How to kill a policy initiative

How do you kill a piece of proposed legislation or paralyze a policy decision that you don't like? There are several methods, perfected by experienced opponents:

1. start a PR campaign that distorts the issue and turn an asset into a liability.
2. appoint a study group and delay a vote until the results are in.
3. stall for time by doing a survey -- and word the questions so that they will tend to get the result you want.
4. if passing the law is inevitable, let it pass but make sure it never gets funded.

The House has passed an appropriations bill that also overturns Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It is yet to be voted on in the Senate. But the military generals who oppose it won the proviso that it not be implemented until they have assessed the effects on military preparedness. We're seeing #1-3 now, and it's only premature for #4.

I have just read the survey questions and am appalled at the subtle bias that pervades it. No, it doesn't use derogatory epithets or ask blatant questions, like "Do you hate gays?" It's more subtle.

Most questions are of the type: "Have you served with a person you perceived to be gay or lesbian?" And then how did it affect unit morale? Or "How do you anticipate socialization among your unit would be effected?

The questions obviously were written by someone who expects, and desires, a negative outcome. The focus is all on "how bad do you think it will be?" There is no place to give a positive attitude, or to recall how someone you really admired and respected and were comfortable around was gay. The best one can do is show the absence of negative attitude; there's no clearcut way to show a positive attitude.

Here's a sample question: "If don't ask, don't tell is repealed and a gay or lesbian service member attended a military social function with a same-sex partner, which are you most likely to do?"

-- Continue to attend military social functions
-- Stop bringing my spouse, significant other or other family members with me to military social functions
-- Stop attending military social functions
-- Something else
-- Don't know

Why didn't the choices include: "Make friends with them and try to make them feel welcome"?

Another question has to do with being assigned to share a bathroom with open bay showers, and the only choice that could be considered positive is: "Take no action." Others are options for dealing with negative feelings about it.

Well . . . for good or bad, this is the survey they're doing; and at least we can make clear how bias is built into the questions themselves.

The best outcome would be for the results to show that a majority would accept openly gay comrades, in spite of the biased survey questions. My guess is that the results won't be as negative as the opponents hope for, nor as positive as I would like for them to be.

The bottom line is that this is a compromise to appease the biased generals and colonels who are older than most service people and who grew up in a more homophobic era. They might be surprised. On the other hand, there will be enough residual homophobia, even in younger people, that will get triggered by the questions.

It has been noted that Harry Truman didn't ask for an attitude survey before he ended racial segregation in the military. He did it because it was the right thing to do. And it worked.

Ralph