RSS Feed Menu
FrumForum is speaking with all three candidates for the GOP nomination to challenge Sen. Barbara Boxer in California. Here is the second part of our interview with Tom Campbell. Click here for part one.
Tom Campbell fuses fiscal conservatism with social liberalism. This combination of views cost him a Republican senatorial nomination against Barbara Boxer in 1992. He gained a nomination against Dianne Feinstein in 2000 and lost again. I asked him whether he thought his views had become more of an asset since his previous state-wide runs.
Campbell:
The majority of Californians, including the majority of California Republicans, are pro-choice up to the moment of viability. I’ve been consistently pro-choice because I trust the individual. I believe the state should be deferential to the woman, let the woman make the choice.
On gay rights, I would have voted to repeal don’t ask/don’t tell. Goldwater succinctly said: you don’t have to be straight to shoot straight. Other militaries have shown that the military expediency argument does not hold water.
I voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act, because I believe that this issue should be decided by the people’s representatives. I don’t believe same-sex marriage is contained in the 14th amendment. I favor the ability of individuals to marry the person of their choice. I voted that way as a citizen of California. But I favored DOMA because I don’t want another state to be telling the citizens of our state what the rules should be. I don’t want an activist telling the state that back in 1937 Congress meant the Social Security Act to apply to same-sex couples. Going forward, it’s a different matter.
Gay marriage not one of the privileges and immunities of federal citizenship. Marriage is a matter reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment. It is a privilege under state law and always has been.
Unfortunately the conversaton will divide into two camps:
Keep the gays out of the military so we can maintain discipline. (Usually spoken by people who have never served or Military people in denial)
or
Gays have served in the military since the time of Aleander the Great. They’ve been members of the US Military since we started out in 1775. Accept reality, leave them alone and let them keep serving.
In my experience as an IG, I dealt with plenty of problems dealing with inappropriate relationships between heterosexuals. There are regulations covering acceptable behavior and fraternization. Interestingly, they make no mention of sexual orientation. They just outline what is not acceptable. I may add the regulation says “gives the perception of inappropriate” it doesn’t even have to be a real relatioship.
What makes anyone think gays would disrupt unit cohesion and discipline ? They’re in the military and subject to the UCMJ. Why would it be “acceptable” for a Colonel to have a relationship with her young male driver and not acceptable for two gay peers to have a relationship ? Which do you think would disrupt the unit more ?
andydp: What makes anyone think gays would disrupt unit cohesion and discipline ?
Because America’s military is disproportionately social conservative, perhaps?
Polls taken of the officer corps show that it’s disproportionately politically conservative and overwhelmingly Republican. And a lot of Red State conservative folks enlist as soldiers too.
These folks, comprising some 10-15% of the enlisted (not to mention perhaps half the officers), just don’t want to serve with gays. When it comes time for them to re-enlist, they may well choose not to and they will go back to civilian life. And they’re not going to be replaced by all those Blue State leftists who are pro-gay rights but who wouldn’t dream of ever serving in the U.S. military to fight for alleged “oil wars of imperialism.”
This is a real problem–we can’t afford to lose all these men from our armed forces–and it has to be addressed. It can be addressed with proper care.
Sinz, that same argument could have been used when the military became racially integrated.
Furthermore, people tell pollsters all kinds of things. Just because they say they’d abandon the military doesn’t mean that they’re really prepared to walk away from their careers there. Most, in fact, are in no position to do so, given the current unemployment rate.
This is the right thing to do. Period. You’re trying to rationalize holding onto an antiquated and discredited policy.
andydp observes: “Unfortunately the conversaton will divide into two camps: Keep the gays out of the military so we can maintain discipline. (Usually spoken by people who have never served or Military people in denial)”
One name that shoots your observation dead: John McCain. Need more? Check out the 2,000+ former military staff command officers who signed McCain’s Letter asking him NOT to support repeal. Neither McCain nor the brave men who have served this country well for 30-35-40-45 yrs are “people in denial”.
