Opinions
D.C. politicians can learn from Mandela
South African hero prized patience and pragmatism
Nelson Mandela was a hero, but, more than that, a wonderful human being. He is the father of present day South Africa and an inspiration to all those around the world who continue to fight for civil and human rights.
He walked out of prison after 27 years to become president of South Africa and ended apartheid without a civil war. He was a fighter, a politician and a pragmatist. He understood achieving success meant not seeking revenge but rather reconciliation. He learned non-violent resistance from Gandhi and used it as a tactic. He was part of the African National Congress (ANC), which did believe in violence to achieve its goals, and in his youth he didnāt feel it was wrong. It was during his years in prison that he read, thought and understood that violence wasnāt the way to achieve his goals.
Mandela left jail a fully formed leader. His strength radiated from his core; he refused to be consumed by hatred and willingly worked with his enemies to achieve his goals. He even recognized that it was the white business leaders in South Africa who would help him achieve them by making the economy more open to all. He seemed to have no fear moving forward what he knew to be right. His ever-ready smile symbolized hope and warmth and masked an iron will.
The patience and pragmatism of Mandela is something that our politicians in D.C. could learn from. As of today there are five members of the Council running or exploring a run for mayor, challenging the incumbent who is running for a second term. Mandela showed us we can right wrongs and achieve greatness without the malice that so often seems to consume our politicians. Rather than Mandelaās warmth, they often radiate anger. At least one has a well-earned reputation as a bully that neither engenders trust nor respect.
Some of our politicians wear an air of righteousness on their sleeves rather than having accomplishments that would lead others to believe they are righteous. Michelle Rhee was an example of someone in D.C. whose accomplishments often got lost in her desire for self-promotion.
The District of Columbia comprises eight Wards and at least two cities. Our divisions are mostly rich and poor but often get translated into white and black because so many of our poorer residents are black. Add to that the lingering racism that still exists and we have a long way to go to achieve a fair and just society where all our children will be born with an equal opportunity to live their lives to their full potential.
As we move toward our mayoral election, we need to look at the candidates not only for what they say about themselves but for who they really are. How have they spent their lives? Not one of the candidates running is so pure that they should be willing to challenge another candidate to do better without challenging themselves to do the same. They shouldnāt be able to win an election by simply tearing down the opposition. Those candidates who are in office now should have to answer the question of why any new proposal they present in the election wasnāt something they tried to do in their current office. What stymied their efforts and what will change to let them do it now?
A focus of this campaign will be ethics. All candidates will challenge the current mayor over his 2010 campaign and he will need to give the public both an explanation and an apology. But then all the candidates will have to share what they did with their lives before they entered politics. How did they work for those less able to help themselves and how did that work benefit others? Some will have to explain what they did in office to make big money in other jobs. Did they use their influence as elected officials to enrich themselves? How do the principles they have lived by compare to the ones that Nelson Mandela lived his life by?
The Nelson Mandelas of the world come along rarely. But our ability to measure ourselves against him, even knowing we will come up short, gives us the opportunity to work to make ourselves better. We need to elect candidates who will give the voters of the District specifics of what they will do as mayor and show people how those things will give us hope for a better life for ourselves, our children and future generations.
Opinions
Project 2025: A threat to LGBTQ elders and inclusive America
We must fight for a diverse country that protects all its citizens
In recent months, Project 2025, a conservative roadmap for a potential second Trump administration, has gained significant attention. While its proponents claim it will bring efficiency and reform to governmental operations, a more in-depth read of the document reveals a disturbing agenda that threatens the progress made across various sectors in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, with particularly harmful implications for LGBTQ+ elders.
Project 2025 proposes a radical overhaul of federal agencies, with a specific focus on dismantling DEI programs. The plan views these initiatives as forms of “affirmative discrimination” and seeks to replace them with what it perceives as merit-based practices. This stance ignores the real-world benefits of DEI programs in creating more inclusive and equitable workplaces, particularly for marginalized communities like LGBTQ+ elders.
The proposal goes beyond merely eliminating DEI initiatives. It advocates for stripping workplace protections related to sexual orientation and gender identity from federal rules. This regressive move would leave LGBTQ+ individuals, especially older adults, vulnerable to discrimination in employment, healthcare, and housing ā areas where they already face significant challenges.
