Emptying the piggy bank of political capital: is Rick Warren really worth it?
Those of us who participate in online media (aka blogging) in the political realm have sometimes found ourselves in the position of influencing public discourse. John Aravosis at AmericaBlog certainly managed to do so on the Jeff Gannon/Guckert story. The group that writes at Firedoglake may have changed the face of blogging forever with their incredible reporting of the Scooter Libby trial. Certainly the big dog of them all, the Great Orange Satan, has created its own special niche of political influence with the upper echelon. Even rightwing blogs can fall bassackwards into influence. At the local level, Blue Oregon gets its licks in, along with a few others.
There are a lot of excellent bloggers who know how to take the fight to the halls of DC and beyond. The ability to stir things up is a hallmark of what some of us love to do. But the ability to do this stirring has its limits. Our political capital is finite. Do we really want to spend it in an attempt to influence Obama to dump Rick Warren's Inaugural invocation? Really?
With the caveat that Warren's positions on gay rights and abortion are abysmal and I think the guy is completely and utterly wrong on these issues, this is not about creating anti-gay or anti-choice policy that I can tell. EJ Dionne noted in his column this week that Obama's choice of Warren (and Warren's acceptance) is a shrewd political move:
One need not be too pious about any of this. Both Warren and Obama are shrewd leaders who sense where the political winds are blowing.Warren understands that a new generation of evangelicals has tired of an excessively partisan approach to religion. Evangelical Christianity's reach will be limited if the tradition is seen as little more than an extension of the politics of George Bush, Karl Rove and Sarah Palin.
An opening to Obama is the right move for this moment, and Warren appears to be genuinely interested in broadening evangelical Christianity's public agenda. In a recent interview with Steve Waldman of Beliefnet.com, Warren compared gay marriage to "an older guy marrying a child," and to "one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage." But he also called upon evangelicals to be "the social change leaders in our society" engaged with "poverty and disease and charity and social justice and racial justice."
Obama wants to encourage this move, which would be good for him and good for progressive politics. Fear that Obama's analysis is exactly right is why so many conservatives are so angry with Warren for blessing the new president's inaugural.
A lot of major lefty bloggers clearly disagree. And they've been using some of their muscle.
I understand the chafing at the symbolism. And if our country weren't in such deep shit then maybe these symbolic things might be worthy of a cut of political chits. But frankly, we don't have the luxury of bemoaning these gestures when there are issues of greater heft and necessity than this, including the ACTUAL ACQUISITION OF CIVIL RIGHTS for the GLBTQ community. To burn through political influence on Warren seems frivolous in the face of the monumental problems on our collective plate.
The choice of Warren by Obama is shallow indeed compared to the real fights in our headwind. Our economy is in shambles, we're still mired in Iraq and Afghanistan, our reputation as a nation is in tatters and global climate change continues unabated.
With these weighty issues surrounding us, it seems a little like crying wolf to go after Obama on Warren--especially when we'll need to press him very hard down the road on these and other vital issues.
I actually think James Pitkin is right: Obama is working to grow the progressive movement despite itself. And he isn't doing it by dissing the gay community in favor of Warren and his gang. Obama has made his position on gay rights crystal clear. By segmenting the evangelicals, Obama may just be bringing in those who focus on poverty and global climate change--and aren't particularly interested in fighting gay rights.
And even if that isn't the case--we've got bigger fish to fry. There are some very big, very serious fights in the coming weeks (both locally and nationally). This doesn't seem like the smart battle to pick.
|
December 24, 2008 |
Carla Axtman | Comments (223 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: John K. | Dec 24, 2008 12:37:55 PM
The problem is, Rick Warren is where it starts. Obama is legitimizing him. Anti-gay people continue to taunt me with "Look, your Savior Barack Obama doesn't even support your so-called rights [marriage]." Symbolism matters A LOT. That said, if Obama gets down to business RIGHT AWAY in getting all the LGBT laws enacted on the federal level that he said he would, this Rick Warren thing could easily be overlooked. The problem is Obama's starting with Rick Warren before he's done a thing for us. If this were OBama's second inaugeration and we already had ENDA, the Matthew Shepard Act, an end to DADT, and federal civil unions or domestic partnerships or at LEAST the repeal of DOMA, then I would imagine this outrage would be nothing more than a murmer. But that's not the case, and with such anti-gay sentiment so prevalent around the country right now, the last thing we need is a Democratic President who continues to turn a blind eye to it.
Posted by: John K. | Dec 24, 2008 12:40:23 PM
And the problem also is that Obama is NOT going to act quickly on gay rights laws. It was reported today that Don't Ask Don't Tell is not going to be dealt with for another two years! That's completely unacceptable! We might not even have a fully-democratic Congress in two years, let alone the close to 60 Senate seats we need to repeal that piece of garbage law!
Posted by: Kevin | Dec 24, 2008 12:43:47 PM
I couldn't agree more.
Not only is this a foolish waste of what political capital the lefty blogosphere has, but it could end up undermining that very capital in addition to spending it short-sightedly.
The reaction on this seems to me to have been mirrored recently by the paranoid dust-up at Yglesias's blog - (Matt responded here). While some like Stoller reacted sanely and cogently, most rank-and-file appear to have jumped enmass off the deep end, if the comment thread at Matt's blog is any indication.
Posted by: Kevin | Dec 24, 2008 12:48:32 PM
The problem is Obama's starting with Rick Warren before he's done a thing for us.
There's nothing that Obama CAN do until AFTER he's inaugurated as President.
Posted by: Greg D. | Dec 24, 2008 12:51:07 PM
My problem with the selection of Warren is that obviously Obama is trying to send a message by his action, but I can't figure out what the message is. Was this merely a preliminary sop to the righties before he launches a major initiative to equalize rights for all? If so, then more power to him. Wish my tea leaves were more accurate.