One thing is certain, though… well meaning Republicans and pandering Democrats will try their very best to gain political mileage off this topic. “Well meaning GOPers” because I think the time for DADTDHDP has long passed and repeal is in our national security interests… and “pandering Democrats” because Obama is desperate to appease any of the conventional liberal constituencies given his back-pedaling on their sacred cow trifecta of a public option, an unconditional withdrawl from the WOT and speedy closing of Gitmo.
Obama needs to shore up ANY base within his farLeft constitutencies… and the rabid gayLeft benefit with this promise of a repeal. Obama’s 1st Rule of Governing: when you can’t give ‘em tangible success, give ‘em promises and a sincere smile. I hope in this case, he really intends to pursue change and not just the hype that characterizes his efforts to date.
Sinz54: Have you ever spoken to any military people ? Know any service people ? If you do, have you asked them ? I’ll bet a majority will say something like “so what” ? Again, absent any proof from you to the contrary, I have to repeat my first statement: “Spoken by people who have never served…” Simply stating the Officer Corps (like me) is predominantly conservative (like me) or that 10 – 15% of enlisted come from Red States does not change reality.
Gay or straight, regulations cover what is or is not acceptable behaviour. One comment I heard yesterday from a soldier in combat: I’d rather have two gay guys hook up (and stay in the unit) than have some female get pregnant and get transferred out.
I have served with gays since I started out in the Army in 1972. I can assure you people knew who was/wasn’t gay. It was a matter of “so what ?” not: “I am getting out because of all the gays running around here”. (All generalizations are false including this one) Most of the time these relationships were quiet and undisruptive. It was the heterosexual relationships that were a problem. One example I’m familiar with from about 20 years ago involved a General and his girlfriend. Her boss would tell her she had duty on a weekend, she’d make a call and “her General” would call and get her out of it. Red stater or not, that is unacceptable. (I’ll say there was an IG inspection and the General retired)
Yes the military is predominantly conservative, but they also know a good Soldier when they see them. Do you think there were no gays in WW II ? Korea, VietNam ? General Powell has come out for repeal of DADT, the current Chaiman of the JCS has come out in favor of repeal. The VFW and the American Legion, not exactly “liberal” groups have gay or transgender members. Has that resulted in massive disenrollments from those groups ? Its time to face reality.
There is no place where homosexuals serve openly in the military where that state of affairs was not brought about by leftist control and driven by the homosexual lobby (often through courts), rather than because the military itself cried out for it.
Are officers now to be promoted or demoted on their view of homosexuality? Most of us were appauled at the response to the Ft. Hood slaying and its diversity based argle bargle and the divorce from reality it represented. The military is not now allowed to speak realistically of the problems women in service has created and it won’t be able to on homosexuality either.
Will families be even less supportive of sending young men and women to serve their country if it becomes another pro-homosexual, pc environment? The folks who don’t send any of their children into the military are very happy to see open homosexual serve. They are not going to start sending them once the Army is as pc as our colleges. This is a crass political pay-off for an agitaged Democratic constituency and we ought to treat it as such.
Also, Tom Cambpell’s view on marriage is perfectly applicable to abortion. If he were intellectually coherent he would take the same view on abortion as he does on the courts and marriage.
jjv, obviously you’re not willing to hazard the military’s effectiveness for the political convenience of providing Obama and the Democrats a “win” for one of their most-favored, closely protected, victimhood industry constituencies. I mean, the Democrats had to slam a bit hard on the racially monolithic ACORN folks… and when you make them mad, you better find another protected class to appease or the protected ones might think you don’t have their backsides.
Besides, like CentristNY contends: this is the moral equivalency of racial integration of the armed forces under Democrat Harry Truman. Get over it, damn it! Gay up, man.
Besides, the Democrats and Obama know that the people they’d be pissing off are never going to vote for them in any significant portion… and it’s a chance to stick a finger (the middle one, probably) in the eye of the Nation’s military elite… and pander to a Democrat constitutency that needs a lot of pandering and stroking right now.
It’s the triple winning opportunity for Obama Messiah. This is, afterall, the change we were waiting for, no? Leadership, not just hype?
