HRC and the lessons from the Cold War

The other day I was listening to a "Fresh Air" interview with an author of book on Cold War politics and I think there's a number of lessons to be learned from that in the current tensions between much of the trans communities and the Human Rights Campaign. Especially in light of discussions about a potential meeting between HRC senior staff and director and trans activists.

The author talked about how through the Cold War there was an on-going tension between some conservatives, whose POV was that the Soviet Union was inherently evil, so any negotiations with them were pointless (Barry Goldwater even opposed negotiations during the Cuban Missile Crisis!); vs. other conservatives who thought that while the Soviets were untrustworthy adversaries with goals that differed and even conflicted with ours, engagement still made sense, as well as negotiations in areas where there were shared interests.

In a related vein, American diplomacy has had a weakness in assuming that one is either fighting or talking, whereas other countries have no problem with simultaneously fighting and talking.

What does this have to do with HRC and a possible meeting? I don't think HRC is an axis of evil, though I do think they've got their own agenda and proven that they're promises can be broken. Nonetheless, I think is still makes sense to engage them.

The meeting is a bit of a no-win situation. Refusing to meet only plays into HRC's hand because they can say that they tried to bridge things and the trans communities refused. OTOH, HRC wants to meet privately with only a handful of people, leading to concerns that they'll stack the deck with the few trans activists who are supporting HRC, which isn't ideal either.

But given the Hobson's choice, the former is the worse outcome. If trans leaders do meet with HRC they can make the list of attendees an issue, i.e. meeting with friendlies isn't exactly getting feedback from the people who are pissed off. They can also make clear that any discussions will be on the record and they will share publicly what's discussed.

I also think it's perfectly reasonable for trans activists to demand moving the purposed date of the meeting -- which is in the middle of the Southern Comfort Conference, one of the largest trans conferences in the country, which many trans leaders will be attending. After all we wouldn't expect Joe and company to meet during one of their fundraising dinners. If HRC refuses, then raise hell about that. Frankly, flexibility about the date is no different that the sort of "trust building" over minor points that's a routine step in many difficult negotiation settings. I.e. if HRC isn't willing move the date out of respect to the trans community, then that casts into doubt sincerity of the whole meeting itself.

As far as any promises HRC might make this meeting, I'll refer to one of the few points where I agree with Ronald Reagan: "trust but verify." I.e. hold HRC's feet to the fire to provide detailed criteria about how they plan to fulfill those promises -- criteria that is specific enough that they can be held accountable. (FWIW, I think it's only fair for HRC to ask the same of the trans communities.)

On a related note, we shouldn't demonize people who choose to attend this meeting, nor folks like Diego Sanchez who cross the picket lines to address HRC events, merely for doing so. Diplomacy means meeting with your enemies as well as your friends. Talking to one's enemies may not convince them to change their positions, but not talking to them is almost certain to fail to do so. That said, we can certainly hold these individuals accountable for the positions they espouse. If we don't feel like they're representing our POV, we should let them and others know.

None of this precludes the trans communities from also continuing to urge boycotts of HRC's fundraisers etc. until HRC's actions demonstrate that they've changed in ways that are satisfactory. But as part of that, I think it's important for trans activists not just say "don't support HRC" but also to provide alternatives. The "Left Out Party" protest outside HRC's recent fundraising dinner in San Francisco did a good job of this. Sure there was a protest, including the traditional picket line, but we also presented Human Rights Hero awards and had our own party -- which we pointedly noted was inclusive of everyone, including any HRC members who choose to cross the street. That said, there's been some criticism about the protest hurting fundraising efforts to fight Prop. 8. Which could have easily been countered by the "Left Out" organizers pointing out where else people could donate money that they would've otherwise given at the dinner.

We also need to be able to present a clear, concise story to the vast majority of LGB people who aren't familiar with the ENDA debacle. As well as why gender identity/expression affects everyone, not just trans people. When I've done so, I've generally found people understand why we're pissed off and are supportive. Likewise, being about to provide the 60-second education about how T people have been involved in LGBT activism for decades. My quickest version of that is pointing out that California gays and lesbians are enjoying marriage equality thanks to the efforts of trans man Shannon Minter, the lead attorney in the case -- and what if he'd decided not to get involved because of the LG (OK mostly gay men) activists who argue T issues have nothing to do with LGB issues?

(FWIW, I think there's also a story to be presented about how HRC's attitude and actions on ENDA are reflective of similar issues with the larger LGB communities, i.e. their treatment of local LGBT organizations, their focus on presenting LGB people as "virtually normal" and shying away from LGB people who aren't straight-acting, etc. Again, it's a matter of making people realize our fight has things in common as their fight.)

The fact of the matter is that the PR war does matter. HRC has proven itself to be pretty inept at it -- at least among those who know the full story (and what does that suggest about the effectiveness of their lobbying efforts?) -- we don't want to be equally inept.