| I understand that President - Elect Obama is under a tremendous amount of pressure, and he's doing some very good things. Rep. Hilda Solis is an excellent choice for Labor Secretary. While some of his other picks are cause for concern, the real test will be whether or not he pushes for the agenda that helped him win both the nomination and the general election.
The Rick Warren situation is a different matter. We often heard Obama say that John McCain isn't a bad guy, but he "just doesn't get it." When it comes to Rick Warren, the same could be said about Obama. The claims that giving Warren this platform can't affect attitudes or let the Evangelical right (which is in deep trouble, as younger Evangelicals are caring more about what Jesus would do than what Jerry Falwell would say) off the mat don't wash with me.
The Myth of the Pragmatic Pushover
If you spend enough time on progressive blogs, you're likely to run across the acronym IOKIYAR, which stands for "It's okay if you're a Republican." A group of small, but vocal apologists for anything the President - Elect does have introduced us to what could easily be called IOKIYAO. It's okay if you are Obama.
Their defense of the Warren decision is comprised of two tactics. They either talk about "pragmatism," or play the guilt trip card. I don't think this group or its sentiments are as widespread as it seems, but they are able to pull the discussion in a strange and counterproductive direction. The Warren decision is perhaps the best example of this.
Note: For the sake of this post, I'll refer to this group as UDs (Unconditional Defenders).
The UDs' "pragmatism" exists mostly in their own minds. It's not a secret how public opinion on this issue is driven. The more the smears and hysteria are confronted, the more likely it is that people will allow themselves to get to know a gay person or imagine what it would be like to walk in their shoes. If someone gets to know a gay person, it becomes much more likely that they will change their views.
The UD' brand of "pragmatism" is selective. In late 2002, I doubt you could have found many Democratic strategists who would have said that opposing the war in Iraq was a pragmatic thing for Democrats with national ambitions to do. Yet Obama opposed it, a stance that played a major role in his winning the Democratic nomination. President Obama himself has blasted Democrats who thought they needed to talk and vote like Republicans to win the national security debate.
On some level, the behavior of the UDs is understandable. These are exceptionally hard times, and there is nothing wrong with feeling excited and hopeful about what an Obama presidency could mean. We all want him him to succeed, but views that border on hero worship aren't going to help this happen.
Republicans use the bully pulpit, while Democrats run from it, and that has to change. Elected Democrats need to be reminded how much their actions and words can alter the political terrain.
This whole episode reminded me of something then - Senator Obama wrote in September of 2005, after the confirmation of John Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
I am not drawing a facile equivalence here between progressive advocacy groups and right-wing advocacy groups. The consequences of their ideas are vastly different. Fighting on behalf of the poor and the vulnerable is not the same as fighting for homophobia and Halliburton.
Very well said. It's too bad that Obama then felt the need to build a straw man to hack away at. The warnings about demanding fealty to the "one, true progressive vision for the country," the talk about a "straight - jacket," and a "conversation only with the converted" is done in the name of moving the country forward. It seems to me that politicians going after the ultimate low - hanging fruit (partisanship), and Democratic leaders misrepresenting what their base is asking of them hasn't helped move the country forward at all. And for the record, there is nothing "new" about the politics of intellectual dishonesty.
I bring this up because this flawed understanding of progressive priorities is still present in the rationale for some of Obama's decisions. It's also still a part of his rhetoric.
Then - Senator Obama brought up a certain late, great Senator from Minnesota in his post.
Similarly, one of Paul Wellstone's greatest strengths was his ability to deliver a scathing rebuke of the Republicans without ever losing his sense of humor and affability.
Obama has yet to deliver a "scathing rebuke,"or for that matter any rebuke, of Warren's most offensive comments. He is also forgetting one of Wellstone's best, and most famous quotes.
"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for, at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them." - Paul Wellstone
How do we best fight for LGBT rights? Tactically, I understand those who stop short of supporting marriage equality in certain parts of the country. I strongly disagree on the substance, but if they dropped the right - wing talking points while other Democrats (especially Senators representing coastal states) started moving to support marriage equality, there would be a case to be made that the strides justified the tactic. Whatever is done, we need more of the "fierce urgency of now" Obama has spoken eloquently about, and much less false equivalence. Rationalizing Warren giving the invocation by pointing out that civil rights icon Rev. Joseph Lowry will give the benediction is a good illustration of false equivalence in action.
