Introduction
Gay mainstream lobbying benefits heterosexual institutions more than it helps trans and queer people.
The central argument of this book is that mainstream gay lobbying in Washington, D.C. does not serve LGBTQ people. The white, gay, cis, English-speaking, Global North, male mainstream lobbying establishment in D.C. (and the broader mainstream gay movement) is complicit in perpetuating heteronormative power dynamics and institutions that render LGBTQ people vulnerable to structural oppression. Indeed, this is the story of a remarkable, once-in-a-generation political success for heterosexuality. The 20-year capitulation to heteronormative gay mainstream priorities and the demonization of LGBTQ lobbying and LGBTQ tactics has ushered in the fastest civil rights evolution in American history to the benefit of heterosexual institutions.
LGBTQ lobbying is a category of lobbying that is fundamentally different than gay mainstream lobbying.
LGBTQ lobbying is intersectional in nature and centers the marginalized. It challenges heterosexual institutions as well as mainstream gay lobbying and hegemonic organizations, which serve to advance heteronormative ideals. âHegemony refers to the permeation of âa way of lifeâ or âsocial organizationâ into every sphere of society and is a crucial mechanism by which the ruling power dominatesâ (Seybold, 1987: 176). In this case, we are talking about large organizations that dominate a policy area. This book argues that the gay mainstream lobbying has gained support from business and conservative sectors of the country by conforming to heterosexual institutions and thereby expanding hegemonic heterosexuality. While one is trying to sustain itself, the other is trying to put itself out of business. Therefore, the question that motivates this book addresses the tension about why advocacy on LGBTQ issues is not always designed to help LGBTQ people.
The question driving this book is: Under what pressures and at what costs does LGBTQ lobbying occur?
Pressure is about choice. The pressure on the type of lobbying people do to have access to power (McCann, 2011). This includes the influence on lobbyists to address or ignore certain issues and tactics. This impacts the agenda-setting process. In order to gain access to authority, lobbyists must make choices that return power to the powerful. For lobbyists who work on LGBTQ issues and tactics, this pressure comes in the form of heteronormative structures that encourage lobbyists to adopt more gay mainstream efforts and conform to the white, cis, male, English-speaking straight community, including those who do not have a disability. This political compromise gains gay mainstream lobbyists access to certain degrees of power. As a result, I argue in this book that LGBTQ lobbying has largely been a failure in the United States because the dominant focus is on benefiting heterosexual institutions.
Heteronormative power dynamics place extensive costs on lobbyists because LGBTQ issues and tactics are viewed as âloser issuesâ politically (Neff & Edgell, 2013: 235). For instance, there are political hurdles to engaging on issues related to trans sex work. Or poverty. Or homelessness. There may also be financial costs to changing a model of fundraising, or political costs to engaging in tactics that adversely disrupt the political system.
To distinguish between gay mainstream lobbying and LGBTQ lobbying, two different definitions are needed. For instance, they do not represent the same goals for power dynamics, and they have different relationships with the legislative and executive branches. To begin, I offer a unique definition of âlobbying.â As a former lobbyist in Washington, D.C., I argue that lobbying is not about obtaining federal funding for a pet project, attaining a tax loophole, or keeping seals protected in the Atlantic. Lobbyists want to negotiate power. This book looks at the role of power in lobbying over the past 20 years.
I define lobbying as:
1. The negotiation of power in the executive and legislative branches in ways that return power to the powerful; and
2. The use of the âheterosexual askâ to prioritize or avoid certain issues, set limits on the degree of change, and contain discomfort to the powerful.
Importantly, this definition of lobbying preferences power and penalties above law and policy. The lobbyistâs âaskâ is an under-analyzed element of the agenda-setting process for the executive and legislative branches. The âaskâ is the political action that is being requested by a lobbyist of the legislative and/or executive branches relative to the discomfort caused to an office or member. Shaw (2014: S44) states, âGeneral principles around advocacy include a clear goal (the âaskâ), the rationale for why this issue is important, and a determination of what can be measured to determine success.â Whereas Avner (2016: 404) argues that âLobbying is the work that the organization does to prepare for the âaskââthe request, for instance, to the head of the State House of Representativeâs Housing Committee to support a particular proposal.â
An ask is the chief tactic of a lobbyist, after prioritizing an issue. It establishes if the marginalized stay marginalized, if the powerful keep power, and if difficulty will bring discomfort. Put another way, the âaskâ is important because it is designed as a trade between a high proximity to power and a low proximity to penalty, which is why it returns power to power. Because power returning to power does not create distress for the powerful.
As a result, the âaskâ is better construed as the âheterosexual ask,â because the trade, the process, and the power in question is heteronormative.
