Should Obama repeal DADT as fast as Truman desegregated the military?

[Radical Activist]

There are several similarities to Obama's approach toward repealing "don't ask don't tell" and the steps Truman took to desegregate the military. I believe a review of Truman's process provides historical perspective.

In September 1945, Truman ordered a study of the Army's treatment of African-Americans, which took 4 months. It did not recommend desegregation.
Three years and 3 months after taking office, Truman issued an executive order to end military segregation in July of 1948.
Truman then waited two months to establish a committee to oversee the process of desegregation.
The committee doesn't hold its first meeting until January 1949, six months after the executive order creating it was given. Truman says he wants desegregation "done in a way so that everyone will be happy to cooperate to get it done."
Another year later, January 1950, the committee approves the Army integration plan.
The committee is abolished by Truman in July 1950, two years after its creation was announced.
The Army announces that 95% of African-American soldiers are serving in integrated units in October 1953, eight years after Truman first raised the issue.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/index.php?action=chronology

[Radical Activist]

1. I voted for 3.

I think DADT should have been repealed faster. However, I can understand the desire for an approach that's supposed to make the change go smoothly. Obama has repeated his time line of repealing DADT this year and I don't see any sign that he's backing away from that.

[Exilednight]

2. I can understand when Clinton put DADT into place, it was the biggest leap that could be made ......

at that given time that would allow time for the military to digest the fact that there were gays and lesbians serving without having to truly confront one openly. But that was then and this is now. More than enough time has gone by to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly.

[Radical Activist]

6. Yes,

there's no doubt that it's time for it to be done.

When I read the timeline I liked, I'm amazed by how openly defiant the Army was to integration. I can only guess that Obama is trying to avoid that kind of hostility with military leaders. But whatever his reasons, he should get it done already.

[Touchdown]

42. BS. Clinton was a triangulating coward

This and DOMA. He let the right wing (including Democrat Sam Nunn) control the terms of the debate.

[whistler162]

3. You of course mean should Congress repeal......

Obama ISN'T a dictator!

[Radical Activist]

4. One reason Truman stalled

is that he proposed military desegregation as part of civil rights bill that Congress never passed. He moved faster with the executive order after it became clear that Senate conservatives would filibuster any civil rights bill.

Considering how many things the Senate is blocking now, it's sad how little has changed.

[Davis_X_Machina]

10. He could just use....

....signing statement! Or charisma! LBJ-style-armtwisting!

Screw the Constitution -- I went into that voting booth a year and a half ago to get our Bush, dammit.

That son-of-a-bitch better start breaking shit! It's our turn.

(Maybe I've been on DU too long?......)

[boppers]

32. Ouch.

Interesting way of making your point.

[TheWraith]

43. Interesting, but accurate. "Our Bush" is exactly what some people want.

Right up to and including using the PATRIOT Act and the Bush "terror watch list" against people they don't like.

[CTLawGuy]

37. haha

that's exactly right, you HAVE been on DU too long :)

[Exilednight]

11. Nope, the President has the power when it comes to the Military ......

he is the commander-in-chief and has the power to use an executive order to allow gays and lesbian to serve openly.

So, in this case, yes he can be a dictator.

[Davis_X_Machina]

12. 10 U.S.C. § 654(b) is a statute.

And Article 1, section 8 gives Congress the power "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces"

[Exilednight]

16. Yes, it give congress the power to make certain rules .......

but in this case he can make a good excuse why the CiC can override any rules. He is the supreme commander of all US armed forces. There are also rules and military codes in place that allow military commanders to make and enforce their own rules based on a unit by unit basis.

When stationed at Fort Polk, my post commander made it a post rule that if the MPs could hear the music outside of a moving vehicle, then the MPs were allowed to issue a citation.

Kennedy used a signing statement to make it against military policy to attempt assassination against foreign leaders.

Truman's executive order 9981 establishing equality of treatment and opportunity within the Armed Services.

So, long story short, he can do it.

