"Finding a Way to Win Gay in an Evolving Historical Movement: How Harvey Milk’s Rhetoric Led Him to San Francisco City Supervisor"

A New Appearance and Response to his Audience’s Concerns with Ethos: 1975

Milk looked at his 1975 campaign as a “whole new ball game” (118). This time, he was positive he would be able to win San Francisco City Supervisor by making one major change: his appearance. Believing a new look would help his audience view him as a more serious candidate, he cut his hair, stopped smoking cigarettes, and started dressing in proper political suit attire. Milk’s 1975 persona is described as the following: “The ponytail shorn, replaced by a second-hand, two-piece suit, Milk’s hippie persona yielded to a clean-shaved one no less down to earth and outspoken but with broader visual and thus political appeal” (Black and Morris 20). Since Milk was running in a city-wide election, he had to appeal to a wider audience outside of his own neighborhood. In other words, Milk now needed to gain the straight vote. This required Milk to alter his ethos and use his new appearance as a tool in his political campaign. With cleaner attire, Milk’s character would be taken more seriously, especially by his straight audience.

The responses to Milk’s new appearance were mixed. Though he was more presentable in the eyes of his political audience, those who knew Milk prior to his physical change were shocked. In fact, “Milk’s appearance and demeanor became so devastatingly average that he sometimes had to fend off allegations that he was actually heterosexual” (Black and Morris 20). Those who knew Milk would laugh at this statement; however, it is possible appearing as “actually heterosexual” was Milk’s strategy. Milk noted that he could not expect the gay vote alone to carry him to victory. Although the gay vote was powerful, Milk knew he needed to appeal to a much wider audience, so he went to the straight community. In his 1975 campaign letter, “Harvey Milk for Supervisor,” he wrote, “I’ve tried to build a bridge between ‘us’ and ‘them’ because I believe the contact with the straight community is a two-way street” (119). With the overall goal of equality, Milk sought to gain the respect of heterosexuals. Overall, his new “average” façade was influenced by the straight candidates he was running against. He hoped the straight community would now accept him as a serious political candidate.

The year of 1975 was inspiring for Milk because the US Civil Service announced that homosexuals would no longer be disbarred from government positions. This was a step closer to the equality that Milk had dreamed of. The same year, as he watched Elain Noble get elected as the first openly lesbian legislator in Massachusetts history, he became increasingly confident in his own campaign, and in his capability of being an openly gay man in politics.

On top of his physical changes, Milk underwent a change in his own rhetorical delivery. While his platform remained the same, “he was a better speaker and his statements were more refined” (Black and Morris 117). He also became bolder with his statements, and fearless of directly confronting anyone against LGBTQ equality. Though rhetorical experts believe “You should not be more confident, certain, or directive than you actually have the evidence and certitude for” (Bazerman 129), confidence was one of Milk’s rhetorical strategies. If he sounded confident with the control of his voice, and body language, he was sure he could gain the straight vote.

Consistent with his first campaign, Milk addressed his audience with everyday language that the entire population could understand. However, with his second campaign, he altered his spoken vernacular into a written version with the introduction of his column in the Bay Area Reporter, titled “Milk Forum.” When discussing rhetoric, “the very cardinal sin is to depart from the language of everyday life” (Herrick 115). Though Milk used everyday language in his previous campaign, this column allowed him to speak directly to his audience in a more personal and casual way, opposite that of a formal speech. These columns were the raw Milk; he was able to express his own words without his speechwriter, Frank Robinson, helping him. More than ever, he was speaking directly to each member of his audience by publishing a column that felt like a one-on-one conversation between Milk and his readers. In his own words, Milk could address specific issues his readers wanted their City Supervisor to tackle.

Anyone close to Milk knew he was against the way San Francisco police treated the LGBTQ community. Milk himself was a victim of police harassment, so it was surprising he was suddenly promoting “encouraging a positive attitude and public friendliness towards police and endorsing the Police Community Relations (PCR) Department and its seminars” (Black and Morris 113). With a history of advocating the end of homophobic police harassment and violence on Castro Street, why was Milk suddenly supporting the police?

The answer is simple: Milk may have disliked the police, but the straight population did not. Aiming to appeal to the heterosexual community, Milk sought to show his support for the police force. Engaging the police, who had a history of harming homosexuals, was a large part of Milk’s rhetorical strategy. On top of gaining the straight vote, he hoped writing his column “Au Contraire . . . PCR Needed” would show the police that all the LGBTQ community wanted was equality, thereby gaining the police vote as well. Charles Bazerman asked, “If you cannot enter into the audience’s world of objects and ways of knowing, how can you get them to turn attention to new evidence, attend to a different part of the world, and gather knowledge in a difference way?” (116). If Milk remained biased against police, his audience would not see him as a serious candidate who wanted San Francisco to evolve into an inclusive city. In his column, Milk writes: “While police are busting gays for obstructing the sidewalks, and while gays are yelling ‘pig,’ people are being mugged, robbed, and murdered. . . . Instead of looking for gays to beat up, the police should look for criminals” (116). While he was critical of police, calling them out for the harm they caused to the LGBTQ community, Milk showed he saw potential in the police force by including it in his political rhetoric. This also showed the straight community (including the police) that Milk was not against them and shared similar beliefs. This made Milk more appealing to a wider audience outside of just the LGBTQ vote he sought to capture in his first campaign. In the 1970s, San Francisco was a city where over 100 crimes were reported a day. If LGBTQ folx and the police continued their ongoing feud, Milk feared everyday crimes would never stop. In the end, Milk’s political platform revolved around how much he cared for San Francisco; it came to be his most heartfelt rhetorical move. Putting his own feelings aside, and seeing the importance of police from his audience’s perspective, shows Milk’s mature growth as a politician.

Unlike his 1973 campaign, Milk certainly responded to what his audience wanted. Bazerman states, “A more sober approach is to identify what needs, interests, or concerns might have brought the readers to the text and then somehow speak to those motivating concerns” (126). His audience must have cared about their city if they took the time to listen to his speeches and read his columns. In this campaign, Milk adapted to his audience’s needs and concerns. In his campaign letter, “Harvey Milk for Supervisor,” he wrote:

I intend to fight for a better sense of spending priorities in city government, calling upon my own financial background. As a small businessman, I intend to fight for the needs of small businesses rather than solely for the interest of “Downtown.” I will call upon my work with the police department, and my experience with top police officials, to recommend more successful ways of fighting serious crimes. (119)

Realizing his audience cared about finances, businesses, and crime, Milk adapted his rhetorical platform to fit these needs.

While he did appeal to his audience by responding directly to their concerns, Milk still struggled with explaining to his audience exactly how he would accomplish his goals as City Supervisor. It is likely Milk’s audience was used to false promises from past political candidates, so how could they tell that Milk was genuine and would stay true to his promises? Due to this uncertainty, Milk lost for the second time, finishing seventh behind six incumbents, with 53,000 votes. Although Milk faced his second defeat, his loss was not enough for him to give up on the LGBTQ community. He saw the rising number of votes as a sign that he was getting closer to victory.