by Milk, Harvey
Again, my thanks for taking the time to read this.
All my best,
Harvey Milk
18
“Statement of Harvey Milk, Candidate for the 16th Assembly District”
Campaign material, March 9, 1976
George Moscone’s election as mayor would seem to have portended a new era for GLBTQ people. Moscone had played a key role in overturning the state sodomy statute and appointed Milk, along with many other minorities, to posts in his new administration. Milk’s position as commissioner on the influential Board of Permit Appeals consummated his long-standing call for GLBTQ people themselves to serve in office rather than relying on the good will and patronage of those liberal heterosexual allies, who always disappointed, as he had long argued. Why, then, did Milk’s tenure in city government last only from January to March 1976? Hubris? No, Milk contended, he was simply responding to the recently exposed deal struck in 1974 among a number of prominent California politicians—then State Senate Majority Leader Moscone, Assembly Speaker Leo McCarthy, Congressmen Phil and John Burton, Assemblymen John Foran and Willie Brown—to fill the recently vacated 16th Assembly District (AD) seat with McCarthy aide Art Agnos. On the day Agnos announced his candidacy, Milk leaked his potential interest in a run, and Mayor Moscone made public his intention to fire Milk if he did so, only exacerbating the media frenzy over alleged bossism. That was precisely what occurred shortly after this announcement address, and with it emerged the memorable campaign slogan, “Harvey Milk vs. The Machine.” According to that now-familiar coded map hanging at campaign headquarters, otherwise known as Castro Camera, Milk surmised that his vote count in 1975 exceeded the number of votes John Foran had garnered in winning the 16th AD seat in the last election. That analysis would prove to be inaccurate three months later, but for reasons that only substantiated Milk’s accusations regarding machine politics in California, in a losing campaign that would transform Milk into a national politician.
. . .
I would like to announce that I am a candidate for the office of Assembly from the Sixteenth Assembly District. I would consider it a great honor to be allowed to represent the people of this district.
I know the people of this district; I know their problems. I live in the Sixteenth Assembly District. I’m a store owner in this district. I serve on many neighborhood boards within this district, most of which have worked for years to improve the living and working conditions of the district.
Few people are more aware of the painful problems of the district than myself. Our rate of unemployment is obviously higher here than in any other district in our city. That unemployment has been fed by the closing of the Hunters Point Shipyard, by the failure of Yerba Buena. You can see the results of that unemployment in the beaten faces on Third Street, on the streets of Chinatown and among the Senior Citizens of the Tenderloin. Conditions are bad.
The political figures and their patronage system that worked in the past have failed in the present. It is a different ball game, and we need a different team. The old catch phrases, the old faces, the old loyalties, are not putting bread on the table, are not producing gainful employment. The vision that our political figures may have had at one time has vanished. We need people who understand, who understand money, who understand the value of a dollar, who realize that bread costs over fifty cents a loaf and milk forty cents a quart, and if you don’t have that forty or fifty cents, your kids don’t eat. We need people who understand that jobs mean more than welfare, that a job means pride, and, that for many people, handouts mean humiliation.
This district doesn’t need politicians who are skilled in the practice of pay-offs, log-rolling, and political trade-offs. We need people with a concern and awareness of the problems of the people of this district: the poor people, the little people, the people who pay the taxes and who contribute to the quality of life that is so prized in this district. In every race that I’ve run, every board that I’ve ever worked on, my aim has been to help these people.
Recently, politicians and candidates for political office have apparently decided that the way to serve the people of this district is through the creation of a political machine. Political machines do not serve the people—they reward the people who serve them. Everybody is agreed that San Francisco must not become a New York financially.
I think we are also agreed that San Francisco must not become a Chicago politically.
Does a machine exist? Dick Nolan, of the Examiner, articles in the Sacramento Bee, the Bay Guardian and the Sunset Journal have all referred to a power play taking place by San Francisco’s newest political machine. The President of the Board of Supervisors has even termed this machine an “Unholy Alliance.”
Before making up my mind to run for the Assembly, I walked the streets of the Sixteenth Assembly District and asked hundreds of people who lived here if they thought I should challenge this machine before it took control of our district. The vast majority said yes and urged me to run.