[Davis_X_Machina]

18. Actually, no he's not. He's not a king.

[Exilednight]

21. Agreed, he is not a king, but in this case he doesn't need to be. n/t

[vaberella]

14. Hello!! An executive order ends with his presidency do you know that?!

Meaning, that when he's out of of Presidency it is automatically reversed backed to DADT era. That's why Obama doesn't do that...it doesn't remove the law. It just stalls the law from being active for a period of time. Hence an executive order is bullshit in this situation.

So no, it's utterly illogical for him to be a dictator.

[Exilednight]

17. Look up Truman's executive order 9981. n.t

[vaberella]

22. I don't see your point.

There was no law that enforced that there would be segregation (from my knowledge) that was a sort of de-facto law. Truman puts in an executive order but any other President has the right to remove that executive order which is my point. You act like this is not the case. An executive order is not a law set in stone. Any President can change, or remove or put in an executive order at his or her discretion. However, any other President following can remove said order. And as I said in this case, this would only be a temporary hold and not an outright removal of the law which is what EVERYONE wants. So that if any other loser comes into power and removes the executive order then we won't have drama. And considering that this is not a pressing matter for the American population you can bet your stars not many will be screaming from the roofs if the executive order is overturned and in Obama's case this is one thing he doesn't want. For all intents and purposes Obama is aware that this nation is fickle and leans right wing.

[Radical Activist]

27. And if Strom Thurmond had won the 1948 election

then the military would have remained segregated for a while longer.

But I suspect that once this is done it will be nearly impossible to undo by future Presidents.

[boppers]

33. Mexico City Policy, applied to military careers?

So, you could have a career in the military for 8 years at most if you're gay?

Bad idea.

[Political Tiger]

30. Only Congress can repeal a law, not the President.

Obama could sign an executive order which would be a temporary "repeal" and which could and most likely would be overturned by the next Republican president, but Obama can't repeal the law on his own. An executive order would be like putting a band-aid on a severed limb while letting Congress off the hook.

[bluestateguy]

5. One difference here concerns me

Republicans back then, by and large, were for black civil rights. Indeed, it was the Southern and border state Democrats that were the problem.

Now we have a situation where we still have some difficult Southern Democrats who are mucking things up, and the number of pro-equality Republicans is minuscule. In other words, we have a very small working majority on this particular issue.

[Radical Activist]

7. It's the same dynamic as many issues.

We have to accept that conservative southern Democrats are not part of a progressive governing majority. We can't assume that anyone with a D next to their name deserves our automatic support any more than the Southern Democratic conservatives of Truman's day.

[struggle4progress]

23. The numbers may be strange and volatile. Here are some figures from the Eisenhower era, the

when civil right legislation again began to move through Congress for the first time after reconstruction

The 1957 Civil Rights Act
passed the House with 118 Ds and 167 Rs supporting (107 Ds and 19 Rs opposing) of 129 Ds and 191 Rs total present
passed the Senate with 29 Ds and 43 Rs supporting (43 Ds and 0 Rs opposing) of 49 Ds and 46 Rs total present

The 1960 Civil Rights Act
passed the House with 179 Ds and 132 Rs supporting (93 Ds and 15 Rs opposing) of 274 Ds and 148 Rs total present
passed the Senate with 42 Ds and 29 Rs supporting (18 Ds and 0 Rs opposing) of 65 Ds and 35 Rs total present

What this shows is that more Congressional Rs than Ds supported the 1957 Act, but the Rs got pounded in the 1958 midterms, and in the 86th Congress there were many more Ds supporting civil rights than there had been in the 85th. Largely, one is looking at the North-South fissure that remained after Civil War, with Northerners usually tending to vote for Civil Rights regardless of party, and Southerners almost always voting against (and being Ds because that damn Yankee Lincoln had been an R!)

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1957-42
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s1957-75
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1960-102
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s1960-284

[Mimosa]

8. Voted 3. This has been going too slow. n/t

[vaberella]

15. Congress isn't a very motivated body. n/t

[boppers]

9. There are ways to speed up, *and* slow down.

This is a matter spanning the executive, and legislative, branches, as well as the military. The legislative branch seems somewhat* on board, the executive as well, the foot draggers (as before) seem to be the military itself.

