CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR
Dropping the Ball
(reprinted, with permission, from Everybody's News, Issue 538, January 8-14,
1999)
by Michael Blankenship
When the ball dropped in Times Square at midnight on December 31, the hopes of millions were riding with it. Hopes for peace and prosperity, hope that as civilization grows another year older, we may grow a little bit wiser as well. And many of us hope that if 1998 has been a bit rough on us, then maybe 1999 will give us a chance to rebuild, renew, restore. "Happy new year!" we wish each other with genuinely earnest optimism.
And yet there is this persistent feeling of inevitable descent especially in these final years, leading up to the next millennium. As with all great turns in time, the celebration is accompanied by predictions of gloom and doom, war and disaster, pestilence, plague and all-consuming Armageddon. "Repent your sins, for the end is near!" our holier-than-thou, hypocritical brothers and sisters pessimistically preach.
Yet there is something to all this, as these become self-fulfilling prophecies; anyone who goes looking for gloom and doom usually ends up causing it.
I must confess I'm having trouble finding optimism for 1999, at least as far as local politics go. The omens have not been favorable. City council has sacrificed its campaign spending cap to the Golden Idol, and thus a new litter of candidates will be free to suck at the teats of the new corporate wolf bitch free from any imposed decorum (leaving less money for charities, the arts, and other worthwhile causes). The exit of Tim Burke as chairman of the Democratic Party, and the touting of Dwight Tillery as a possible replacement, should make us all shudder. Imagine putting someone with that much ambition, frustration and bitterness into the position of orchestrating campaigns and candidates for an entire party. (Hint: Divas don't make good directors.) And just how would Mr. Tillery, with his race-baiting, gaybashing, Republican-courting record, relate to a party platform at odds with his divisionist tactics? I suppose the unifying element would be Republican-courting, but the selection of Turncoat Tillery as Democratic Ringmaster would be a crippling, if not fatal, blow to the already lame efforts of Stonewall Cincinnati to see the repeal of 1993's Issue 3, and would set back progressive politics in Cincinnati 20 years.
Speaking of dropping the ball, it's been over two months since Stonewall announced their repeal effort. The murder of Matthew Shepard and the Supreme Court non-ruling on Issue 3 provided opportunities to achieve the kind of unity of voice and purpose that Stonewall Executive Director Lycette Nelson has been asking for since I interviewed her for this column in June. But these opportunities have not been acted upon, and for all the talk of open participation and inclusiveness, Stonewall as yet has nothing to show.
I assumed it was just me who was out of the loop, as those nice, PC proper folks down at Stonewall have pretty much eliminated any kind of rough edged rabble from their closed circuit confab. I figured there must be things going on, committees being formed, meetings being scheduled, and that they were probably at least calling up those other folks who signed up to do things in support of the campaign. Nope, no meetings called, no committees organized, no events planned. How do you have a "grassroots" organization without having regularly scheduled, open meetings? How do you run an "inclusive" campaign behind closed doors? How do you "represent the community" if you isolate yourself from it? How do you lead without engaging?
After leaving a nasty message on Stonewall's answering machine (651-2500, fax 651-3044), ending with a plea to "get your ass in gear," I received a reply of sorts in a form letter from Ms. Nelson, about how "exciting" a year 1998 has been for Stonewall, and about how they are committed to "increasing membership, filling, vacant board seats, and continuing strategic planning... while maintaining the highest level of visibility, communication, and services we can provide." The letter then went on to explain that nothing will happen until a poll of registered voters is taken, and finished up with a pitch for more money. Wouldn't both Stonewall's time and our money be better spent actively influencing voters, instead of passively gauging the political winds? Are we now to expect poll numbers to dictate the campaign's theme? Why not have an honest campaign that puts a human face on queer issues? That's how the public will be won over, not by clever Stonewall cosmetics. Finally, a small yellow insert announced a Community Meeting (!) for Tues., Jan. 26, 7 p.m., again to be held at Mt. Auburn Presbyterian Church. Let's see just how much Stonewall intends to honor its words.
Stonewall stands to fumble this campaign once again by failing to take initiative and control the terms of debate. They might wake up some time around May and suddenly find themselves once more on the defensive, and once more looking like they've got something to hide. And it would be due to their own cowardice, bureaucracy and foot-dragging. That may be a pessimistic prediction, but it is a fact of late 20th century politics and mass communication. The ball is in Stonewall's hands, and they'd better not drop it. The clock's ticking.