Posted by: Pete Forsyth | Dec 24, 2008 12:55:27 PM
Carla, thank you for putting words to what I've been feeling through all this. Do I wish Obama had picked someone different? YES. Does it make me suddenly disbelieve that Obama is a genuine supporter of gays' right to marriage? NO.
It's an inauguration. It will be over in a heartbeat. Unless we don't let it.
Posted by: Bill R. | Dec 24, 2008 12:57:56 PM
The left blogosphere is in the process of once again marginalizing itself over a militant stand on a single issue. The issue isn't whether gay marriage should or shouldn't be. (It's clear that gay marriage is not going to be a reality anytime soon and any political leader or party who wants to stand on it will go down to defeat. And as we witnessed here in Oregon a judicial order will not alter reality either.)
The issue here is whether anyone who opposes gay marriage has any standing with a Democratic administration. Now people like John Aravosis want to turn their forums into a militant gay mouthpiece, ready to heap garbage and shout hate at Obama and anyone who defends him. Personally I'm sick of Aravosis and the lot of left wing bloggers who want to beat the drum beat of hate towards anyone who doesn't meet their standards. I'm ready for Americans to unite around those issues that unite us,like war and peace, like health care and housing, like jobs and the economy, and to dialogue civilly around those things that don't.
A pox on the poison that Americablog, Daily Kos, and Open Left seem intent on spreading. They also seem intent on making the Democratic Party permanently out of power by their militant and self-destructive rhetoric.
Posted by: Bill R. | Dec 24, 2008 1:03:45 PM
Folks, you who believe that Obama is secretly in favor of a policy of gay marriage need to face up to reality. He is not, and he has said so numerous times. There is no national political leader of any standing who does favor such a policy, and there is no majority support for such a policy. Until there is you are utterly deluding yourself, and apparently willing to hold every other issue hostage to this one issue. Nothing else matters except gay marriage?? Count me out. If the blogosphere believes it has substantial political capital to influence Obama or the Democratic Party to change its position, it is not in this dimension of reality, for sure.
Posted by: George Anonymuncule Seldes | Dec 24, 2008 1:38:09 PM
The problem with this whole analysis is that it posits political capital as a horde of M&Ms, something that can be gained and lost and exchanged in a fairly simple way, the way properties in Monopoly are. It leads to thinking about things like "Well, if I spend it here, I won't be able to spend it there, so I better save it."
Political capital is actually much more like a muscle than it is something external like a piggybank. The more it is exercised, within limits, the more powerful and supple it is. It's possible to exhaust it, just like it's possible to exercise to exhaustion and even damage -- but the much more common problem is atrophy, where the muscle weakens from disuse.
How this model influences the Warren discussion: the piggybank model says that you make a binary choice between trying to get Warren dumped (spending some capital) or not (hoarding your capital). The better model says that every wrong decision by an elected is an opportunity to build the muscle by pushing back judiciously and either getting Warren dumped or extracting some compensating concessions from the incoming administration by threatening to organize people furious about Warren to threaten progress on something that's more important to the administration.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Dec 24, 2008 1:51:40 PM
This discussion reminds me of a favorite passage from Letters from a Birmingham Jail:
We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right.
Posted by: Tom | Dec 24, 2008 1:54:46 PM
I'm not happy about Obama choosing Warren to give the invocation, but I'm learning to live with it. However, I don't want to wait a whole lot longer for the enactment of the rights John K. enumerated (Employment Non-Discrimination Act, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Matthew Shepard Act, federal civil unions or domestic partnerships) or the Defense of Marriage Act to be repealed. We've waited and waited and waited so many years already.
Posted by: Evan | Dec 24, 2008 1:56:24 PM
It's not militant to point out that this choice sucks the big one.
Come on, Obama. There are thousands and thousands of pastors out there you could have picked from. Why this fat, greasy, repugnant one?
Posted by: Garrett | Dec 24, 2008 1:56:28 PM
Rick Warren was a shrewd political move. Look how that guy has had to backpedal on things he's said in the past over this last week alone. The bottom line is that when Barack is running for reelection against whatever Christianist hate monger the Republican right wingers decide to run against Obama in 2012 has to compete with a lot more evangelicals that don't really think Obama is some anti-evangelical President than there would have been before. I'd prefer to have a President like Obama who may not actively try to promote a cause like gay marriage but certainly won't work to ban it than a President like a Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee that do everything in their power to make it not happen in their lifetime.
I sort of crack up because so many on the left think the choice of Warren means Obama is turning on their causes. He's not. It's just a political move. You'll forget who gave the invocation at his inauguration 6 months from now.
Posted by: LT | Dec 24, 2008 2:04:29 PM
"By segmenting the evangelicals, Obama may just be bringing in those who focus on poverty and global climate change--and aren't particularly interested in fighting gay rights. "
Folks, the couple living next door to us attend a church where the whole church read Purpose Driven Life. Agree or disagree, it is a popular book in some quarters, and Warren is the author. Inviting Warren is an outreach to anyone who is glad they read that book. Are some Democrats saying they don't want the support of those people?
Elections are won by gaining the votes of "the folks next door"-the ordinary, nonpolitically active person (90+ % of the population). Warren did Obama a favor before Obama was famous by inviting him to that event at his church with Sam Brownback--ya think Warren got no flak for inviting Obama to that event?
And here's the deal. Change comes slowly. Watch the movie GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER to get an idea of what a hot topic interracial marriage was just 4 decades ago.
I have no problem with a church saying no one will be married in that church unless they pass that church's preparation for marriage class. That can lead to lasting marriages. I understand there are those who regard marriage as a sacrament and thus support civil unions but not gay marriage.
Going on a GAY MARRIAGE NOW! rant or being angry that somaeone is polite to a best selling author because his remarks were inexcusable to a certain segment of the population is not going to end the polarization which has so poisoned this country.