With the support of the people, and knowing all too well the limited funds available to us versus the immense financial support the “Unholy Alliance” will give to their machine candidate, I am entering the race. I think representatives should be elected by the people—not appointed. I think a representative should earn his or her seat—I don’t think the seat should be awarded on the basis of service to the machine.
The overriding issue is simply: do the people of the neighborhoods that make up the Sixteenth Assembly District have the right of political self-determination—or, can the machine take that right away? Machines operate on oil and grease; they’re dirty, dehumanizing, and too often unresponsive to any needs but those of the operators.
It’s therefore my intention to challenge the machine and the legacy of neglect that it has bequeathed to the voters of my district.
19
“Reactionary Beer”
Column, Bay Area Reporter, March 18, 1976
Harvey Milk himself was not a drinker, but beer played an important role in his political career. Although not typically featured in the standard narrative of the Coors Boycott, often dated to the nationwide effort begun by the AFL-CIO in 1977, its roots are traceable to Teamster and California Coors Boycott Director Allan Baird, who sought out Harvey Milk and Howard Wallace in 1974–1975 to gain GLBTQ support, along with Arab and Chinese grocers, of the beer drivers’ strike against six distributors. Memorably, Milk in return had asked for union jobs for his own people, not Baird’s endorsement for his supervisorial campaign. And with the exception of holdout Coors, they succeeded, leading to an expanded boycott of Coors. Baird was impressed by Milk’s “no-bullshit” approach, organizing acumen, and broader vision that included, for instance, equal outrage concerning Coors’ discrimination against the Latino community. Milk, in turn, relished “the symbolism of tying gays to the conservative Teamsters union.” It is noteworthy that Baird resiliently endured homophobic slurs on the job and in the neighborhood for his work with Milk and the GLBTQ community. We should also better remember gay Teamster organizer Howard Wallace, who formed Bay Area Gay Liberation (BAGL) in 1975 as a response to the coalition boycott against Coors and did much to make gay rights a union issue writ large. That same year, when the national Teamsters’ organization muscled local leaders out of the boycott, which Milk thought smelled of a payoff, he called on GLBTQ people for courage and a show of political maturity and strength by carrying on the boycott themselves. Milk, Wallace, and Baird exemplify the bridging, the coalition building to end discrimination and achieve equal rights, championed in this “Milk Forum” column. Moreover, the boycott of Coors substantiated Milk’s theory of GLBTQ economic power. In 1977, when gay bars and their patrons renewed the boycott, responding to Joseph Coors’ support of Anita Bryant’s insidious homophobic campaign, Coors instantly lost its stronghold as California’s best-selling beer.
. . .
This past week there was a fundraising event for aid to some Native Americans
. Attending was a cross section of San Francisco. Some of our local unions are working with neighborhood associations, some local unions lobbied for gay rights last year in Sacramento, the list goes on and inter-winds. In issue after issue, we see different groups coming to the aid of others. The bridges between the many communities and people of the city are being built. Maybe out of necessity, but the exciting thing is that they are being built. The combined effort can put an end to the insensitivity of government.
Several years ago the Gay community took a step in working for others in their fight (in reality, our fight too) by participating in a boycott against Coors Beer. In many areas of the state and in the nation, the boycott continues. It has not been as active locally, lately, even though it still remains effective. Last week a woman came into my store, who had just driven across the nation. Like many others, she stopped off at the home plant in Golden, Colorado. She stopped there, for, like many people from the East, Coors has some sort of mystique. She was excited about taking the tour. Then she drifted off the tour and her eyes were opened. She is now a vocal part of the boycott.
The reason for the boycott comes from two basic points. One, a company that has an attitude towards its employees that can not only be called discriminating but also downright humiliating. (The discrimination of gay people in the work field is well known to all of us. It could be a major step in the gay movement if we started to join tighter forces with other groups to fight any and all discrimination by any and all companies.) In this case, the company has been brought before the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Colorado Human Rights commission more than once. A second reason for the boycott comes out of the paternalistic attitude of Coors towards its workers and a very poor labor relations history.
