Now that the holiday season is upon us, we have one item on our wish list for the president.
We wish that President Barack Obama would recall his electoral victory and exhibit stronger leadership. That Electoral College landslide saw states like Virginia and North Carolina slip into the Democratic column for the first time in decades.
Yet the president, as we have seen with the eight-month battle over health care reform, shies away from confrontation at every turn. It's as though he believes he can give a sterling speech (and he can, by the way) and then take a premature victory lap with no follow-up and little leadership.
A case in point was his October address at the Human Rights Campaign's national dinner. Obama was eloquent. He told the 3,000 LGBTs and allies in attendance that he was "with" them "in the fight" for equality and once again he committed to ending the military's anti-gay "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy but gave no timetable for doing so.
This is a perfect example of the president's leadership style, which was deftly described by Emory University professor Drew Weston in a Huffington Post blog on Sunday. Under one part subtitled, "Leadership, Obama Style," Weston writes, "Consider the president's leadership style, which has now become clear: deliver a moving speech, move on, and when push comes to shove, leave it to others to decide what to do if there's a conflict, because it there's a conflict, he doesn't want to be anywhere near it."
That is certainly true regarding the repeal of DADT. Obama has left it to his military advisers, and, predictability, they have been all over the map. One military leader will say something favoring repeal and another one will pop up and say repeal can't take place now. As Weston writes, "Virtually all Americans are for repealing [DADT]. ... This one's a no-brainer. Tell Congress you want a bill on your desk by January 1, and announce that you have serious questions about the constitutionality of the current policy and won't enforce it until your Justice Department has had time to study it. Don't keep firing gay Arabic interpreters."
That's exactly what a leader should do. But as we've seen with health care reform, Obama is not one to ask Congress for anything – and that's a big part of the problem. Only one GOP lawmaker voted for the House version of the health care reform bill. That tells us that the minority party isn't interested in helping middle class Americans and the president should point that out to his advantage – but he hasn't.
It's the same with gay rights issues.
There is a debate in legal circles about whether Obama could end DADT with an executive order or whether it requires congressional action. The majority opinion of those who have studied the issue is that the president could issue an executive order halting the discharges. That would exhibit true leadership and that's what the president can and must do.
In another area of equal rights, the Obama administration is ignoring a federal judge's order that a federal court employee is entitled to spousal health benefits. The ruling, by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeal, states that one of the court's employees, Karen Golinski, is entitled to spousal health benefits. Kozinski, a Reagan appointee, concluded that the 9th Circuit must not discriminate against Golinski and that the separation of powers doctrine of the U.S. Constitution authorizes the court to take appropriate steps to treat its workers fairly, and prevents employees of the executive branch from interfering with the functioning of the judicial branch.
The Office of Personnel Management, which is headed by the openly gay John Berry, said that it would not comply with the federal court order.
When Berry was in San Francisco earlier this month for the International Gay and Lesbian Leadership Conference, he was asked about this case and said then that neither he nor the openly lesbian Elaine Kaplan, the OPM general counsel, "have authority" to provide the benefits despite being ordered to do so by the judge.
We don't agree with their position.
The U.S. Constitution separates the powers of government to prevent one branch from usurping another. But because the administration doesn't want to rock the boat concerning the Defense of Marriage Act, which is precluding Golinski from receiving spousal benefits, it won't enforce the ruling of the court. The problem is that OPM doesn't have "superior authority," in the words of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, to interpret federal law – that's the job of the judges.
But this fits Obama's pattern: great speech followed by the refusal of his administration to implement it. This is not the "change" we embraced last year and our wish has yet to be fulfilled.