LGBTQ+ older adults are particularly vulnerable to the negative effects of proposed changes in Project 2025’s anti-DEI stance. This population already faces unique challenges, including higher rates of social isolation, poverty, and health disparities compared to their non-LGBTQ+ counterparts. āThe removal of protections and DEI initiatives could exacerbate these issues significantly, leading to increased discrimination in healthcare settings and potentially poorer health outcomes.ā Furthermore, the elimination of programs promoting inclusivity and social interaction could deepen the isolation experienced by LGBTQ+ elders, who are more likely to live alone and have fewer avenues of family support.
The economic and housing implications of Project 2025’s stance are equally concerning for LGBTQ+ older adults. With fewer workplace protections, they may face increased employment discrimination, potentially worsening their already precarious economic situations. This reduction in economic security could have far-reaching effects on their quality of life and ability to access necessary resources. Additionally, the potential reduction in support for LGBTQ+-inclusive housing initiatives could make it substantially more difficult for elders to find safe, affordable, and LGBTQ+-friendly housing options, further compounding the challenges they face in their daily lives.
The potential negative impact of Project 2025 extends far beyond LGBTQ+ elders, threatening to create a less tolerant and less inclusive society overall.ā By attempting to erase the progress made in recognizing and addressing structural inequalities, Project 2025 risks turning back the clock on civil rights and social justice initiatives. This regression could have profound implications for marginalized communities across the board, undoing decades of hard-fought progress in creating a more equitable society.
As we face this looming threat to LGBTQ+ elders and DEI initiatives, it’s crucial that we take decisive action. This includes raising awareness by educating others about the potential impacts of Project 2025 on vulnerable populations, advocating by supporting organizations fighting to defend LGBTQ+ rights and DEI initiatives, and exercising our right to vote to ensure that our elected officials support policies that protect marginalized communities. Additionally, we must continue to promote inclusivity in our workplaces and communities by championing DEI efforts and creating welcoming spaces for all. By taking these steps, we can work together to counteract the potential harm of Project 2025 and maintain the progress we’ve made toward a more just and equitable society.
āProject 2025 represents a significant threat to the progress we’ve made in creating a more conscientious society.ā Its anti-DEI stance would disproportionately harm LGBTQ+ elders, a group already facing numerous challenges. We must stand against these regressive proposals and continue to fight for a diverse, inclusive America that values and protects all its citizens, regardless of age, sexual orientation or gender identity.
Kylie Madhav is Senior Director of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion of SAGE.
Opinions
Progressive LGBTQ community should not throw conservative siblings under the bus
Queer people are not just Democrats
I have been an LGBTQ activist for almost 10 years, but Iāve never really felt like Iām a part of the LGBTQ community.
I remember how I was thinking about it when the idea of this article came to my mind: I was at a sex-positive queer event in a local library, at a book launch about neurodiversity and inclusion. It should be āmyā topic: Iām a transgender autistic person after all. The event was amazing, wasn’t it? It was.
Only why did I feel so lonely, so out of place?
The folks around me felt like a community; most of them were so obviously gender non-conforming, obviously queer, and obviously leftists. They shared the same aesthetic, the same culture. But I was silently scrolling through my social media feeds, reading about the Chechen liberation movementās history, weapons, and political news and my mind wandered. I was thinking about how I told my Chechen Salafi friend that I wanted to have a big family with eight kids and live in a village when I was a 4-year-old.
At four, I already knew that Iām not a girl, even if I didnāt have words for describing my condition. I have never heard about other trans* people. I was a trans* child without knowing it.
Then I became a trans* teenager in denial: A messy one, depressed, Christian fundamentalist teenager who compulsively read everything about the Cold War. An anti-leftist teenager who shared Henry Kissingerās views on international politics and Ayn Rand’s view on the economy.
In my teenage years, I saw other trans* folks, but only on a TV screen. In mass culture, the trans* community is all about cross-dressing and drag queen parties in the worst case, and about being part of leftist social movement in the best. So, I couldnāt be trans*, couldnāt I? One of the reasons why it was so difficult for me to accept myself as a trans* was that I believed that if you are trans*, you should instinctively accept mainstream LGBTQ subculture.
