Global Courant 2023-04-17 15:08:14
In 2016, in an outburst of anger over anti-LGBTQ legislation passed in North Carolina, Tennessee and elsewhere, the California legislature passed a ban on taxpayer-funded travel to states with laws that discriminate against people based on gender identity or sexual orientation.
Most Democrats were enthusiastic. Stick with the bad guys! Send a message that California will not do business with bigots! Refuse to tolerate intolerance!
In fact, however, the travel ban has been a bust. It hasn’t done much, if anything, to achieve its goal, assuming the goal was to pressure other states to protect and expand LGBTQ rights. Instead, in the intervening years, the number of states being boycotted, which started with Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina and Tennessee, has grown to 23.
Opinion columnist
Nicholas Goldberg
Nicholas Goldberg served as editor of the editorial page for 11 years and is a former editor of the Op-Ed page and Sunday Opinion section.
Now, seven years after the ban went into effect, a movement is underway to repeal it. And it’s long gone.
For the most part, the arguments put forward for withdrawal are sensible, practical arguments that justify the decision to come back.
The ban doesn’t seem to change the attitudes of people in the banned states, nor has it changed their laws.
And it has many loopholes. Travel to prohibited states is permitted if the travel is deemed “mandatory”. Even if they don’t, legislators are allowed to travel to those states as long as they pay with their campaign funds, rather than taxpayers’ money. Travel by athletes from California public universities is also permitted if funded by corporate sponsors or private promoters. Meanwhile, the travel ban has hampered legitimate academic research and travel to conferences by UC and Cal State scientists and students.
But while the repeal arguments are all legitimate, they miss what to me is the biggest problem with the ban: imposing a boycott on nearly half the states in the union further divides us as a country. It exacerbates political polarization and creates obstacles to communication with the very people we need to convince.
That point was raised last month by Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins (D-San Diego), who introduced the repeal legislation and is leading the fight for its passage.
Although she initially voted for the ban in 2016, Atkins now believes it’s time for a “pivot,” as she put it, because “polarization doesn’t work.” She hopes to repeal the boycott and replace it with a California-sponsored publicity campaign in red states to encourage LGBTQ acceptance and discourage discrimination. Her bill is scheduled for the committee’s first hearing on Monday.
Atkins has a certain take on the subject, having grown up as a lesbian in the South.
“I know from personal experience growing up in a rural community, where it’s more conservative, that the way to change people’s minds is to make an impact and direct contact and open hearts and minds,” Atkins recently said.
Atkins’ remarks go to the heart of an ongoing debate among moderate Democrats, liberals and progressives. Should we involve our political opponents and try to convince them – or should we raise our hands and view them as unattainable and unreasonable? Is it more effective within the democratic system to cooperate with those with whom we disagree, or to accept that there is an unbridgeable gulf between us and submit to the fight?
Like Atkins, I’m in the engagement camp (although sometimes my commitment is severely tested). As deep as our differences of opinion are in the United States and as offensive as anti-gay and anti-transgender laws are, initiating state-to-state boycotts instead of opening avenues for dialogue seems counterproductive if we still have any hope. have to make American democracy work .
I called Atkins last week to talk about her belief that California needs to change its strategy.
“I think ordinary people are tired of polarization,” she told me. “We’re so focused on what we believe, and if you don’t agree with me, I’m not going to work with you. It separates us and that is a really bad thing.”
Atkins said that as a legislator who must work with others to make laws, she believes in civility and diplomacy, even with those whose views oppose her own.
I know many progressives who believe that we are past the point of cooperation, that compromise with Republicans is a foolish message, and that there is little to gain from discussions with conservatives, evangelicals, or bigots who simply cannot be reasoned with.
But I’m sticking with the idea of engagement because I’m not sure what the alternative is.
Moreover, attitudes can and will change. Sometimes it goes slowly, but it can happen. And gay rights are actually a good example of that.
As recently as 2004, Americans opposed same-sex marriage by 60% to 31%, according to the Pew Research Center. In 2019, 15 years later, those numbers were reversed: 61% supported same-sex marriage and 31% opposed. Republican support for same-sex marriage rose from 19% to 44% during that period.
Now, I’m not saying 44% Republican support is that great. Marriage equality should be considered a fundamental human right, but less than half of all Republicans support it.
But 44% is a lot higher than 19%.
And I believe that number will more likely continue to rise if there is communication. Gay rights opponents are known to change their attitudes when they meet people who are gay, work with people who are gay, have conversations with people who are gay, or realize that members of their own family – people they love – are gay .
Not because they are threatened with travel bans, trade wars or the wrath of California Democrats.