Andydp, you’re exactly right. For the vast majority of enlisted personnel this will be a non-issue. Tom Ricks at Foreign Policy posted a letter (which Andrew Sullivan reposted) that speaks to exactly this point:
“The debate may exist in the media, and certainly exists in Congress, but on the ship, if it’s talked about at all, it’s with a little bit of confusion about what the big deal is. Don’t get me wrong, there is homophobia and there are a few loud, mostly uneducated, mostly very junior, and mostly still well-meaning people who would tell you they think it’s wrong — but they’re the kind of people who are just saying it because its what they were brought up to say, and even they aren’t saying it with much fervor. I can tell you with certainty that if the ban were lifted tomorrow — no year of preparation — life would go on exactly as it did before.”
Sinz, GoProud: you still have not produced evidence of your military background. Do yourself a favor: go find some military people and ask them what they think.
Do it like a Dove Foundation survey: “Do you think gays should be allowed to serve in the military or do you think the homosexual agenda should be supressed ?”
GoProud: can you provide a link to Senator McCain’s letter ? All I can find is mention in the interview below.
That said here’s Senator McCain’s views on DADT as of Feb 4, 2010: (Note his prior statements)
McCain On DADT: ‘I Will Be Glad To Listen To The Views Of Military Leaders’
In October 2006, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said that “the day that the leadership of the military comes to” and says the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy “ought to change,” he would “seriously” consider changing it. In an interview with the Washington Blade in 2008, he said he would “defer to our military commanders” on the issue.
But in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday, McCain bristled when the Pentagon’s top military and civilian leaders, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, announced they were in favor of overturning the policy. “I’m happy to say we still have a Congress of the United States that would have to pass a law to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’, despite your efforts to repeal it in many respects by fiat,” said McCain.
In an interview on Bill Bennett’s radio show today, McCain claimed “the policy is working” and repeated his opposition to repealing, but claimed that he would “be glad to listen to the views of military leaders”…
More:
On Fox News last night, McCain also said that he was hoping “to get the opinion from our military leadership,’ saying that “If they can show me the evidence that it needs to be changed, obviously, then I would give that serious consideration.” McCain says that he has “respect” for Mullen’s view, but he dismisses it as simply an “individual opinion.”
But McCain has previously said that the “individual opinion” of military leaders for whom he has “respect” influenced his views on military policy. In June 2009, he told Ana Marie Cox that he originally supported the policy because General Colin Powell had “strongly recommended” it and he hadn’t “heard General Powell or any of the other military leaders reverse their position.” Powell released a statement yesterday saying he now opposes the continuation of DADT because “attitudes and circumstances have changed.”
So basically, McCain is willing to “listen” to military leaders on DADT — he’s just not going to let their expert opinions get in the way of what he already thinks.
You can listen to the interview here:
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/04/mccain-bennett-dadt/
Could it be Sen McCain is facing a strong primary challenge and is seeking to enforce his “Conservative bona fides ?”
JJV: Officers (like me) get promoted on how they treat their people NOT on how they treat sexual orientation of their people. I’ve seen a lot of officers get “moved” because of inappropriate heterosexual relationships with subordinates. Ask some trainees if they’ve ever been sexually harrassed. Parents will send their kids to the Military for what it offers to their kids, regardless of the “atmosphere”. Frankly, I doubt the majority of the kids will care.
As stated by others, these arguments were used in the 40′s to keep blacks out of military combat units. during WW II Eisenhower believed blacks should serve under white officers only. In the 1950′s he sent the 82d AB to enforce Civil Rights decisions in Little Rock. Like it or not, people and times change.
For example:
In contrast to McCain’s views, a growing number of prominent Republicans now support repeal of the ban on open service. Writing in The Washington Post in March, former Republican Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming said that, “I believe it is critical that we review and overturn the ban on gay service members in the military. I voted for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” But much has changed since 1993.” Simpson went on to say that, “We need every able-bodied, smart patriot to help us win this war.”
In the U.S. House of Representatives, a bi-partisan coalition of 123 lawmakers now support legislation to repeal the law. Republican Congressman Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, who is also a Vietnam War veteran, is an original co-sponsor of legislation to repeal the law. His Republican colleague from Connecticut, Congressman Christopher Shays, has noted that, “It seems to me, competence, ability, dedication and commitment to country should dictate one’s eligibility for military service and not sexual preference.” And Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) recently told The Miami Herald that, “We investigate people, bring them up on charges, basically wreck their lives. People who’ve signed up to serve our country. We should be thanking them.”