WHAT ABOUT JOE COORS?
Yet there is still another side to the overall picture and that is Joe Coors himself. The number of articles written about him fills a book. Not just the local Denver papers or our San Francisco press. It reaches even to the Sunday New York Times. The ideological views of Joe Coors are right there with the John Birch Society—he is a good contributor to that group. His attempt to manipulate the media, his involvement with the philosophies of Reagan, his dislikes of the “pleasure-loving parasites,” and well, we have all heard it all too often, all too many times.
Joe Coors was a regent at the University of Colorado. Another regent at that time, the highly respected Republican, Harry Carlson, said that Coors was a “super patriot who believed in interpreting the First Amendment to suit himself.” Coors fought against “permissiveness” and “strongly attacked the practice of giving birth control advice to female students.” Joe Coors has a long record of more of the same. It is thus easy to see where his company’s policy of discrimination comes from.
Months ago, I talked with one of the distributors of Coors in the Bay Area. He was going to set up a meeting with other Coors distributors so we could discuss the problems. He never did. I offered to go with several of their company officials to Colorado and tour the plants, just to see who was working there and at what types of jobs. The offer was turned down even though I offered to pick up the entire cost of the trip for all of us.
Here is a way that the gay community could show its economic power. It is not too hard to switch brands of beer. (After the second one, not too many people can really tell the difference between brands, and blindfolded, very few people can even tell the difference on the first beer.) The point: if the gay community continues, even leads, the boycott, then the Spanish and labor groups fighting Coors will understand who their friends are and what it means to join together in fighting for a common goal, ending discrimination. The point: we will also be building bridges with others who in turn will aid us in our fight for equal rights. The combined effort could then trigger other groups and communities to joining in the struggle. The time is here when all who are discriminated against in any way should join forces—it’s a common battle, Coors beer might have a good taste, to some people, but the company’s policies have a very bitter taste.
20
“Nixon’s Revenge—The Republicans and Their Supreme Court”
Column, Bay Area Reporter, April 15, 1976
On March 29, 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 6–3 vote summarily affirmed a lower-court ruling upholding a Virginia sodomy statute that made private, sexual activity between consenting adult members of the same sex—“homosexual acts”—punishable by up to five years in jail and a $1,000 fine. The anonymous plaintiffs in Doe v. Commonwealth’s Attorney for City of Richmond, (E.D. Va., 403 F.Supp. 1199, affirmed, — U.S. —, 96 S.Ct. 1489, 47 L.Ed.2d 751 [1976]) did not enjoy the privilege of having their case heard by the Supreme Court prior to its decision; the Court rendered its affirmation without oral argument or written opinion. Both the National Gay Task Force and the American Civil Liberties Union denounced the ruling on the grounds that it, like such state laws themselves, constituted an “aura of criminality” surrounding homosexuality that facilitated homophobic discrimination in employment, housing, licensing, and security clearances. Milk’s hyperbolic predictions in this “Milk Forum” column about the endurance of Nixon’s “evil” embodied in the Supreme Court proved prescient insofar as homosexuality was concerned. The Burger Court upheld a Georgia sodomy statute in its infamous 1986 ruling, Bowers v. Hardwick. Although Doe is not cited in Bowers, Nixon appointee Chief Justice Burger may have remembered it when, in his Concurring Opinion, he wrote, quoting Blackwell, that homosexuality is “the infamous crime against nature,” an offense of “deeper malignity” than rape, a heinous act “the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature,” and “a crime not fit to be named.”
Milk’s enmity for Nixon and his Administration was, to say the least, formative. He cited Watergate as a chief cause of his entry into politics, and he often turned to the Nixon Administration as rhetorical fodder when in need of perspective by incongruity, as when he memorably remarked of Democratic Clubs in San Francisco, “Evidently, they care about democracy as much as John Mitchell cares about Justice!” As reliable as Nixon’s negative touchstone, Milk’s rally cry that GLBTQ power, exercised politically and economically, must rebut homophobia resounded in this campaign season editorial and throughout his career.