Seems to me that both Obama and Warren understand the power of the Beatitude "Blessed are the peacemakers".
I agree with this
Posted by: Bill R. | Dec 24, 2008 12:57:56 PM
The left blogosphere is in the process of once again marginalizing itself over a militant stand on a single issue.
<<
I have seen this movie before--it was what drove me to drop being involved in Democratic Party politics.
HOW DARE anyone vote against a resolution in State Central Comm. which certain people had proposed--all "good" Democrats agreed with the resolution!
Except that people who had opposed the resolution still got elected to office.
The GOP made a major mistake insisting on ideological purity. If Democrats make the same mistake, it will only increase NAV registration.
Posted by: Kevin | Dec 24, 2008 2:11:57 PM
Sal,
The problem with your quote is it's subjective premise. An easy example would be the numerous self-proclaimed Muslims who commit horrific acts fully believing that in so doing they are co-workers with god.
Lots of what I personally would define as "good" and "evil" has been done in the name of "god". It's entirely subjective as to which is which, just as it's entirely subjective as to who or what constitutes "god".
Personally, I would define "god" very broadly to include a favored ideology.
Posted by: YoungOregonMoonNut | Dec 24, 2008 2:32:22 PM
I am one of those "silent" guilt by silence types according to Sal Peralta's logic.
Personally, I am tired of both loud extremes in the gay marriage debate and am perfectly comfortable with watching them devour each others credibility in the public policy sphere.
The "anti-gay" side has put its money where its mouth is and put the whole "Gay Marriage" question on the ballot for the majority of voters (which includes me) to decide the issue.
It is time for the "pro-gay" side to test the waters and put legalization of Gay Marriage on the ballot in the states.
Lets have a vote otherwise elected judges will determine the issue only to have themselves run out of office by one side for overturning the will of a majority of the voters.
I prefer the former. Some "pro-gay" advocates will act to make the latter occur.
Posted by: Rootabeggie | Dec 24, 2008 2:52:39 PM
Kevin, your inability to move past the word "God" in Sal's quotation and grasp the overall meaning reminds me of another quote:
"Can't see the forest for the trees."
But it was a cute attempt at sounding intellectual.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Dec 24, 2008 2:55:50 PM
Political capital is actually much more like a muscle than it is something external like a piggybank. The more it is exercised, within limits, the more powerful and supple
I find this to be a fundamentally flawed analysis. As I posit in the piece--using political capital this way is very much like crying wolf. Making noise and rattling cages over practically everything makes an individual or an entity marginalized and alarmist.
Sal--your quote seems out of place in the context of this piece. If I said that we should do nothing about civil rights for the LGBTQ community--then it would make sense. But in fact, I'm saying that we absolutely MUST use our political capital for that very purpose. That's quite clearly not what the opposition to Warren is about.
Posted by: Admiral Naismith | Dec 24, 2008 3:09:27 PM
Yep, silly Democrats, always putting principles of right and wrong above political reality.
Why, in the 60s we foolishly threw away the solid Southern voting bloc just for a bunch of uppity dusky-hued folks who took militant stances about getting to vote and not getting lynched and stuff. And look--those Southern states continue to vote Republican to this very day. Clearly, what the party did back then was the wrong thing to do!
If those strange GBLT people knew what was good for them they would just shut up and leave marriage to the real couples! After all, do they want the homophobic Republicans to come back or something?
Isn't that what you're saying, BillR?
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Dec 24, 2008 3:14:59 PM
Kevin - I strongly disagree with your suggestion that there is a moral equivalence between gays peacefully seeking full equality and Islamic extremists who blow themselves and innocent civilians up in suicide bombings.
YOM - I agree with you. I think gays and lesbians should put affirmative gay marriage measures on the ballot every year for the next 20 years in Oregon and California until it passes. It would be cheaper than playing defense.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Dec 24, 2008 3:16:12 PM
How this model influences the Warren discussion: the piggybank model says that you make a binary choice between trying to get Warren dumped (spending some capital) or not (hoarding your capital). The better model says that every wrong decision by an elected is an opportunity to build the muscle by pushing back judiciously and either getting Warren dumped or extracting some compensating concessions from the incoming administration by threatening to organize people furious about Warren to threaten progress on something that's more important to the administration.
I meant to respond to this part too..oops.
Politics is the art of relationships and relationship building. Constantly and consistently "pushing back" against most everything (whether it be a perception or a real issue) is one powerful way of eroding these relationships. Every "wrong decision" by an elected official doesn't have equal value. Some "wrong decisions" can be noted and quickly moved on from. Others are worthy of a protracted battle.
In the cost-benefit analysis of the Warren Invocation, I don't see how opposing brings us any inch closer to the acquisition of civil rights for gays and lesbians. What I do see is a lot of active chatter that can be easily used to marginalize the left. And when the time comes to do the real work of pushing lawmakers for these rights, those already marginalized bloggers are going to find some of that capital spent--and their voices will be of less influence.
Posted by: Kevin | Dec 24, 2008 4:00:03 PM
Sal,
If that's what I'd suggested then you might have a point. But alas I suggested nothing of the sort. I used an example. Indeed, I used the word "example" to communicate the fact that it was an example. Apparently that wasn't sufficient for some...
My suggestion was and remains that the premise undergirding your quote is entirely subjective. Which, I suspect, is why folk like Thomas Jefferson advocated a sharp and distinct separation between Church and State.
Sharing a common conception of "god" I personally can appreciate what MLK was saying there and agree with the gist of it. But not everyone shares that common conception and I think that if nothing else history has taught us that invoking the support of "god" is at best an iffy proposition in terms of results. In fact, I do believe that those who most stridently opposed MLK and everything he stood for also shared a common conception of "god" with him. Indeed, I believe many of them invoked that same "god" in support of their position.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Dec 24, 2008 4:47:29 PM
the concept of God seems to be almost infinitely fugible from religion to religion, idividual to idividual, and even within the various sacred texts.
