Back To Dumb Democrat Tricks

Pam Spaulding, of course, has excellent info and commentary regarding Rick Warren's selection to stand on a street corner and pray in public for Obama's inauguration.  But Ezra has the best insight into this, stating that

[a]n argument can be made that Obama is using Warren Warren, after all, is the author of the best selling book of all time, and Obama's demonstrated respect for the preacher might build some level of rapport, or at least openness, with that community. But I doubt it. Rather, the benefits probably flow in the other direction. Warren's legitimacy as a mainstream figure grows. His status as the country's premiere religious leader is cemented. And he keeps telling his flock that the ideas Democrats hold make them Marxists and child murderers and advocates of the slippery slope to legalized incest.

Obama's embrace of Warren might mean Obama's name is left out of the sermon, but will that be true for the next Democrat? Or the next? And so we'll have a situation where the preacher that Obama embraced is working aggressively to convince his flock to vote against Obama's would-be Democratic successors? There's a difference between reaching out to the evangelical community with respect and surrendering to it.

Quite right, except for Ezra's last statement; as far as the Evangelical community is concerned, "reaching out" to them is surrenduring to them. 

I've been expecting Obama to disappoint me.  But I had the admittedly naive idea that Obama would make compromises in the pursuit of an actual accomplishment, something intelligent.  Obama ran such a smart campaign it's surprising to see him make such a stupid - and prototypically DC Democrat - mistake.

Billy Graham was at least a neutral "friend" to American Presidents.  Rick Warren will be no such thing.  He will kiss Obama's ass in private and when he's invited to ego-stroking events, and then will scurry back to his church, as Ezra says, smearing Democrats in general if not Obama by name as pedophiles and child murderers.  And everyone that matters - you know, the DC Villagers - will nod and call it realpolitik.

Rick Warren is a liar, and Barack Obama is stupidly buying his lies.

Comments

[MR Bill]

I dunno, Stephen: Billy Graham generally pushed a republican line from what I can remember. Much, as a gay man, I'd like to see Warren marginalized, that Mr. Obama went to the Saddleback forum was a big part of my folks (who are evangelicals, hell, they've been missionaries to Guatemala and Romania)decision to vote for Obama and for a lot of former Bush voters who went Democratic. Sad, but true, the man is already validated to the millions who bought his (crappy) book.
Warren's behaviour in Prop 8 should place him beyond the pale as far a progressives might feel, but a 1-2 minute prayer give Obama leverage with the Evangelical vote, and dispels the still powerful lie that he is Muslim, or gay.
I can take a symbolic slap in the face, and hold fire until Obama actually does something in POLICY that isanti-GLBT.
Hustlers like Warren might be useful. I ain't happy, but the die is cast, and getting Warren off the podium would be worse politics at this point, IMO. Of course, I will write and will complain; and hope that just maybe Rick can be made in time to admit his lies re: Prop Hate.

[BruceMcF]

Understanding why picking Warren is bad and making a political fight to get Warren off the podium are two distinct things.

Understanding that its not a wise political move is part of understanding the limitations of the Obama administration. It ought to lead to greater awareness that there will be an occasion when we have to mobilize something that the Obama administration does, and so we need to be pursuing Congressional and state political engagement, and not pinning all of our hopes in an Imperial Presidency.

However, while its a warning, and demonstration of the need to prepare, there's little prospect of winning on making a fight of it, and if won, it would seem to be a victory with very little upside. And the limited upside then makes it all the more difficult to mobilize people for a fight with limited prospects of success.

[Sir Charles]

I really think this was a bad and insulting decision to Obama's supporters. I am all for creative pragmatism that expands the scope fo the politically possible. I don't see how treating an ignorant, egotistical douche bag like Warren as a respectable human being fits this bill.

Bah!

[Stephen]

but a 1-2 minute prayer give Obama leverage with the Evangelical vote, and dispels the still powerful lie that he is Muslim, or gay.

Your people aren't very Evangelical if they managed to vote for Obama. I guarantee you that McCain handily won the Saddleback caucus, because Warren's church is not only for social conservatives, but rich social conservatives.