. . .
The recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on Homosexuality brought home something I wrote about a long time ago. “The evil that Nixon brought on this nation will last long after he is gone from public office. His appointments to the Supreme Court will affect our lives to a greater degree than anything else he can do as president. We will have to live with that court and their rulings for too long.”
The Nixon court has struck out against all gay people—be they liberals or conservatives. The day-to-day blunders that Nixon gave to this nation can and will be corrected. The decisions made by his court will be on our necks for a long time. Even if you may have liked his foreign and/or domestic policies, as a gay person, you have to regret this decision handed down by his court and we will be stuck with his court for some time.
The Republican Party—on a national level—has long told us that they know how to handle the economy. That they are best with fiscal policies. They have to be given some sort of credit for they have done what most economists thought was almost impossible—given us high unemployment and run-away inflation at the same time. They have once again mismanaged our economy. After seven years in the White House, they have given us long lines at the unemployment offices. They have proven that they cannot handle our economy. All by themselves, they have shattered the myth that they themselves created—that the Republican Party understands money and is fiscally responsive.
With the inability to handle the economy by the Republican Party, and this ruling by their court which will affect the gay movement and the lives of too many thousands of gay people, I can see no reason whatsoever why any gay person could vote for a Republican on the national level. If you care for an end to discriminat
ion and are for the rights of gay people, look at what our great Republican Party has brought down on our backs.
I would like to hear just one solid reason why any gay person should support the national Republican Party—unless you are the type that likes to be discriminated against.
THE DANGER OF SCOOP JACKSON
With that as the record, I feel it is important for gay people to register as Democrats. If you are currently not so registered, then you can not vote in this June’s primary. The importance of that is that we have some of the Nixonian thought process creeping into the Democrat Party, and it must be stopped. Scoop Jackson is running for president. His stands, over and over, are just plain anti-gay. If you want to let a person like Jackson into the White House, all you have to do is sit back and do nothing. If, however, you want to prevent Jackson from attaining the position, you must register as a Democrat to vote against him in the June primary. If he wins the nomination then there is no choice for gay people in the November election. It will be Jackson vs. a continuation of the anti-gay Republican mentality.
There are only a few weeks left to change your registration. The last day is May 3. If you are registered as an Independent, “declined to state,” etc., you can not vote in the Democratic primary. You may register—if you have not voted in California before—if you live here right now! You must re-register if you moved since the last election. You must re-register if you did not vote in the last two years. The day after election day is too late to complain.
21
“My Concept as a Legislator”
Column, Bay Area Reporter, May 27, 1976
In an interview with the San Francisco State University student paper Zenger’s in November 1976, Harvey Milk was asked if he had any reservations about his campaigns in an era of public suspicion regarding his ilk. “Jefferson, Lincoln, and Truman were politicians. There’s nothing wrong with being a politician. But as I got involved in politics I realized that . . . politicians are hypocrites. . . . I just took my stand and lost, unlike other politicians who get involved just to fill their egos and pockets. But I knew the consequence of running . . . it’s vital that someone raise the questions.” The aura of the stand, principled and last, is prominent in this “Milk Forum” column just a week prior to election day on June 8, the underdog gay neighborhood activist and small business owner against the Machine politician, the bureaucratic “troubleshooter,” flush with campaign funds, endorsements, and chits. As the Harvey Milk for Assembly Committee had written in its campaign brochure, “The people of our district have been frozen out of jobs. They’ve been frozen out of decent schools—out of decent housing—out of decent medical care—out of decent care for the elderly—out of decent care for children. Harvey Milk understands that! After all, they tried to freeze him out of running against their hand-picked candidate. They tried to deny him the right—everyone’s right—to run for public office. Harvey Milk is not running as somebody else’s errand-boy, or riding on anybody’s coat-tails. As a legislator, he’ll owe nothing to the power brokers and the big money that keeps them in power. Harvey Milk has already established that he is not afraid to stand up for what is right. Harvey Milk will be able to raise the questions on the floor of the Assembly that our ‘experienced’ politicians overlook—or are afraid to raise.”