You'll notice in the bible that the judeo christian version starts out as a more or less paranoid scrapper, fighting to supplant existing middle eastern gods, mostly using genocide (of non chosen tribes) and the death penalty for various forms of disrespect among the chosen to further "his" agenda, using langage like "You shall have no ther gods befoe me". By the end of the New Testament he has become the only "real" god, with all other claimants being simply false gods.
************
Regarding Obama's pick of Warren, I'm with Carla. The evidence of successful wedge driving is that Warren is spinning all over the place, scrubbing his website, etcetera, in an effort to hold onto his mantle of the the reasonable cristian leader. In the4 process, he and his followers will likely learn at least a few lessons about how others view their use of language, and how that actually influences their own view points.
Any situation that forces our opponents into introspection and rationality is a good situation for us.
Merry Christmas to all.....or as Billo has it on his website.....Happy Holidays.
Posted by: Garrett | Dec 24, 2008 5:03:34 PM
I think this mini argument going on over the gay marriage issue is a little ridiculous. The argument is clearly moving in our favor. In 2004 anti-gay marriage amendments were passed by wide margins (Measure 36) and potentially were the primary wedge issue that got the Republican vote to the polls and cost Kerry the election. In 2008 an anti-marriage amendment barely passed and pro prop 8 people used just about every piece of misinformation and lie to get it to pass. Plus the HRC mismanaged their anti prop 8 campaign like you wouldn't believe.
I want everyone to have equal rights as much as everyone else does. The problem that we're dealing with is that both sides have their radical elements. The fact is that gay marriage is not the status quo and a majority of the country is still uncomfortable with it.
What we need to do is educate the other side and not scream at them that they're bigots for being uncomfortable and scared of something they know nothing about.
Posted by: Michael M. | Dec 24, 2008 5:15:32 PM
It's strange to read about so-called "progressive" bloggers protesting the choice of Warren when they supported a candidate (Obama) who stated, repeatedly and emphatically, that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. People, you made your bed, now Obama is making you lie in it. Please stop feigning outrage or disappointment when our President-elect sticks to the principles he was quite clear about during the campaign, in the primaries as well as the general.
Now, who are the representatives of the Neo-Nazi movement or the White Supremacy movement invited to speak at the inaguration? Where's the "inclusivity"? Why is it acceptable to promote the views of a man who's said same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy and bestiality but not the views of people who believe interracial marriage is an abomination?
Oh, could it be that there is nothing remotely "progressive" about Obama or his supporters? Karol, you out there, ready to explain how Obama's promotion of Rick Warren is somehow the GLBT's community's fault because we are all racists and not engaging in enough outreach? Just exactly how many times do we need to reach out to Obama only to be slapped in the face before that argument falls on its ass?
Please, just stop trying to pretend that Obama or the Democratic Party gives a hoot about civil rights. Be honest with yourselves. All the mock hand-wringing is quite tiresome.
Posted by: LT | Dec 24, 2008 5:28:08 PM
"Oh, could it be that there is nothing remotely "progressive" about Obama or his supporters? "
Could it be that Obama is more moderate and pragmatic than ideological, and that I will stop the italics?
Posted by: LT | Dec 24, 2008 5:34:18 PM
Perhaps measuring religion in terms of politics or vice versa doesn't really appeal to moderate people?
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/12/southern_baptist_decline_and_g.html
The brand is less appealing. After 30 years of theo-political warfare within the denomination and the culture, which has included the merciless purging of evangelical moderates and even conservatives from all Southern Baptist school and agencies, not to mention strong public support for the Republican Party and Administration, the words "Southern Baptist" carry more negatives than positives. The largest and most prominent Southern Baptist congregation in America -- Rick Warren's Saddleback Church -- doesn't even use the word Baptist in its name.
Posted by: focus on what matters | Dec 24, 2008 5:37:12 PM
We should spend our capital first on policy making, second on policy making appointments (like the Court), and LAST (aka almost never) on honorary positions.
Posted by: Garrett | Dec 24, 2008 6:24:08 PM
Just exactly how many times do we need to reach out to Obama only to be slapped in the face before that argument falls on its ass?
Would you prefer to be reaching out to the McCain-Palin Presidency?
Yeah, didn't think so.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Dec 24, 2008 7:17:12 PM
repeating what some very committed, intelligent and pragmatic friends from the GLBT community told me, after decades of promises, lies, and being shat upon, this is just too much. imagine: Hillary had won & invited to her inauguration David Duke. that's what it feels like to many in the GLBT community. whatever the politics, the gut-kick effect is overwhelming.
on the flip side, as a former evangelical, i can tell you that millions of Americans believe Obama's election to be yet another sign of the end times. seriously. his unequivocal support for a woman's right to choose, the appeal he has to the world (much as the Antichrist will have...), his support of gay rights (sadly, stopping short of stated support for marriage equality), and so on "prove" America is heading towards hell.
Obama knows this. his is a Christianity far different than theirs -- it's inclusive, based on love and not fear, and with no belief in an actual end times -- but he understands where these people are. what my GLBT friends get wrong is that, in their pain (fully justifiable pain, i might add) they reject the right of evangelicals to be part of the political society Obama promised to build starting in Boston 2004. most evangelicals will reject Obama's welcome; Rick Warren has not, and for all that Warren is wrong about, to make the step he has towards Obama's "united states" is massive. those who've never been of that religious orientation have no idea.
i think this was a mistake by Obama's team, but i also think by the time he finishes his inaugural address, no one will remember much of anything else. let's not forget how massive his election is. when Barack Obama becomes President Barack Obama -- the world changes.
we were clueless 2 years ago what an Obama candidacy would mean. imagine how clueless we are about the actual presidency.