Obama got around 20-25% of the Evangelical vote, about the same as Kerry, and the GOP put up a candidate that had been openly hostile to Evangelicals, with prominent theocrats like Dobson hopping on board fairly late.

It's for (slightly) different reasons, but Obama has as much hope of capturing a majority of KKK members as he does Evangelicals.

Understanding why picking Warren is bad and making a political fight to get Warren off the podium are two distinct things.

I'm not exactly saying that we need to emulate the Religious Right on everything, but you do understand why they control the GOP, right? You understand why their narratives are dominant on every newscast, every newsmagazine and newspaper? And you get why they're able to push Democrats, let alone Republicans, around by merely hinting that they might be upset, while we can scream and holler and protest and organize and do all sorts of things with only a mixed record to show for it?

It's because they fight all the time. They fight over everything. They don't compromise, and every politician and journalist in the country knows this as deeply as they know the ass characteristics of their biggest donors.

Rick Warren isn't a compromise, he's a surrender. And his presence at the inauguration is, I assure you, merely the first in a long line of appearances he's going to make with Obama. He'll have greater access to the White House, both by phone and in person, than every GLBTQ advocate put together, because whatever Obama's personal feelings and in spite of solid electoral evidence to the contrary, the DC Democrat line is still that they need to lurch to the right, to the right, to the right all the time.

Picking our battles is fine, but sooner or later we need to, you know, actually pick a battle or two instead of always justifying whatever our politicians do merely because it could be worse.

[Corvus]

As I already pointed out at Cogitamus' donkyheaded alien-spawn, Joseph Lowery has been chosen to give the benediction. I think this changes the context here. Yeah, a homophobic white guy will give the convocation. And an antihomophobic, gay-marriage-supporting black guy will give the benediction. This is more a matter of balancing then support one way or another.

Yeah, I was pissed when I heard about Warren. Fuck him. may his flock wander to the direwolves of Liberalism. But I see nothing wrong with giving both the religious right and left a place at a presidential inauguration.

[MR Bill]

From Obama's Inaugural Talking Points, (via HuffPo)
"• The President-elect disagrees with Pastor Warren on issues that affect the LGBT community. They disagree on other issues as well. But what's important is that they agree on many issues vital to the pursuit of social justice, including poverty relief and moving toward a sustainable planet; and they share a commitment to renewing America's promise by expanding opportunity at home and restoring our moral leadership abroad.

• As he's said again and again, the President-elect is committed to bringing together all sides of the faith discussion in search of common ground. That's the only way we'll be able to unite this country with the resolve and common purpose necessary to solve the challenges we face."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/18/obamas-talking-points-on_n_152056.html

I agree that Warren is odious. But he has a following, and seems to like the spotlight enough to be used.
I quit doing outrage over the small stuff, and short of torture, war (including class war), and the like. For progressives the symbolism sucks, but it's really small stuff. His remarks on Ahmadinejad are as much a disqualification but the President elect (a notorious moderate, whatever the righty propaganda) has chosen to reach out to him.
Here's John Cole, I understand where he's coming from:
"I hate being a Democrat. Just absolutely hate it. Most short-sighted fucking people on the planet. While the Repulicans have essentially accomplished every goal they wanted over the past thirty years by slowly plodding forward (check out the shifts in income, check out the shifts in the center of our politics, check out the fact that beligerence towards other nations is the status quo and the “moderate” position), yet democrats are ready to impeach because Obama is having a wingnut give a 1 minute prayer." http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=14800#comments

And please don't tell me how evangelical my folks are.
I will never be able to come out to them, and have come to terms with it. It's as annoying as being told that I'm not gay enough, or don't have the right attitudes as a gay man and liberal.

Again, I'm holding my fire for a real outrage. I'm sure they are coming. Let's get the bastard in office, m'kay?

[Stephen]

But I see nothing wrong with giving both the religious right and left a place at a presidential inauguration.

Will white supremacists be in attendance on the dais? Will holocaust-deniers be given (unofficial) advisory roles in Obama's administration? What about people who believe that the moon landings were faked - will they be given spots at NASA? Should global warming deniers continue to enjoy prime spots throughout our government?

What about the FDA? Should we keep anti-contraception weirdos that think the Pill is abortifacient? Should we just continue to let corporations run the EPA?