Part of the netroots is lamenting that they didn't do enough to make Obama earn their support during the primary. While there was a considerable amount of projecting that went on, that doesn't mean that President Elect Obama shouldn't be held accountable. In fact, he specifically and repeatedly asked his supporters to do just that. While the conventional wisdom - driven parts of his message were always there, I would recommend re - watching some of his performances at debates, forums, and town halls. There was a bolder component to his message that has been largely forgotten. He obviously won the nomination in large part because of what he said, so we shouldn't hesitate to remind him of his own words.
Wholesale acceptance of largely baseless yet resilient conventional wisdom is already a big enough obstacle in the way of those who want to build a bigger and better Democratic Party as it is. Challenging the false equivalence (from pundits and politicians alike) of progressive and conservative values and advocacy is a daunting, yet worthwhile task.
Social Conservatism and the Real Rick Warren
The social conservatives that run the GOP today have a long record of taking appalling positions. Many of them were pro - slavery, anti-miscegenation, anti - women's suffrage, anti - union, and anti - civil rights. Now they're anti - science, anti - choice, and anti - equality. My fellow Millenials should think twice before trivializing the so - called "culture wars" just because we weren't around to witness their peak. Important achievements don't come without struggle.
Despite his carefully crafted image, Rick Warren is far from "moderate." He called opposition to reproductive rights and embryonic stem cell research "non - negotiable" issues. He's also called for the assassination of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I'm under no illusions about Ahmadinejad, but I can't imagine how this kind of talk coming from "America's pastor" would help the situation. The irony here is that, at least on one issue, there isn't much daylight between Mahmoud "There are no gays in Iran" Ahmadinejad and Rick "You must delay and pray the gay away" Warren.
There is more to this controversy than Warren's support for Prop 8 in California, though that is bad enough. Warren's comparisons of gay relationships to incest and pedophilia, as well as his "gay people don't want to be monogamous" line during his interview with Ann Courey, cross the line. I'm all for working with Evangelicals on issues ranging from poverty to AIDS to the environment. It makes a lot of sense, and Evangelicals aren't the monolithic block they're often considered to be. But giving Warren this platform is not the only way to do that.
There are also questions about what Warren really thinks about the issues that give him his "moderate" credibility. He's called those who believe in a social gospel "closet Marxists," and there have been valid questions raised about what some of his allies in Africa are up to. The fight against AIDS is far too important to empower visceral opponents of common sense measures like comprehensive sex education and condoms.
How different are Falwell and Warren really? Give Falwell red hair, a goatee, and a smile... and put him in a Hawaiian shirt, and what is the substantive difference? Warren himself admitted that there is little real difference between himself and virulent right - winger James Dobson.
The Warren choice also sends the signal that if you launder your hate through your faith, and come across as generally pleasant, you can get away with a lot. Rick Warren says some terrible, bigoted things... but he makes up for it by... being a jovial guy? Warren's demeanor isn't a reason to tarnish an incredible achievement in one civil rights movement by putting salt in the recent wound of another.
Some have pointed out that Obama listed LGBT rights under "Civil Rights" on his website, and that somehow mitigates the damage here, but it actually reinforces what I'm trying to convey. Civil rights are not just another issue.
Obama's gesture to the far - right requires that he step on young people (who overwhelmingly support equality), progressives, women, and the LGBT community. Maybe Warren could say something about organized labor being a tool of the devil so President - Elect Obama could deeply offend his entire base of support.
I've seen staunch defenders of Obama's choice remind us that listening to people with "different opinions" is a departure from the Bush years. If we set the bar that low, anybody can clear it. Listening is one thing. I think it's safe to say we're all for that. I talk to conservative Evangelicals about politics on a regular basis. But whitewashing what is said in a public forum when it is just plain wrong is something else altogether.
This is an empty form of "civility." What is civil about denying people their civil rights? How is someone who puts our gay friends on the same level as pedophiles "disagreeing without being disagreeable"?
Another canard that has been trotted out is the claim that this choice will start a discussion. Where is this elusive discussion? The only one I've heard is the one that revolves around the idea that anyone who has a problem with Warren giving the invocation is part of the "angry / hard / far left."
And this advances equality how?
If this is really about starting a discussion, why hasn't Warren accepted the Courage Campaign's invitation to debate marriage equality with Reverend Eric Lee? Is President - Elect Obama going to promote a forum where LGBT rights activists can engage with the religious right? Obama hasn't yet addressed Warren's most odious statements. He's stated that he disagrees, but hasn't went after the crux of the right - wing argument on the issue, which is at the heart of the controversy -- Warren's LGBT = pedophile line.