The introduction of the âheterosexual askâ reveals that the agenda in agenda-setting is heterosexual. The issue in issue emergence is that the implementation of public policy is done in ways that advantage heterosexuality as a set of structures and institutions. This is the contribution that LGBTQ lobbying makes as a concept to both lobbying studies, LGBTQ studies, and public policy.
The âheterosexual askâ is most often recognized at the agenda-setting (identifying issues) stage of the policy process, while lobbyists act at every stage of the policy cycle. However, I argue that âthe heterosexual askâ is common at the decision stage, which Howlett and Ramesh (2003) refer to as adoption. At this stage, there is close proximity to power. This period includes what is prioritized, the proposed solution, and the estimated political cost to take the action. This is a moment of recognizing where power is exchanged before policy action occurs. It might be in committee, a staff briefing, or Dear Colleague letter, but this request may be for action or stasis.
I define LGBTQ lobbying as:
1. The negotiation of power in the executive and legislative branches, in ways that disrupt the return of power to the powerful, from a position of disadvantage; and
2. The use of the âLGBTQ askâ to re-prioritize issues that center the marginalized and demand total equity, now.
LGBTQ lobbyists are resistance entrepreneurs: provocateurs and expert troublemakers to heterosexual dominance. The âLGBTQ askâ embraces an intersectional view of politics (Crenshaw, 1991). The âLGBTQ askâ stands out in the policy process for being important at both the decision-making stage of the policy cycle and the implementation stage. For marginalized groups, policy enactment, power redistribution, and stigma removal take more than a change in statute. Indeed, LGBTQ progress is not progress if the product of lobbying does not disrupt the benefits, rewards, and privileges that racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and ableism confer on identities of whiteness, straightness, cisness, maleness, and ability.
The âLGBTQ askâ provides important insights about power in policymaking in the United States. It says that Congress and the White House are designed to be homophobic and transphobic. The policymaking process in the United States is homophobic and transphobic. As a result, LGBTQ lobbying must begin by addressing this power relationship, between the oppressed and an oppressor.
LGBTQ lobbyists face an adversarial political relationship in which the only true question is whether the lobbyist will serve the function of returning power to heteronormative policies and institutions that oppress them or whether the lobbyist will disrupt and challenge these systems and structures. This is important because a political system that is designed to return power back to the oppressors and to which we enthusiastically codify as lobbyists ensures second-class status for LGBTQ people. It is from this position of disadvantage and contestation with the policy process that the LGBTQ lobbyist works and asks for equity on behalf of all marginalized populations immediately, in total, and permanently. Thus, the implications of the âLGBTQ askâ is proposed as equality permanence. LGBTQ lobbying does not abandon one group, to provide shelter for another or afford those in power incremental discomfort.
Literature review
In this section, I build on the idea of âhegemonic heterosexualityâ as a lobbying and public policy concept.
This book provides evidence to support the idea that hegemonic heterosexuality influences lobbying in ways that determine the power dynamics in the legislative and executive branches. This includes the way issues are prioritized or avoided in a lobbyistâs âask.â Hegemonic heterosexuality is also a concept to be expounded upon in lobbying and policy studies. It has been reviewed in a number of contexts in the academic literature. Phillips (1991: 461) takes a sociological approach and notes that âthe heterosexist hegemony presents the man-woman relationship as the standard for comparison.â Bibbings (2009: 46) looks at the issue of the âheterostateâ in a criminal justice context and argues that âbeneath the supposedly calm waters of decriminalization, anti-discrimination, recognition and rights lies a hegemonic heterosexuality which still embraces very similar notions of acceptability to those of the 1970s.â The regulation of lives is reviewed in a film studies analysis of the movie Boys Donât Cry where Brandon Teena is raped and murdered for being a man whose gender was assigned female at birth. Yamamoto (2017: 137) states, âOnce they proved Brandon was biologically female, their idea of reinforcing gender binaries and hegemonic heterosexuality was through rape and violence.â
The research in this area has been ground-breaking and includes hegemonic masculinity as a key concept. This has been noted by Noah Brand (2012), who says, âhegemonic heterosexuality is the model for straight relationships that carries as many damaging, ridiculous, impossible assumptions and requirements as does hegemonic masculinity.â Raewyn Connell (2002) developed the concept of âhegemonic masculinityâ and notes that it represents the unreachable idealized idea of masculinity. Connell and Messerschmidt (2005: 832) state that it is considered the âmost honored way of being a man, it required all other men to position themselves in relation to it, and it ideologically legitimated the global subordination of women to men.â
Hegemonic masculinity, hegemonic heterosexuality, and heteronormativity illustrate the way power dynamics (like jobs, housing, marriage, weddings, adoption, churches, medical visits, the military, police, and teaching) are all structurally privileged by society to reward heterosexuality as an institution. McCann (2011: 253) quotes Berlant and Warnerâs definition of heteronormativity as, âa constellation of practices...