I have changed a lot since then, and became an open LGBTQ activist, but when I read about Jessica Watkins, a transgender hardcore Donald Trump supporter who was arrested after the Washington riot on Jan. 6, I felt like she is the person I needed to hear about when I was younger.
Iām so not like her.
Watkins is an Afghanistan war veteran and a member of the far-right group Oath Keepers, and I’ve always, even in my childhood, hated the far-right, and have never supported the American invasion of Afghanistan. I do not think that I would like Trump populism and anti-intellectualism, even in my youth. But as a young transgender person, I desperately needed to see some proof that I could be trans* without falling into some social movement, that it is possible to be a transgender without having to fit into a long list of criteria from the mainstream LGBTQ community, and that transgender people could be different, just like everyone else.
This is why I felt outraged when some American LGBTQ people in social media supported a transphobic decision to put Jessica Watkins in a male prison.
On the eve of the 2024 presidential election, the situation worsened. The American LGBTQ community is taking a dangerous turn on excluding their politically āunreliableā siblings, and by doing it, helping anti-queer bigots to push their agenda of dehumanization of queer people in general.
Queer as a doctrine
Many homophobes believe the LGBTQ movement had some kind of ideology beside promoting equal rights. This myth existed for decades. In the Western conspiracy theories, homosexuality, and transgenderism are considered to be connected to leftist political schools of thought. During the McCarthyism era, LGBTQ people were discriminated against and sometimes even incarceratedĀ partly because they were considered to be potential Soviet spies. It is a peculiar idea, because at the same time homosexual people in the Soviet Union were considered to be Western sympathizers. Or maybe it is less weird as it looks ā people are often prone to be seen as aĀ threat to someone who belongs to a minority they do not understand.
This is why many modern-day conservatives believe that if a child came out as queer, it means that this child was groomed by ācultural Marxism.ā
But there is something else. The media ā both progressive and conservatives ā are to blame for this misconception.
The most common image of a queer person in the media is an image of a politically left, secular, eco-friendly, pro-choice person who likes to speak about their sexual kinks, has bright colored hair, and votes for Democrats. But if you would think twice, you would realize that all those things have nothing to do with being gay, bisexual, or trans*. Itās just some trends in LGBTQ community.Ā
Some gay people are conservatives: Get over it
There are actually a lot of Republican LGBTQ. Some of them are quite prominent, like Richard Grenell, the former U.S. ambassador to Germany who was also the first acting director of National Intelligence during the Trump presidency, which made him the first openly gay Cabinet-level official. He is quiet a controversial figure for an LGBTQ community because of his anti-trans* sentiments and for criticizing the Equality Act, but it doesnāt make him less āgayish.ā
Gay conservatives often have a complicated relationship with their sexuality, struggle to accept themselves. Former Illinois Congressman Aaron Schock had a long history of fighting inner homophobia before he managed to come out as a gay man, but it is more likely going to change for Zoomer and Alpha generations.
The list of modern-day LGBTQ Republicans is quite big, and there are even groups like Log Cabin Republicans, or The Rainbow Pro-life Alliance.Ā
LGBTQ Donald Trump supporters host their own MAGA events, āTrump UNITY,ā and basically have their own āLGBTQ culture,ā separated from a mainstream LGBTQ movement for quite clear reasons.Ā
Of course, not all LGBTQ Republicans are pro-Trump, and even not all LGBTQ conservatives are Republicans.
The fact that LGBTQ conservatives exist nowerdays is nothing unusual or new. Even in the 70ās when being LGBTQ was something far away from the acceptable norm, there were some openly right-wing queers and queer rights supporters in America. Actually there is a big difference between being socially conservative authoritarian who sometimes even economically-left, and economically conservative libertarians, because those movements often hate each other.
American economic conservatives, libertarian-rightĀ politicians and thinkers, like Ralph Raico, speak up for LGBTQ rights, and this is the reason why some LGBTQ became libertarian-right.Ā
As for a social conservative authoritarian right, there were gay people even among members of an openly Nazi organization, National Socialism League.
The times are changing, and there will be more conservative people, including Republicans, who would accept themselves like gay, trans* or bi.
As Neil J. Young, author of āComing Out Republican: A History of the Gay Rights,āĀ noted in one of his interviews, āthe proliferation of more people who identify as LGBTQ will mean a growth of people who identify as gay Republicans.āĀ
This is not just a Western trend.
