I can understand Obama's desire to embrace constituencies that have rejected him. Evangelicals are in that category and Warren is an important evangelical leader with whom, Obama said, "we're not going to agree on every single issue." He went on to say, "We can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans." Sounds nice.
But what we do not "hold in common" is the dehumanization of homosexuals. What we do not hold in common is the belief that gays are perverts who have chosen their sexual orientation on some sort of whim. What we do not hold in common is the exaltation of ignorance that has led and will lead to discrimination and violence.
Finally, what we do not hold in common is the categorization of a civil rights issue -- the rights of gays to be treated equally -- as some sort of cranky cultural difference. For that we need moral leadership, which, on this occasion, Obama has failed to provide. For some people, that's nothing to celebrate.
Richard Cohen, The Washington Post
I've now read plenty about the whole "Rick Warren getting a prime slot at the inauguration" from all sides—hard-left liberals who are incensed and/or devastated, and others who make valiant, and at times even convincing, rationalizations for the move. But none summed it up a well as that Cohen column—go read the whole thing.
Ultimately, I still come down where I did a couple weeks ago: This sucks, and Obama fucked up.
Big time.
No, not because this bigoted asshat getting a mic for two minutes during an event that will outshine anything he might possibly say, and this will hardly derail Obama's Presidency before it even gets started. Hell, most people—even Obama supporters—will be unaware of this whole behind-the-scenes drama, and blissfully unaware of the coded bullshit Warren will lace into his remarks.
It's the decision itself that reveals something to me: Obama has shown either a horrible and shocking tone-deafness, a calculated political callousness, or an immense ego that has him believing his own hype that he can heal any wound or close any rift.
Or some disturbing combination of all three.
His decision to offend a very real segment of his most avid supporters to appeal to a mythical segment of his detractors—or at the very least, skeptics—is a poor attempt at playing both ends against the middle. It's Clintonian triangulation and I hate that shit.
I know I've been proven wrong EVERY time I've doubted him, but I think Obama miscalculated here. Obama's detractors and skeptics will need much more than the token affirmation that Warren's presence provides to become his supporters—but even among Obama's strongest supporters, he has revealed a flaw that has justifiably made many of them skeptics.
13 comments:
I came down on the same side of this as you, albeit a bit less vehemently. That said, Cohen can suck a bag of dicks. How that Bush-enabling, "Angry Left"-decrying sack of cluelessness still has a gig as a syndicated columnist is beyond comprehension.
I don't like citing that Cohen asshat myself, but his piece was illustrative of how I ended up viewing this. Though I think the probably-fake subject of his story overreacts in my opinion—I'm not gay, and can't possibly feel the same sense of betrayal.
That said, Obama, despite is exemplary record on gay issues, has always seemed slightly squeamish /overly cautious with his rhetoric. So any blind faith from the LGBT crowd was probably unearned and some disappointment was inevitable.
Don't take this post to mean I have soured on Obama, or that I was one of the suckers who thinks the guy is perfect—he's not. I know the way he wants to do things will mean compromises in areas I won't like, but I really think he chose poorly here: I think he has probably shaken more of his supporters with this than he will sway evangelicals. And the doubt he planted on his side will be far more lasting than the tepid and fickle interest of the God Squad.
He might have something so far up his sleeve with this that I can't possibly see it—and that's certainly happened before, but he's also sold out much more than necessary as well. Think, FISA and telecom immunity, for one.
I don't see this as Clintonian triangulation. Clintonian ways would move him to the middle in a wishy-washy way, that offended no one, but really accomplished nothing..
I don't remember the left freaking out when Obama went to Warren's church during the campaign. So is it OK when we are campaigning, but not when we are governing? That is the same type of right-wing campaign BS we have been complaining about for years.
A friend of mine is a evangelical Christian and a strong, Democrat who supports gay rights, abortion rights and more. He disagrees with Warren on these issues. He reminds me that not all evangelicals are the stereotypical right-wing freak that we are used to in Republican politics. He says that evangelicals are a continuum. We already have some on the left, we won’t get the ones on the right, but there are some in the middle who we have lost, that we can get back. They support some of the things that Warren and Obama agree upon, such as the moral failure of abandoning the poor. Obama’s actions could very well break up the Republican hold on evangelical leadership. Obama will need the support of these types of people to get through some of the drastic reforms this country needs, including the huge stimulus package he is promoting.
I agree with many gay rights leadership in many ways, but it’s a 2 minute speech that would not be remembered if they chilled out. Can anyone remember who spoke in the same capacity at the last two inaugurations? I can’t.