Posted by: LT | Dec 24, 2008 7:32:22 PM
Good answer, Garrett
Obama never was a candidate of a particular group--he wouldn't have won by such a margin that way.
I believe TA is right.
"...what my GLBT friends get wrong is that, in their pain (fully justifiable pain, i might add) they reject the right of evangelicals to be part of the political society Obama promised to build starting in Boston 2004. most evangelicals will reject Obama's welcome; Rick Warren has not, and for all that Warren is wrong about, to make the step he has towards Obama's "united states" is massive. those who've never been of that religious orientation have no idea."
But then, I had a Baptist roommate in college who was every bit as fundamentalist as S. Baptists at their worst. Maybe getting along with someone like that for a very interesting year (the 1967-68 school year--imagine all that went on then) makes me more open minded than some folks.
Posted by: Zarathustra | Dec 24, 2008 8:53:59 PM
t.a.'s right about the futility of predicting, but I can see why the concerned are concerned. There's been a long line of issues since the end of WWII that can all be characterized by "no politician in their right mind will admit to considering it", all supported by a majority of Dems, and the party has never gone back to one of them; all are evils still. It's like a slow drip, a political water torture, one after another, always hitting right at the place where your political feelings are most sensitive, drip, drip, drip, wearing down the edges, eroding the base.
Challenging the military industrial complex, a different metaphor for dealing with the Soviet Union than a cold war, the Equal Rights Amendment, decriminalization of drugs and an end to Nixon's War on Drugs, greater Congressional oversight of the intelligence community, the EEOC charter, degregulation of the airwaves and dissolution of the FCC, resizing and reforming the post cold war military, universal health coverage, gays in the military, and gay marriage, it's been one issue after another. When you say there's no support, no majority support, you mean at large, right? Do you really mean that 51% of Democrats wouldn't support gay marriage? That's the disturbing thing. Every one of those issues probably had 51% of the Democratic base pulling for it, but it was always "we have to be real". Not one of those issues was addressed and all continue to be problems.
As to the choice of the invocation, as I've mentioned on here more than once, there were people that pointed out that Rick Warren's Saddleback Church ain't Brokeback Church. Obama's choosing that forum for his first joint appearance with McCain was panned here as a non-issue. I sure hope that none of those people are the ones disappointed with his latest ministerial perrogative. That's one point I have to disagree with those that say wait. Psychologist use the inaugural speech to do personality assessment, based on the theory that it's one of the individual's more personal statements. His choice for the invocation, given his known religious predilections, might well be an indicator that although Obama is a good man and we share his sentiments, he might not exercise them in making his decisions. This choice seems to be all about "see I'm not with a radical pastor". He's not just avoiding Clinton's mistakes with the military, he might be also avoiding Carter's "mistakes" with conscience. I've been saying that since 2000 the Democratic party decided that the means justify the ends and that they can't afford their traditional idealism. With Obama's inauguration that hypothesis can be falsified, so, it can also be demonstrated to be accurate. I'll be happy if there is nothing new to add to that list of issues, and ecstatic if I can take one off it.
Posted by: Buckman Res | Dec 24, 2008 8:55:18 PM
Does it make me suddenly disbelieve that Obama is a genuine supporter of gays' right to marriage? NO.
Maybe there was another Barack Obama running for president but the one we’re all talking about here made no bones about his opposition to gay marriage during the campaign, as did his running mate. More than once BHO said his Christian values made him steadfastly opposed to anything other than traditional one man/woman matrimony. Unless you're accusing him of lying through his teeth why would make the above statement?
As the Rev Wright said, Obama is a politician doing what politicians do. He knows the country is opposed to gay marriage and he’s not going to waste his political capital alienating the majority of voters.
It’s not like he’s going to lose the support of gays anyway. What would they do, start supporting Republicans? He’s a smart pol who knows he has their vote in spite of the handwringing over Rev Warren. Welcome to Politics 101.
Posted by: KC Hanson | Dec 24, 2008 9:16:51 PM
You know, the GLBT Community who is getting marginalized by many on the left, and it's happening right here. Axtman simply parrots Dionne, who offers, like many others, what a saavy political move this is by Obama.
What have we had - 5 or 6 columns about the freakin' snow and this is the first on Warren? how about posting one by an out GLBT activist for a little fair and balanced.
I'll save you the trouble, and post what I submitted days ago:
I hope all you strategists feel the same when its your liberty on the line... read on...
(BTW, it is personal, very personal, but that's what it's like for GLBT folk)
Inaugural Blues - GLBT Bashed Again
In life’s twist of wrenching ironies, the first week in November catapulted me into both the most exhilarating and tragic moments of my life. On Sunday, November 2, my closest friend of the past eighteen years, a "bi" women of only 51, suffered a devastating heart attack. On Tuesday, Nov. 4, the 8pm PST proclamation of an Obama victory provoked the joyous outcry of an inspired community and world. On Wednesday and Thursday, it became clear that Multnomah County Dems and allies had met every election goal including an assist in electing Jeff Merkley, a solid GLBT advocate, to the US Senate. On Friday, Nov. 7 my friend died.
Amidst all of this, hideous decisions were made in 4 states that denied the very humanity of my dying friend. During the same hours that Sandra’s girlfriend was at her side, California voters told the world that her girlfriend had no right to be there.
Sandra’s life, and the life of every GLBT person nationwide, was cast as less significant, less worthy, and was politically stripped of the relationship that makes life whole – both in celebration and in tragedy. In the deepest, most personal way, I felt hurt and betrayed by voters who pointedly told me that neither my friend nor I had any right to have our partners with us even – and especially – in the most dire moments of life.
After the passage of a month I came to a place where I directed less blame at the citizens of California than at the mechanisms of money and campaign gamesmanship. Smarmy right wing pundits and their ilk got the upper hand and won a debate. (That this bunch professes to have the psychological acumen, the moral imperative, and intimate familiarity to know, understand and dictate decisions for me has grated on me for years.)