Amir Ohana, a member of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahuās conservative Likud party, for example, is the first openly gay Knesset speaker in Israeli history
Hence, even such an openly anti-gay movement as the so-called Islamic State somehow had gay people among their members ā of course, those people have never openly said that they are gay because the risk of being executed, but it is known even in the authoritarian apocalyptic Islamist cult there were LGBTQ people. And while āordinaryā ISIS members were sometimes slaughtered for the accusation of being homosexual, high-ranking ISIS fighters like Abu Zayd Al-Jazrawi, a prominent Saudi fighter and commanders, who was accused of same-sex activity, was flogged or received a less serious sentence.
So, LGBTQ conservatives, including conservatives in quite extreme ways, are literally everywhere. Then why didn’t we notice them?
A self-fulfilling prophecy
Let’s put aside cases such as the possibly gay ISIS member, and think closer to home.
The reason why most visible LGBTQ Americans are progressive is not just about actual politics of Democrats and Republicans on queer issues, but partly is a self-fulfilling prophecy: After a gay, bi, or a trans* a young person became estranged to their conservative family, this person allied themselves with the mainstream LGBTQ community, who could reject him if it didn’t share their ideas.
So, LGBTQ youth have to make a choice that cis hetero kids don’t have to even imagine being forced to make. You could be literally anyone and be cis-hetero, but for being accepted as a queer person you are often forced to be part of a subculture.
By denying conservative LGBTQ people the right to be themselves, progressive media and LGBTQ activists made conservative anti-queer conspiracy about ācultural Marxism groomingā look more reliable, despite the fact that Karl Marx wasnāt particularly interested in sexuality and gender identity issues, and have nothing to do with modern minority rights movements.
But for conspiracists, gender identity and sexual orientation are seen not as part of human diversity, but something ideological.
Why do we need to change it?
The LGBTQ community is about gays, bisexuals, and trans* people. It is not about being left or right, Republicans or Democrats. The LGBTQ movement is a human rights movement at its very core; it is about the idea that you should have the same civil rights as anyone else. If we continue to deny politically āinconvenientā LGBTQ people those rights, we basically rob ourselves of a core idea of the LGBTQ movement. I strongly believe that Q-Anons and MAGA supporters in general are guilty of the deaths of some LGBTQ youth, especially trans* kids who died by suicide, because of the influence that Q-Anonās āgroomingā rhetoric has on the Republican mainstream nowadays, bringing back ideas from 80th Satanic panic and anti-queer conspiracy theories.
But if we would deny LGBTQ people who support Donald Trump their rights to be part of the LGBTQ community, we would be no better than the most hardcore MAGA supporters.
Civil rights have to be universal or they don’t work at all.
Even if we are speaking about rapist and a serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, who also happened to be a gay man, itās more than fine to say that he should be locked in prison for the rest of their lives, but in any we have no rights to discriminate against him because of his sexual orientation, or try to erase their homosexual identity to made gay community to look more ādecent.ā
LGBTQ people are human, and if we deny them a quality to make wrong choices or even different choices, we are denying them part of essential human traits. If we would go into gatekeeping, the core idea of LGBTQ activism lost its meaning.
A September 2024 poll by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation found that 95 percent of LGBTQ+ adults in the U.S. are registered to vote. This startling statistic is in sharp contrast to the general population, where only 69 percent of U.S. citizens over 18 years of age are registered to vote, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Further, the Human Rights Campaign poll found that 93 percent of LGBTQ+ adults are motivated to vote in the November 2024 election.
This poll suggests that sexual minorities, as members of the LGBTQ+ community, represent a significant and powerful voting bloc. A 2022 Gallup poll found that 7.1 percent of the U.S. population identifies with the LGBTQ+ community, with higher shares among younger generations.
Voter registration, perhaps in part, stems from social activism. Queer people are no strangers to the fight for human and civil rights. Hard-fought advances have been made by supporting elected officials who recognize and protect the queer community and the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals. Based on our decades of research on cities and culture and LGBTQ+ studies, we suggest three reasons that the LGBTQ+ community is registered to vote at record levels and motivated to vote.