He's not Obama the candidate anymore. He's Obama the President.
Better get ready for pragmatism and practicality for at least 4 years. Like Clinton (or FDR or even Lincoln) he's a very shrewd politician and he'll do what he thinks he needs to do to stay in power and get done what he thinks is best.
Not saying he's "bad" or anything, but this idealism that's attached to him needs to fade, and damn fast at that. He's a politician, and a damn good one at that. He's not looking to change the world in any particular way except ways that help his own career.
He reminds me that not all evangelicals are the stereotypical right-wing freak that we are used to in Republican politics. He says that evangelicals are a continuum.
This is a good point. Generalizations are not always right, and this certainly applies to Evangelicals. I probably fall somewhere under the Evangelical label and am fairly conservative, politically. I am also completely ok with gay marriage and think that the State is, for the most part, a poor mechanism for enforcing morality. There are plenty of things that I think are wrong, but as long as the behavior involves consensual adults, then it is fine with me.
I am not a huge fan of Warren, but I would call him a moderate in many areas. He has come under fire from other Evangelicals. H/T to Tony for finding this article on "how God will deal" with Rick Warren.
Time will tell how this will pan out. I doubt that the LGBT community will flock to the Republican Party or some other third party. Obama will probably find some way to mend this rift. I also think that there is a great deal of angst in the Evangelical community towards the Republican Party. There will always be those for whom issues like abortion and gay marriage will be deal breaking issues. They will not support the Democrats. That being said, there are many that are either ok with the Democratic positions on those issues or are at least neutral and are more upset about how the Republican Party has handled welfare, the War and other issues.
I didn't find the decision at all out of character for Obama, given his own stance on gay marriage.
Mike, look for my cynicism crown in the mail...
Deb, I wasn't THAT surprised myself, but not because of his stance on gay marriage (he's against calling it marriage, but FOR all the rights—splitting the baby, IMO).
I'm not surprised because I do think he will attempt outreach and reconciliation on more things than I would care for. This is one.
Bob and Steves makes some good points, as does everyone else, that this could be an attempt to make inroads with the evangelical community while they GOP is in disarray, and have fallen out of favor...perhaps a worthy strategic political goal, but I think the timing sucks considering the blow the LGBT community just took in CA, and the fact that Warren had a big hand in it.
As far as I'm concerned he's got plenty of time to kiss religious ass, he owed his supporters a little support in return.
Mike, look for my cynicism crown in the mail...
You can call it cynicism if you want, but I disagree. It'd be cynicism if I suggested that in his personal life Obama didn't have a good heart, didn't legitimately care about justice, etc.
I think he does.
But it's not cynicism to suggest that a politician will put his ambitions and his career goals first. It's realism.
Politics is all about the art of the compromise, about deal-making. As the famous saying goes, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.
It's naive to expect that Obama won't break dozens of eggs over the next four years.
He will.
But I didn't order an omelet, Mike!
Seriously, I know what you say is true. I DO believe that Obama's career goals and getting reelected will be a priority, but I'm hoping that delivering on a lot of what he ran on will be the best vehicle for reaching those goals.
He's not looking to change the world in any particular way except ways that help his own career.
..
But it's not cynicism to suggest that a politician will put his ambitions and his career goals first.
It is indeed cynical to suggest that every politician puts their career ahead of changing the world in a positive way. It also presupposes a knowledge of their inner motives that you don't have access to.
It is indeed cynical to suggest that every politician puts their career ahead of changing the world in a positive way.
That's ludicrous. And profoundly naive. The strong evidence of history is firmly on my side in this one.
It also presupposes a knowledge of their inner motives that you don't have access to.
Who the hell "knows" anything? You observe facts and theorize on what they mean. That's how science (your gig) and law (mine) work. It's also how historical analysis works.
Politicians are always about personal ambition and glory. That's why they do it. Many of them are more than happy to bring good to the world (I'm sure Obama is in that category), but in order to stay in power they have to pick and choose their battles.
And it's clear through the first two months that Obama isn't gonna butt heads with the evangelical movement (which I don't really care about) or with Wall St. (which I care about greatly).
Fine, that's politics. But I won't be naive thinking that he goes to bed every night worrying about what's best for everyone.
e should take his well-deserved seat next to Bush, Cheney, Greenspan, Bernanke, Paulson, Phil Gramm, Rubin, Geithner and the other notables at the "Responsible For This Mess We're In" table.
You'll get no argument from me.
Post a Comment