But now this wound has been ripped open as the very icon of the Pro-Prop 8/ anti-GLBT forces has been rewarded with the most prominent speaking engagement of his already mega-public life. Rick Warren, who professes that gay relationships are no different than incest, will deliver the Invocation at Barack Obama's Jan. 20 Inaugural. In front of the entire country and the entire world, Warren, whose anti-gay rants have included interviews that equated us with pedophiles, will be on hallowed ground at one of the most significant moments of America's history. The smarmy right wing pundit will be on the biggest stage in recent memory.
The Obama camp argues that all points of view are welcome in the Obama Presidency. Fine, but not at Inauguration. The Inauguration is not a forum for debate and counterpoints; it is a time for celebration and coalescence. John Kennedy had conversations with Southern separatists who supported Jim Crow laws, but he didn't have George Wallace on the Inaugural Podium in 1961.
The sting of the Warren slap injures us deeply in the GLBT community. Time after time, after devoting our lives to causes of civil rights - for women's suffrage, for the civil rights movement, for the rights of workers, we as a community ultimately get slung under the bus. It's always "Thanks for your efforts, but you are too controversial; we'll work on your issues later." As a community, we hoped Obama would be different. The Warren selection doesn't necessarily foretell Obama's policies, but it does make it clear that Obama regards GLBT issues as negotiable concerns, not inalienable rights. That Obama didn't see how deeply this Warren selection hurts us is telling and troubling.
It is not California or Arkansas voter, buffaloed by well-funded campaigns, but it is the very leader we supported so adamantly who has betrayed us, albeit ceremonially. Can this wound be healed? Yes it can. The first step should be the inclusion of a prominent, politically active GLBT individual ON the podium WITH a speaking role. Secondly, but more critically, GLBT individuals should receive high level appointments. Known GLBT status has long been a reason for exclusion, not inclusion, in the competition for significant White House positions.
Finally, Barack Obama needs to follow and make good on his recent rhetoric that he is a "staunch advocate" for GLBT. In doing so, he needs to understand that to us, we're not just talking about issues; we are talking about our civil liberties, our rights, and our lives.
KC Hanson
Posted by: steve Novick | Dec 24, 2008 9:35:07 PM
Just FYI, here is a link to the Google archives of the old Saddleback "Q&A" on a variety of issues (suddenly wiped away from their home page in recent days). Everyone other than Christians going to Hell, dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans, etc.
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:PXTZQFA_15kJ:www.saddlebackfamily.com/membership/group_finder/faqs_saddleback.asp%3Fid%3D7509+http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/membership/group_finder/faqs_saddleback.asp%3Fid%3D7509&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Dec 24, 2008 9:43:55 PM
KC:
I'm very sorry for your loss. But a protracted protest against Warren here does nothing to bring about the rights your friend richly deserved.
I have skin in this one, believe me. One of my dearest and closest loved ones is being denied these same civil rights. That's why it matters so much to me that we use our political capital appropriately and wisely--so that we have the juice when the time comes to cajole and lobby on real policy.
Posted by: Susan | Dec 24, 2008 10:05:05 PM
I'm fascinated by the lack of response from women to the fact that Rick Warren is not just anti-choice, but that he equates abortion with the Holocaust. And women who exercise their right to an abortion are, in his eyes, like Adolf Hitler. What a charming and compassionate sentiment. I suffered through a pre-Roe abortion and I'm Jewish. Rick Warren's comments about the subject of abortion and the Holocaust are, indeed, very personal and why wouldn't they be? But then, when you come right down to it, all politics is personal.
Obama may have made what is considered a shrewd political move, but to those of us who have heard and read Rick Warren's comments, it's impossible to believe our president-elect couldn't have found someone - somewhere- whose views on human rights issues are less egregious than those of Warren.
Rick Warren's words sound a warning to me, a reminder that not only are there those who disagree with the right to choose, but whose attitudes spew forth like venom.
The GLBT community is not the only one to be marginalized in all of this, but I stand with every GLBT member, including those I love, when I say that this decision by Obama was a colossal mistake. If he wants to court those evangelicals who are like-minded on climate change and the environment, kudos to him. But to do it by having Rick Warren give the invocation is just too sharp a slap. And for those who think that after Obama makes his rousing inaugural address, pro-choice advocates and the GLBT community will be swooning and will happily forget that Rick Warren was anywhere near the President of the United States, think again.
For the last eight years, we have been told that to disagree is undemocratic. To voice dissent was traitorous. And to get along we have to go along. But I maintain that dissent is quintessentially patriotic. It's up to each and every one of us to speak up to our legislators and hold them accountable for their words and actions. And to remind them that politics is personal.
Nobody who publicly equates abortion with the Holocaust and women who choose the option of abortion of being like Adolf Hitler will ever get support from me no matter what he does with other issues. Because this is very personal, indeed.
Posted by: Zarathustra | Dec 24, 2008 10:09:57 PM
It’s not like he’s going to lose the support of gays anyway. What would they do, start supporting Republicans? He’s a smart pol who knows he has their vote in spite of the handwringing over Rev Warren. Welcome to Politics 101.
Non-parliamentary politics, 101. If he had a coalition government, a pol would care. We've spent enough bandwidth though on the tyranny of the majority.
Posted by: KC Hanson | Dec 24, 2008 10:29:05 PM
Carla, I can appreciate that you are essentially on "our side," but I think we make a critical error when we blindly and quietly accept explanations that aren't quite up to snuff.
"Political capital" makes it sound as if we're in some football game, and hey, we're only allowed 3 timeouts per half. If that's the case, who chooses the when and where - and who is the "we"?
If Obama is true to his word, he does want to hear the independent thought - and that should include the outrage. Ultimately, that's the only way anyone - from elected official to political activist to Joe Blow - will ever begin to get that GLBT concerns are about critical human rights and not simply negotiable fodder for policy wonks.