ā¢ The LGBTQ+ community is motivated to participate, engage, and act. Through a long track record of fighting for rights through protest, strategic lobbying and grassroots action, members of the LGBTQ+ community have fought many hard-won battles. Victories for LGBTQ+ people include federal legislation and U.S. Supreme Court actions that have expanded the legal rights of LGBTQ+ citizens in marriage equality, military service, and hate crime protection.
Though many rights have been gained by LGBTQ+ people, the status of these rights remains tenuous and under assault. Still elusive, for example, is equitable access to employer healthcare for same-sex couples and spouses and equal protections in workplaces; distressingly, it still remains legal for businesses to choose not to provide services to members of the LGBTQ+ population, which was re-affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2024. This license to discriminate perpetuates oppression against sexual minorities by setting up social boundaries.
ā¢ LGBTQ+ rights are threatened with assault, making the 2024 November elections urgent. Project 2025 threatens the societal well-being of individuals who identify as LGBTQ. Many members of the LGBTQ+ community are worried by the bellicose insinuations made in the Project 2025 policy platform published by the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation. Project 2025 would undoubtedly constitute an unofficial policy agenda if he is re-elected. Project 2025 threatens to strip away equal rights for many minority groups, including the LGBTQ+ population. The plan views sexual minorities and same-sex relationships as inconsistent with conservative family values, and it would seek to abolish, if not overturn, same-sex marriage.
Project 2025 is not only dangerous to those who lean left politically, it is dangerous for everyone as it undermines well-established law, practice, and precedent in our country. It is authored by a group seeking to circumvent the legal structure to set policy in a way that has never been done before in America. To further its radical agenda, Project 2025 proposes constitutional amendments and a revision of the way our government conducts business. Surprisingly, aside from serving as a talking point, Project 2025 remains largely unaddressed by the left, with the current administration taking no concrete action to address it.
ā¢ The LGBTQ+ community is motivated to vote in any election because LGBTQ rights are constantly under threat. With Project 2025, the upcoming November election becomes increasingly important to LGBTQ people, because Project 2025 squarely places LGBTQ+ rights under direct attack with the immediate threat of being rescinded or retrenched.
The LGBTQ+ community possesses meaningful experience fighting for equal treatment. For centuries gay, lesbian, transgender, and queer individuals have been scrutinized, harassed, and treated differently by heteronormative society. LGBTQ+ people have learned how to organize, how to band together for safety, and how to motivate communities into action.
If LGBTQ people formed their own political party, it would surely be a successful one. If the LGBTQ+ voting bloc were its own party, it would count an endless string of firsts among the elections of governors, senators, mayors, and scores of others. Democrats love LGBTQ people, because LGBTQ people vote for Democratic candidates more frequently. While some Democratic politicians have helped in the ongoing fight for LGBTQ rights, far too many have stood by silently while rights came under assault. Republicans sometimes surprise the LGBTQ community in providing support for LGBTQ individuals, but too often Republicans are swayed by a larger, wealthier, and more vocal constituency, the religious right. This dichotomy is often portrayed by the media as a simple tug-of-war between LGBTQ people and religious conservatives. However, like many issues, the nuance is less straightforward, and in fact, a fair number of LGBTQ individuals also define themselves as religious. Therefore, the two are not mutually exclusive.
The fact is, LGBTQ individuals are routinely faced with a tough choice between the lesser of two poor choices, with no party willing to activelyāand consistentlyājoin the fight for LGBTQ rights. Regardless, the astonishingly high share of LGBTQ adults signaling enthusiasm to vote in our upcoming elections strongly suggests that the fight for civil and human rights is not finished, and that LGBTQ people will not rest until all sexual minorities have achieved full and unquestioned acceptance in society and have been granted undeniable equal rights and protections under the law.
Alex Bitterman is a professor in the Department of Architecture & Design at Alfred State University. Daniel B. Hess is a professor in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, School of Architecture and Planning at the University at Buffalo.
-
Local4 days ago
Alsobrooks leads Hogan in Md. Senate race: polls
-
Politics4 days ago
Meet the LGBTQ candidates running in key races from U.S. Senate to state houses
-
District of Columbia4 days ago
D.C. police investigating anti-gay assault at 14th & U McDonaldās
-
Politics2 days ago
Gay members of Congress challenge Vance over the ‘normal gay guy vote’