Re: Because America’s military is disproportionately social conservative, perhaps?
So what? These days a majority even of conseravtives– even of weekly church-goers– support ending DADT.
I’d repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, too.
It’s an executive order that illegitimately skirts the plain text and intent of federal law as passed in 1993, which mandates a simple and complete BAN on homosexuals in the military.
Scrap DADT, enforce the law.
Re: It’s an executive order that illegitimately skirts the plain text and intent of federal law as passed in 1993, which mandates a simple and complete BAN on homosexuals in the military.
Not true, unless you are posting from an alternate universe. DADT is the policy Congress enacted in 1993, replacing a WWII era outright ban. That’s why Obama can’t just end it on his own, but has to get Congress to act.
JonF, ignorance is excusable, but aggressively loud ignorance that ignores facts is not.
http://www.cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?docID=336
Why the Congress Rejected “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
The following article is excerpted from the testimony of CMR President Elaine Donnelly, who was invited to testify before the House Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee on July 23, 2008. A Summary of her statement is available here, and the full-length version is posted here.
—
In 1993 President Bill Clinton attempted to lift the ban on homosexuals in the military. It was one of the most contentious efforts of his administration, sparking months of intense debate. Following twelve legislative hearings and field trips, Congress passed a law codifying and confirming the pre-Clinton policy. That statute, technically named Section 654, Title 10, P.L. 103-160, [1] is frequently mislabeled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” A more accurate name would have been the “Military Personnel Eligibility Act of 1993.” [2] The statute, which has been upheld by the courts as constitutional several times, clearly states that homosexuals are not eligible for military service.
In 1993 members of Congress gave serious consideration to a proposal known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which was announced by President Clinton on July 19, 1993. The concept suggested that homosexuals could serve in the military as long as they didn’t say they were homosexual. Congress wisely rejected the convoluted “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” concept and did not write it into law. Members recognized an inherent inconsistency that would render that policy unworkable and indefensible in court: If homosexuality is not a disqualifying characteristic, how can the armed forces justify dismissal of a person who merely reveals the presence of such a characteristic? Instead of approving such a convoluted and legally-questionable concept, Congress chose to codify Defense Department regulations that were in place long before Bill Clinton took office. [3]
The resulting law, identified as Section 654, Title 10, continued the long-standing Defense Department policy stating that homosexuals are not eligible for military service. Following extensive debate in both Houses, the legislation passed with overwhelming, veto-proof bipartisan majority votes. [4] In writing this law, members wisely chose statutory language almost identical to the 1981 Defense Department Directives regarding homosexual conduct, which stated that “homosexuality is incompatible with military service.” Those regulations had already been challenged and upheld as constitutional by the federal courts.[5]
The 1993 statute was designed to encourage good order and discipline, not the dishonesty inherent in “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Congress rejected that concept, and chose instead to codify unambiguous findings and statements that were understandable, enforceable, consistent with the unique requirements of the military, and devoid of the First Amendment conundrums that were obvious in President Clinton’s July 19 proposal. [6]
A thorough search of media reports at the time, however, reveals that there were few news stories reporting passage of the law. Those that did appear in print failed to report its language and meaning with accuracy. [7] Those reports and convoluted Defense Department statements since then have confused the issue by erroneously suggesting that Congress voted for Bill Clinton’s flawed proposal, known by the catch-phrase “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” [8]
Describing the law as a “compromise” and referring to it as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” gave political cover to President Clinton, who had promised to lift the ban shortly after his election in 1992. In fact, due to overwhelming public opposition, President Clinton failed to deliver on his promise. The only “compromise” involved allowed the Clinton administration to continue its “interim policy” of not asking “the question” regarding homosexuality that used to appear on routine induction forms. [9]
This politically expedient concession on a matter of process was ill-advised, but it did not nullify the language of the law. The Secretary of Defense is authorized to restore “the question” about homosexuality at any time, without additional legislation.