Posted by: kari chisholm | Dec 24, 2008 11:04:43 PM
I strongly urge everyone to go back up and re-read TA's comment above. He's dead right.
Greg D asks what message Obama is trying to send. It's actually quite simple: Obama recognizes that evangelical Christianity is not monolithic - and he'd like to encourage and empower that segment that believes that social issues like stopping abortion and gay rights are NOT the most important policy issues. Warren is one of the few evangelical leaders who is pushing an agenda focused on poverty, darfur, and global warming.
Carla's post is about political capital. With this move, Obama is driving a wedge in the evangelical political community -- between those who are open to finding common ground and those who think he's a secret Muslim terrorist/socialist Anti-Christ. Literally.
I recommend that folks spend a littlebtime studying the right-wing and evangelical Christianity. Once you've got as good an understanding of all the subfactions of the right as we all do of the left, well, you'll be much better equipped to analyze situations like this one.
Posted by: KC Hanson | Dec 24, 2008 11:26:34 PM
Thanks for the link, Steve, I've pulled the Q & A on Homosexuality:
Enjoy.
#48
What does the Bible say about homosexuality?
The Bible very clearly says that homosexuality is a sin.
"Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin." (Lev. 18:22 TLB)
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Cor 6:9-11 NIV)
While all sin is destructive, Romans 6 warns us of the great dangers in sexual sin when it says, "Run away from sexual sin! No other sin so clearly affects the body as this one does. For sexual immorality is a sin against your own body." (1 Cor 6:18 NLT) This includes not only homosexuality, but all sexual immorality: adultery, sex without marriage, pornography. We must not act as if homosexuality is the only serious sexual sin, and we must not act as if homosexuality is not a serious sexual sin.
I've heard it asked, "Isn't being homosexual something that a person is physically born with?" First of all, there are absolutely no facts to support this claim. From time to time studies have been reported in the news that seemed to indicate this, but every one of these studies has proven to be wrong. Secondly, even if some physical difference were discovered, it would be no excuse for sin. We know that some people can develop a stronger physical addiction to alcohol than others, but that's obviously no excuse for living an alcoholic lifestyle.
Finally, a word about being judgmental. It's not judgmental to say that what the Bible calls a sin is a sin, that's just telling the truth. Not being willing to talk to someone caught up in sin, or not believing that they can be forgiven, or thinking that you are not just as much in need of Jesus as they are ... that's being judgmental.
Because membership in a church is an outgrowth of accepting the Lordship and leadership of Jesus in one’s life, someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted at a member at Saddleback Church. That does not mean they cannot attend church – we hope they do! God’s Word has the power to change our lives.
In equal desire to follow Jesus, we also would not accept a couple into membership at Saddleback who were not willing to repent of the sexual sin of living together before marriage. That does not mean this couple cannot attend church – we hope they do! God’s Word has the power to change our lives.
Posted by: susan | Dec 24, 2008 11:54:36 PM
Steve and KC,
Thanks for your insightful comments. Beliefnet has the Warren interviews on gay marriage and abortion...loads of fun for late night.
Posted by: Chuck Butcher | Dec 24, 2008 11:55:39 PM
Political capital? What exactly is that supposed to be? There are votes and there are courts and that is what you've got. If you can show votes, that's your capital, or get the courts to do for you. One can rail about justice and all that til doomsday and in the end it will be votes or courts.
Now, if I had just had my head handed to me in California in an Obama election I'd have walked away with a lesson. Scaring religion and the religious is a bad idea. I'd be real surprised if nobody got the idea that religion and gay marriage are in opposition for a whole lot of people. The idea that you're going to separate people from that stance in regards to their religion is pretty far fetched as a near time event. You might be able to persuade people that there is a difference between the State's ends and the ends of Religion and that would start by demonstrating a respect for their religion - whether you agree with it or not. I get a lot of practice at that since I do not practice any organized religion. That would put me in a distinct minority.
If anybody here cares that the 'Rick Warrens' preach that homosexuality and abortion and... are sins, you're going to have a lot of upset in your life for a very long time. That is the reality of religions, what matters is whether they interfere in the interests of the State and keeping them out of that starts by showing them that the State isn't trying to DO anything to them.
If you want to assure them that you do wish them harm, by all means go after Rick Warren, try and cut his throat. It will be remembered. If you're going to take the stance that Warren's church is undeserving of respect you sure better be an avowed non-practitioner of any orgainized religion. Personally, I'd leave god out of it entirely, but Americans seem to think it's a big deal.
I care a great deal about the issue of gay marriage, but I'm not the least upset with the Warren pick. That is for the simple reason that I like to win because that is what counts.
I'm also sure I've just wasted this piece of time...
Posted by: KC Hanson | Dec 25, 2008 12:20:09 AM
and Kari, George is dead right:
Political capital is actually much more like a muscle than it is something external like a piggybank. The more it is exercised, within limits, the more powerful and supple it is. It's possible to exhaust it, just like it's possible to exercise to exhaustion and even damage -- but the much more common problem is atrophy, where the muscle weakens from disuse.
Do not make the mistake of assuming GLBT activists are clueless about the strategy of Obama's move. Clearly, the risk of pissing off the GLBT community was a risk that Obama & Co. figured into the equation. They expected heat from this, and they deserve heat about this.
Further, do not expect GLBT activists to not recognize that there are dire issues in which we can all, even Warren, engage from a common perspective. Committed, progressive GLBT activists do get the big picture, and understand that even a guy like Warren can play a huge role given his following.
But for lefties to expect GLBT folks to quietly acquiesce to the Obama Invocation decision is silly in 2 respects: 1. because it is such a slap to the GLBT Community, and 2. because Team Obama knew that it would come.
