LOS ANGELES TIMES INTERVIEW : David Mixner : Will the Gay Vote Again Turn Out for Clinton in 1996?

How pivotal was the gay and lesbian vote to President Bill Clinton’s election in 1992? The President’s margin of victory was a razor-thin 5.5 million votes. And of the 43.7 million votes that secured him the White House, 6.3 million came from gays and lesbians. Do your own math.

As Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) told a euphoric crowd of inaugural-week celebrators in January, 1993, one in seven votes came from gay men and lesbians, among the most committed and active Democrats, tipping the scales in heavy-weight electoral states like California and New York.

That a serious presidential candidate would openly express a vision of an America that includes gays--and present himself as their fighter for justice in such areas as the military and the federal commitment to AIDS--was intoxicating to the gay and lesbian segment of America, long ignored in mainstream politics. They came to the polls in droves.

And abandoned it in droves in 1994. Voter drop-off among gays and lesbians was among the steepest, according to some statistics, of all 1992 Democratic constituencies. The consensus in the community was that, among other betrayals, Clinton had sold gays and lesbians down the river in the gays-in-the-military fight.

Among those was David Mixner, who had introduced Clinton to gay and lesbian America in the fall of 1991, campaigned for him, drafted big-money contributors, strategized for him as part of Clinton’s “kitchen cabinet” and eventually became the official unofficial White House liaison for gay issues to Clinton. Mixner protested the “don’t ask, don’t tell” compromise outside the White House, only feet from the Oval Office, and was arrested, in July, 1993. His act of defiance to his longtime friend, whom he has known since they were at Oxford together, caused a four-month rupture in their friendship.

On the cusp of the 1996 election cycle, with a disaffected electorate and a Republican-controlled Congress, the White House still has not given clear signals to the gay and lesbian community--which it was aggressively courting by this time four years ago. But the Democrats still have far more solid ties to gay and lesbian voters than the GOP. Just last Sunday, the Republican front-runner, Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.), continued his efforts to redefine himself for his right wing by rejecting PAC money from the leading gay and lesbian Republican group--money he had previously accepted.

Mixner, with feet on both sides of the fence, spoke with characteristic candor last week about the disillusionment in the gay and lesbian community--his own included--while maintaining affection and faith in his old friend. Impassioned, indignant and focused--attributes recognized by adversaries as well as allies--Mixner outlined the risks and benefits facing Clinton in wooing back affections of a critical voter constituency while not alienating an angry middle America in no mood for “special treatment” to any disenfranchised--blacks, the poor, the aged or gays and lesbians.

*

Question: Let’s start with the bottom line. Can Clinton win reelection without the gay and Lesbian vote?

Answer: Where gays and lesbians are the best organized and most concentrated in numbers are states that President Clinton must carry in order to be reelected in 1996. Among the states are California, New York, Michigan, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, Illinois. Those are states with very large, active and very well-organized, politically active gay and lesbian communities. Without the enthusiastic support of our community, it will not necessarily be impossible for him to carry some of those states, but it will make it extremely difficult for him to do so.

Q: How does Bob Dole’s rejection of gay and lesbian PAC money last weekend reconfigure the political landscape?

A: First, I think it was an act of cowardice and deception of the first magnitude. Clearly, Sen. Dole knew where the money was coming from, and it vividly illustrates the progress that we have made under President Clinton versus the still-deep homophobic tendencies of many in the Republican Party. I think it strengthen’s the President’s hand in the gay and lesbian community.

Q: Is Clinton’s problem with gays and lesbians defection or dropout?

A: Both. I think we will have people in our community staying home . . . . In 1992, a vast majority of gay and lesbian Republicans, who make up 30% of the community, either voted for the President or supported [Ross] Perot. If there is no perception that supporting Clinton will move the cause dramatically forward, then the Republicans will seek a way to return to their traditional voting patterns. It could be that they will leverage through people like Arlen Spector to become acceptable to the Republican coalition, or they will look to supporting someone like former Gov. Weicker (of Connecticut) or Colin Powell as a third-party candidate, or perhaps even go to Ross Perot.

Q: And if the race narrows to Dole and Clinton?

A: If the choice is between Clinton and Dole, we will back Clinton. Dole’s actions rule him out as an acceptable alternative, totally and completely.

Q: Review the Clinton Administration record on gay issues. First the pluses.

A: They have done a great deal to show their faith and commitment to the gay and lesbian community. Such things as removing the barriers to security clearances for gay and lesbians. Putting non-discrimination clauses in all of the Cabinet agencies and departments for the first time in history. Coming out against all the anti-gay and lesbian initiatives in the country in the 1994 elections. Distinguishing themselves by appointing 30, 40, 50 gays and lesbians to major positions within the Administration for the first time in history. In fact, all this could have the phrase “for the first time in history” in front of it.