It is significant to note that the vague phrase “sexual orientation,” stated twice in Bill Clinton’s original “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” proposal, was not incorporated anywhere in the law that Congress actually passed. Members of Congress recognized that the phrase would be difficult to define or enforce. Instead, the law is firmly based on conduct, evidenced by actions or statements. Absent unusual circumstances, a person who says that he is homosexual is presumed to engage in the conduct that defines what homosexuality is.
Legislation dealing with intensely controversial issues does not become law by accident. Contrary to frequent misstatements of the law then and now, there is no way that bipartisan, veto-proof majorities would have passed a law making it “easier” for homosexuals to serve. Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN), then-Chairman of the HASC Personnel Subcommittee, underscored the point in a December 16, 1999, memorandum to his colleagues:
“Although some would assert that section 654 of Title 10, US Code . . . embodied the compromise now referred to as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” there is no evidence to suggest that the Congress believed the new law to be anything other than a continuation of a firm prohibition against military service for homosexuals that had been the historical policy.
“The law, as well as accompanying legislative findings and explanatory report language, makes absolutely clear that known homosexuals, identified based on acts or self admission, must be separated from the military. After extensive testimony and debate, the Congress made a calculated judgment to confirm the continued bar to the service of homosexuals in the military. The case supporting the Congressional position is well documented and compelling. . . .
“Those that claim that the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy has failed simply do not understand the underlying law. The prospect of a homosexual openly serving in the military was never contemplated by the Congress and any policy that suggests that the military should be receptive to the service of homosexuals is in direct violation of the law. “ [10]
The difference between what should been named the “Military Personnel Eligibility Act” and the Clinton enforcement policy explains why factions on both sides of the issue are critical of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Even though Congress rejected, with good reason, the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” concept in 1993, the Clinton Administration imposed it on the military anyway in the form of enforcement regulations that were announced in December 1993. Those expendable regulations, unfortunately, remain in effect today. [11]
In 1996 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit said in a ruling upholding the constitutionality of the law that the Clinton Administration’s enforcement policies (“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”) were not consistent with the statute that Congress actually passed; i.e., Section 654, Title 10. [12] The Clinton Administration disregarded the Court, and perpetuated deliberate confusion by retaining its inconsistent “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in Defense Department enforcement regulations.
It is not difficult to recognize just how inefficient and contrary to sound policy the “Don’t Ask” concept is. In the civilian world, it would be tantamount to a state law forbidding bartenders to check ID before serving younger customers who may not be of legal age. Such a law would force the proprietor of a bar to assume the risk that if an under-age customer drives and kills someone on the way home, the proprietor of the bar will be held liable. That risk is reduced by the posting and enforcement of signs stating “We Check ID.” [13]
In the same way, it makes no sense for the Department of Defense to forbid routine questions on induction forms that help to determine eligibility for military service. Such a policy (“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”) forces the armed forces to assume the risk that persons who engage in homosexual conduct will be inducted or retained in the military.
We keep hearing about personnel losses that have occurred since 1994 when military personnel announce that they are homosexual, and are honorably discharged. In comparison to discharges for other reasons, such as pregnancy or violations of weight standards, these numbers are relatively small. [14] They could be reduced to near-zero if the Defense Department stopped issuing misleading information about the eligibility of homosexuals to serve in uniform. The routine inquiry about homosexuality can and should be reinstated now; no additional legislation is required.
Activists keep complaining that this convoluted policy does not “work.” The most relevant question is, “work to do what?” If the goal is to allow homosexuals to serve, Clinton’s permissive “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” regulations do not go far enough. But if the goal is to preserve military morale, discipline, and readiness for combat (it is), then the Clinton policy goes too far—in the wrong direction. Everyone can serve our country in some way, but not everyone is eligible to serve in the military.
Fifteen years after passage of the law, we are hearing about problems that members of Congress predicted when they voted to reject “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Contradictions between policy and law are the main cause of emotional problems that we keep hearing about today. Most of these problems could have been avoided if the law had been properly enforced. The answer is not to repeal the 1993 law, but to improve understanding of what the statute actually says, and why.