Condescending lectures about the Christian Right do not play well with me, my friend; I've been dealing with all varieties of them since sideburns were in style.
(Gee, I guess I'm blowing my political capital, here.)
Posted by: James X. | Dec 25, 2008 1:23:06 AM
I'm not going to shut up out of political expediency. If someone says I don't belong in his church, that evolution should have wiped me out had it existed, that I'm "equivalent" to a child molester, etc., then I will vocally object when a president tries to present that person as a moral leader for America. I would expect Jews, African-Americans, and anyone else to do the same had the bigotry been directed at them, and I wouldn't think I even had a say in whether those people should pipe down.
Posted by: edison | Dec 25, 2008 1:44:37 AM
As insulting to LGBTs that placing Warren on the podium for the inauguration is, even non-LGBTs should be insulted by this. It should be understood that this man’s beliefs are an affront to any critical thinker. To suggest that Warren’s only “claim to fame” is his position on LGBT issues glosses over his other stated positions (e.g. Warren does not believe in evolution, has compared abortion to the Holocaust and backed the assassination of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. ).
From The Nation: ( http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081229/posner?rel=hp_picks ) “Warren represents the absolute worst of the Democrats' religious outreach, a right-winger masquerading as a do-gooder anointed as the arbiter of what it means to be faithful.”
Everyone has the right, and for some it's actually a responsibility, to point out boneheaded moves whether they're made by rightwing nuts or Barack Obama. Putting it as simply as I can, Warren's a creep.
And to Carla, the political capital argument is just a bit specious. I adore your posts for the most part, but I think you're off-base on this one. The same argument has been rolled out on Obama’s nominees for Interior, Agriculture, Treasury, and the chief trade representative, to name a few.
It remains to be seen how an Obama presidency will play out, but when he or his “team” make decisions, disagreements must be aired. Blind faith in the new president’s judgment is just that – blind.
Posted by: Torridjoe | Dec 25, 2008 6:54:23 AM
Whew! At first I thought this was about Obama blowing capital. I don't think I agree so much with the idea that being upset about this uses "capital" in any real sense, but I also think that misses the point that this is really an issue where political currency is in play. I fully support the right of Aravosis to bitch, and I highly doubt he costs anybody the right or opportunity to bitch in the future.
That said, I agree with Carla on this one: this isn't worth making an important statement about, for a couple of reasons. First and most obviously, warren is a personal friend and the choice of speakers is a personal decision. When you get elected, YOU can choose whom to invite. Further, what is the practical impact of the choice? Zero. Not inviting him would have had no effect on gay rights; inviting him won't stop the inevitable passage of those rights in more states as we move forward.
So we're left with optics. I agree it's poor optics, and Obama could have saved himself some trouble. But he chose a strong GLBT supporter for the benediction. So what does THAT mean? Are evangelical haters supposed to go to the mattresses over that? The mistake here I think is that warren represents a proxy for political intent at the policy level. If there was political intent--and I'm not certain there was--it was to bring together diverse groups over common cause. Obama's central political point is that on a basic level, we're only going to turn things around by working together despite deep differences. Obama and his invited pastors agree on a primary focus for poverty, hunger, etc. And on the official day that the turnaround is to begin, those voices should be brought together.
Here's a thought: didn't good liberals and others do the right thing by not using Rev. Wright as a proxy for Obama's beliefs? Didn't we ridicule the right for trying to do so? So--why is the left trying to pin warren's more odious beliefs on Obama?
I do have to laugh at the person who's crushed by this and prop 8, but was cheered by Merkley's election as a victory for gay rights--the same guy who would prefer that gays be left to fend for their marital rights at church rather than City Hall.
Lastly, I cringe at the suggestion that human rights should best be subject to popular opinion. Should we vote on racial intermarriage too? Civil rights are not votable. We will see this made fact in California very soon, I believe, as we should. And when the largest state in the union makes the change, and the globe doesn't stop spinning, the dominos will fall faster.
Posted by: BOHICA | Dec 25, 2008 7:08:07 AM
"I no more understand the need for a religious invocation at a secular political event than I do the need for the national anthem to be played before a ballgame."
As usual, Tbogg hits the nail on the head. Religiosity has no place in the workings of this government. We are not a "Christian nation". At least not according to the Treaty of Tripoli, which was ratified by the Senate and therefore became the "Supreme law of the land". (Article VI US Constitution)
Treaty of Tripoli ARTICLE 11.As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
It all just disgusts me, as does the constant bloviating by the talking hairdos (both in the media and the pulpit) on this subject. As the old saying goes, Lord protect me from your followers.
Posted by: Benedict XVI | Dec 25, 2008 7:52:17 AM
As mentioned above, "warren is a personal friend and the choice of speakers is a personal decision. When you get elected, YOU can choose whom to invite." True statement, but that does not mean that he can do so w/out some type of response. I am sure that many in this room would not have let Bush or Cheney off the hook for one of their "personal choices" they get to make as president.
When a decision is made like this---giving warren a place of high standing--after he helped pass proposition 8 in California--Obama should hear from us. This is a bad move. This tells me that Obama is supporting what warren and the catholic and morman churches did in California.--Yes, I know that Obama does not support gay marriage, but that does not mean he has a right to take away the rights that were given to people in California.
If we supported Obama, we have a right to say when he is making a mistake.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Zarathustra | Dec 24, 2008 12:28:29 PM
I find it ironic that during the period when arbitrage and fund-managed bulk buying took daily share volumes from maybe 200 million on a heavy day to the gazillions traded today that the blogosphere has gained importance. You can say it was a historical coincidence, that it's when the technology happened to evolve, but my point would be that the street lost it's voice in the share volume. The street may exhibit a herd mentality and it may play way too short, but on the long term it was seldom wrong. I think the blogosphere has been expanding to fill that vacuum. It used to be if you wanted to really know the outcome of something, you would look to the street. Now I would look to the blogs.