Q: And the minuses?

A: The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy--which has been both a disaster and a failure. And the failure of the Administration to intervene in the Colorado initiative that goes before the Supreme Court next session--which will determine the constitutionality of these anti-gay and lesbian initiatives around the country. If the court rules against this community, it will have grave implications for us as a community.

Q: And your editorial comment?

A: We are more than just a political entity, more than just a special-interest group. We are not a tobacco company, we are not a labor union, we are not one more group of people waiting in line at the federal trough. We are a civil-rights movement . . . Until the Administration comes to terms with us in that aspect, they will continue to make some of the mistakes they have made. They have weighed our desires more in terms of political convenience and feasibility than in terms of morality.

Q: Has Clinton specifically said to you, “Why aren’t you satisfied?”

A: The President and many members of his Administration have articulated bafflement that we are not more appreciative of all that they have done . . . My gosh, they look at us and say, “We’ve done more for you than any Administration in history.” That is true, absolutely true. But it’s no different if you’re a slave in a field, and you’re brought into the house, and even though the conditions are better, you are still a slave. And until you have the full protection of the Constitution, and total freedom, nothing less than that will be acceptable.

Q: Is it too early for you to articulate the gay community’s plans for 1996?

A: It’s unclear. We’re waiting to hear the President’s plans for outreach. His political people have given us indications that they are concerned about a visible connection between this community and their campaign.

Q: What do you perceive as the rationale?

A: Part of the argument that our critics within the Administration have used with us over the last couple of months to justify why more isn’t being done is that it is not practical politically for them to do so, and you have no place else to go. Nobody else wants you. The Republican Party doesn’t want you. Pat Buchanan doesn’t want you. Bob Dornan doesn’t want you. So you really have no choice but to form an alliance with us for 1996. Of course, the entrance of a third candidate, like Sen. Bradley, would make that less real.

Q: Shouldn’t they already have been mobilizing if they want to capture the gay and lesbian vote?

A: They are behind schedule. They have made one major step forward in the last month, in the employment of the assistant to the President, Marsha Scott, to work with the gay and lesbian community and to hopefully coordinate the issues in a more effective fashion to avoid some of the miscommunications and misunderstandings we’ve had in the past. The fact that we are in September, 1995, without a strategy, without any of us being consulted of how we organize this in the community, without any idea of how the President plans this issue in just almost 12 months, is startling and frightening to me.

Q: Do you think it will be impossible to duplicate the enthusiasm and commitment of 1992?

A: I think that the President’s two major decisions, on the military and on the decision not to intervene in the Colorado case, have caused him damage in the gay and lesbian community . . . I think if we attempted to duplicate what happened in 1992, we’re doomed to failure. Absolutely impossible to do so. I think there is no way that we can deliver the kind of block votes that we delivered for the President in 1992, when gays and lesbians had one of the largest turnouts of any group in the country. We had something at stake. We felt hope. In 1994, we had the most dramatic drop of any group in the country.

Q: Is the damage permanent?

A: Nothing is permanent. Yesterday’s enemies are tomorrow’s allies . . . . The community, at this stage, is looking for signs that the progress will continue into the next four years of this Administration.

Q: Such as?

A: The support of ENDA, Employment Non-Discrimination Bill, which protects gays and lesbians in the workplace from being fired from their jobs because of who they are. Whether it is other court cases, whether it is actively intervening in the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, and at least making sure the spirit of that policy is being carried out, which it is not now . . . Holding an AIDS summit. Giving an AIDS policy speech on the health crisis that this nation faces--which his own AIDS advisory panel, headed by Dr. Scott Hitt, has recommended. Those sort of things would be very positive indications to me that we are moving in the right direction.

Q: So you think that Clinton has more to gain than lose by aggressively supporting the gay and lesbian community?

A: First and foremost, he loses his soul if he doesn’t, because this is a great civil-rights issue of our time, and you can’t replace that . . . . President Clinton not only benefits by gay and lesbian votes, but he benefits by showing the nation that he is a strong leader who implements his beliefs, who stands firm by those who he believes are being treated unfairly, and I think people respect that kind of leadership in the country.

Q: Final words?

A: Someone in the Administration said to me, “You have to give us some slack,” and I said, “I can’t, because if we do, you’ll take it. And you’ll want more. And who do I tell that they have to die because you need slack?” No one should ever underestimate our sheer determination to be free and to live. We will do whatever it takes to get there. And we will do whatever it takes to stop our friends from dying. Just in the last four weeks, I have lost five friends. And I am tired of it. I am real, real tired of it.*