*yes, somewhat, they've already passed legislature end DADT if the military said it was okay to do so. See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/27/AR2010052704540_2.html

[rhett o rick]

13. I see no rational reason not to have acted sooner. nm

[donco6]

19. Leaving it in place soaks more money out of teh Gays.

Like abortion does the fundies. They have no interest in getting rid of this cash cow.

[boppers]

34. Wow, that's a horribly cynical way of looking at it.

Even worse, I don't see a lot of evidence that points to many sides *not* milking the issue.

Were you talking about HRC soaking up money? The Obama admin? Lambda Legal?

This is a trough for a lot of groups.

[donco6]

39. Your mouth to God's ears.

Except for Lambda Legal. They actually work on things.

[CTyankee]

20. I'm just disgusted. I hated DADT in the Clinton admin. and I can't wait for it to be repealed now.

Good lord, just get it done...

The people in this country who are not religiously or otherwise insane want this to happen. The dedicated pro civil rights for gays, of which I am one, is the same.

It's ridiculous that this keeps on being a subject here. It should have been done long ago. At the very least, get it done ASAP.

PLease...enough...

[VMI Dem]

24. When his baseline opinion is that homosexuality is immoral or sinful, how dedicated can he be...

to ending DADT? I think it is a load of lip service.

[boppers]

35. When did Obama say that (AND I QUOTE):

"homosexuality is immoral or sinful"

Just one quote.

ONE.

Find me a single instance, please, or admit that you're twisting words around.

[depakid]

25. Since it seems to be the image du jour

You do realize that the subtext of these sorts of OP's tells astute readers in effect:

"Houston, we've got a problem."

[Radical Activist]

26. I've seen three posters on this board

argue that Obama should just do it quickly like Truman integrated the military. It's not a straw-man when multiple people are making the argument.

And yes, there is a problem when people make baseless accusations that Obama is backing off an issue just because he didn't do it the first month in office. He said how he was going to do this at the start and he has followed his word exactly.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Political Tiger]

29. What I find astounding is that the option with the most votes,

"Obama should have already repealed DADT" shows the incredible amount of people on DU who are completely ignorant on this issue and who don't have the slightest clue about how our government works!

[donheld]

36. Oh Wise One do enlighten us.

[Political Tiger]

46. Maybe this will help you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=371008&mesg_id=371920

[CTLawGuy]

38. I bet it's the same people

who are begging him not to appeal the MA judge's ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional, you know so the ruling can apply only to the District of Massachusetts and another district court could remain free to disagree with it.

[Radical Activist]

40. He could do it faster legally.

There would be consequences to that. I don't know if the military would have reacted with more hostility if he had done it during his first month in office without consulting the Pentagon. I think he should have done it by now but I can understand why reasonable people wold want to ease in the change smoothly. Even Truman's first choice was to pass it as part of a larger civil rights bill.

[Political Tiger]

47. The thing is, he can't "repeal" DADT

Only Congress can repeal DADT. Obama is waiting for Congress to send him a bill repealing DADT which he will promply sign.

Congress passed DADT now it's time for Congress to repeal DADT.

Also, here's a bit of irony ... It was Truman who signed into law the Uniform Code of Military Justice which established the policies and procedures for discharging gay service members.

[HughMoran]

31. Don't expect logical responses here

[robcon]

41. Of course he should have repealed it by now.

Needs a little more courage, and a little less electoral caution.

[TriMera]

44. I voted for #3.

Because they have done enough studies on the issue and sending a survey out to the troops is ridiculous. They didn't do a survey when they integrated blacks into the military and they didn't do it when they started allowing women to join. That being said, the study is underway and the survey is out there. There's no turning back now.

However, the President does have the ability to legally stop the investigations and the discharges until the matter is settled. It's called a "stop-loss" order and it's actually easier for him to do it during wartime.

[MadMaddie]

45. I think it should have been repealed as fast as it was passed.

All of this survey bullshit delay tactics and acting like the military is democratic is a smokescreen. The right wing religous nuts that are controlling the military are looking for justification not to repeal the law.