sucking each other's c**ks. It is sick, twisted perversion pure and evil. Do not try to dress it up with euphemisms and compassion. If you enlightened writers are so gutless as to not be able to tell it like it is, then please find a homosexual website to peddle your swill.
Mike Giles| 8.12.09 @ 3:00PM
LT, JG USN wrote:
"Back in the 50'2 when President Truman integrated the military, I'm sure people said the exact same things as some of you ignorant people. "Blacks can't serve with us. because they're not as smart as us." Everytime, right wing conservatives have some excuse as to why we can't serve. "
Being black is about physical appearance. Like tall, or short, or fat. or thin. Gay is about behavior. The statement that it is; "Just like integrating the military" is simply untrue. The question I never see answered, is why their open sexuality is such an overriding issue to gays? The military has a number of restrictions on open displays of sexuality and types of sexual behavior (see rules against adultery, fraternization, and much stricter rules against sexual harassment). Why do gays feel that restrictions be ignored in their particular case?
Richard Baker| 8.12.09 @ 7:04PM
Mike Giles:
They want it BECAUSE they want it. If it means shoving their perversion down everyone's throats (excuse the expression) then that's reason enough. The unfortunate side-effect of a permissive society seemingly bent on self-destruction. This wouldn't be the first society in history to do this.
Leonidas| 9.7.09 @ 12:40AM
Hmmm... plenty of militaries around the world allow gays and lesbians to serve openly and yet they haven't collapsed so far:
http://www.filmforum.org/films.....udyafs.pdf
And believe it or not, there IS such a thing as gay conservatives, sans the stereotypical bigotry expressed by too many narrow and fearful minds. Besides, I'll bet NONE of the gays currently serving in the U.S. military are anything close to the Pride Parade nightmares too many conservatives obsess over: http://www.jack-donovan.com/an.....-the-army/