The Effects of the Political Landscape on Social Movement Organization Tactical Choices

This thesis examines the tactics used by organizations in Minnesota and Utah pursuing rights and protections for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community. Minnesota and Utah provided good examples of LGBT movements that are pursuing moderate goals such as anti-discrimination or anti-bullying legislation. Minnesota movement organizations operate in a political context that offers a relative balance of political party power and diverse religious, racial and ethnic groups. By contrast, Utah represents a very conservative political context in which Republicans have completely dominated both the legislative and executive branches for decades. Utah also has a very monolithic culture which is dominated by one religion. Both states have very different election systems and processes. The differences in institutional (election systems), cultural, and political contexts led to the development of a concept called the “political landscape.” Utah and Minnesota provided the basis for a comparative study of how the distinctive political landscapes of each state affect the tactics used by organizations. Specifically, the research explored whether or not the conservative political landscape of Utah caused the LGBT organizations to create a different set of tactics compared to the more moderate and contested political landscape of Minnesota. The results of this study suggest that institutional factors (such as election and party systems) and cultural factors (such as religion and ethnic diversity) do structure the tactics LGBT leaders chose in pursuit of similar goals. In Minnesota, the more open and competitive political landscape resulted in the use of tactics that are more open and direct. Specifically, LGBT organizations in Minnesota used tactics such as endorsing candidates publicly, working with other organizations to create large coalitions, working toward all LGBT movement goals (such as marriage equality), and building a large, grassroots movement across the state. On the other hand, the closed and conservative political landscape of Utah resulted in more private, compromising, and behind-the-scenes tactics. LGBT SMOs in Utah use both public and private political endorsements, targeted delegate trainings, and align their movement goals within terms that are compatible with the dominant conservative culture. The conservative political landscape of Utah also caused tension within the LGBT movement because LGBT leaders were forced to compromise and carefully interact with conservative legislators who are not completely LGBT supportive, while simultaneously trying to assure the LGBT community of their commitment to all LGBT goals