Fear and Loathing in Tacoma
Obama's choice of Warren is also short - sighted because it undermines the more progressive strain of Christianity that we've seen emerge in the past couple of years. It would be a serious mistake to enable a surface "reform" of the religious right... which will make meaningless changes to it's presentation in order to sustain the notion that they are part of the political mainstream.
For the record, opposition to this choice does not mean that someone doesn't understand conservative evangelicals.
Growing up, my father's work was always related to his Evangelical Christianity. He's promotee Christian concerts, worked for and published Christian magazines, been on staff at a local mega church, and distributed Christian apparel. I spent much of my youth either at church, youth group, youth group camp, youth leadership meetings, Christian concerts, Christian concert festivals, or the "passion play" that ran twice a weekend every summer. I started a bible study in my Junior High, prayed around the flagpole, and watched as people were "slain in the spirit." I believe I have some understanding of why Warren and those who agree with him think the way they do.
My father was a big Mike Huckabee supporter, and a fan of Rick Warren. I love my father very much, but I also know why the lies and distortions at the core of his views need to be confronted.
At church I heard about the "gay agenda" before I had any clue what gay was. At a very young age I came across the word "gay" (meaning happy) in a book about Robin Hood, and ran to my teacher to ask her if Robin Hood was part of the "gay agenda."
I learned that the focus on the mythical "gay agenda" is dangerous. When I was in the 7th grade, our youth group took a trip up to the Seattle Center to "witness." On the way back, the church van drove past a house where a group of visibly gay men where having a party. A few of the guys inside the church van started talking about how they would like to get baseball bats, and come back to beat the men at the party. While it registered in my mind that what they were talking about doing was wrong, I had been told time and time again that gay people were evil. When you constantly hear that gay relationships are just like incest, pedophilia, and beasteality, you start to view the people in them as sub - human.
By the time I turned 20, my views had completely changed. One of my co - workers was gay, and I quickly learned that everything I was taught about gay people was a lie. Since then, I've been blessed to have gay friends in my life.
Symbolism matters. Rick Warren, Rush Limbaugh and the champions of anxious masculinity need to be sent a message that demonizing gay people does not make them "manly." It makes them ignorant and cruel.
President - Elect Obama recently called himself a "fierce advocate" for equality, but actually being one requires more than lip service. Obama criticizes a lack of depth to the thinking of the progressive movement that often doesn't exist or is exaggerated, yet he easily bought into the idea that there is something noble, or smart about boosting Rick Warren. You can't be a "fierce" pushover. The Obama Administration cannot have it both ways.
Standing up for LGBT rights could make some people Democrats are trying to win over uncomfortable. However, voters respond to principled stands, and a message of "health care, jobs, health care, jobs, jobs" backed up with bold legislation would override their disapproval in most cases, especially considering the tremendous economic strain being felt. Even Bill Kristol and the Cato Institute have talked about how Democrats passing health care reform would help us tremendously with more culturally conservative voters.
President - Elect Obama should rescind the the Warren invitation, and opt to meet with a group of religious leaders from across the spectrum, Warren included, before the inauguration. Having someone more like Tony Campolo give the invocation would allow the vast majority of the country to watch a historic event without a sick feeling in their stomach.
Action Links
Join the Impact
Planned Parenthood Action Fund
Science Progress
Right Wing Watch
UPDATE: Statements that Warren made in private to Melissa Etheridge aren't enough by themselves. If Warren renounces his previous comparisons in public, that would be a different story.
Scrubbing his website of the "no gays allowed" statement and putting his arm around a gay person is a nice first step, but Warren's team isn't short on marketing savvy. More than token gestures should be required. There needs to be something substantial.
Some things Warren could do:
- Formally announce an end to his church's "No Unrepentant Gays Allowed" policy, and follow through on it.
- End his Pray the Gay Away "ministry." These programs have been repeatedly shown to do a tremendous amount of damage to those who are subjected to them.
- Repeat what he said to Melissa Etheridge in a major interview. His dehumanizing comparisons of same - sex relationships to incest and pedophilia need to be addressed.
- Advocate for a change to our country's stance on the United Nations Gay Rights Declaration.
If Warren did these things, it would go a long way towards justifying his prominent placement at this historical inauguration. |