Rick Warren thinks that incest, pedophilia and murder are on a par with homosexuality. He thinks it's just fine to assassinate foreign leaders, something that is expressly against the law and for which there is not only no biblical justification, but which is condemned by David's example in his dealings with King Saul.

If Obama isn't expected to let racists and fringe conspiracy theorists into his administration, even "unofficially," then there is no reason to include people who claim on a regular basis that homosexuals, for no other reason than being sexually attracted to people of their own gender, are horrible sinners who deserve hell, just like people who rape children.

Do we really need to be reminded that time was when the majority of Americans disputed the full humanity of non-whites and even women, and that this was based upon a literal reading of the Bible?

But Rick Warren is pleasingly plump, soft-spoken and has a retarded youth pastor goatee. And millions of his fellow Americans also justify their burning hatred and active discrimination against their fellow men and women by proof-texting the Bible, so I guess it's ok.

Thank God, literally, that the old Quakers and other abolitionists weren't so reasonable.

[Stephen]

And please don't tell me how evangelical my folks are.

I'm sorry about that. I meant that they're unusual in that they voted for Obama, which we can see by Obama's dismal support among Evangelicals in general.

While the Repulicans have essentially accomplished every goal they wanted over the past thirty years by slowly plodding forward (check out the shifts in income, check out the shifts in the center of our politics, check out the fact that beligerence towards other nations is the status quo and the “moderate” position), yet democrats are ready to impeach because Obama is having a wingnut give a 1 minute prayer.

Cole isn't making any sense here. If the GOP is slowly plodding forward, that supports my contention that they're willing to fight every battle, even the small ones. You don't make incremental gains by holding your fire until some big, huge battle presents itself. And you don't build a movement by telling everyone to just chill out until later. When later comes, they'll have forgotten all about you and why they should care what you think.

We need to stop giving America's hate caucus - full of hypocrites and liars - a voice. We need to stop thinking that people who hate homosexuals are somehow different in their thinking and motivation than racists and holocaust deniers. We need to stop thinking that giving into them, never asking for the smallest compromise from them, is going to change their minds.

I suppose we could just wait for all of them to die. Of course, if the abolitionists had pursued that strategy we'd be looking at outlawing slavery a few decades from now, but as long as one takes a long view of history it's not that bad.

[MR Bill]

I suppose we could just wait for all of them to die.

Well, Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions seemed to suggest that is how old paradigms die, with the people who hold them.
I generally agree that this was boneheaded of Obama. I don't get it.
But I'm struggling as a single parent (and may just not make the rent, if weather keeps me from working this month, never mind the Xmas thing, which, someday, I will tell you why we don't do much of...), so there is a lot more important things just now than the haters. They lost this one, and Rick Warren (as the zetigeist moves, as my kid's generation is having less trouble with gays) will be co-opted. He's at least making noises about poverty and global warming I can stand.
Let me add that I studied Theology, and am by no means a Christian. Jesus was a great philosopher (something I actually agree with G.W. about), but, as Gandhi said "Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." When I attend church it's at a Unitarian congregation so open we have atheist Republicans.
I am writing the President Elect to protest Warren, but I'm willing to give him credit for reaching out to someone I consider scum. Beyond that, I'm not sure what else to do. The local paper is full of antigay hater's letters (and now that pouring alcohol is about to come to this dry county, they are spouting that this will bring gay bars, as if..) I compromise with evil everyday, as my boss is a raging bigot. Sometimes it happens in the real world.

[Corvus]

Yeah, but the Quakers and other abolitionists didn't have to run the entire country.

One of things I hated most about the Bush years, or at least the years when Bush was popular, was the since of alienation I felt from the country as a whole. Here was someone as dismissive of your side, of people like you, is president, and popular at the same time. When the president says that the American people need to pray in this time of need, doesn't mention thoughts at all, and disagrees with you on every single political issue, it's hard not to feel like people don't consider you a citizen. That you are unAmerican.

One of the reasons I am as reflexively supportive of Obama as I am (yeah, I'll cop to it) is because his speech at the 2004 convention was one of the first times in a long time that I felt like I belonged here. And that's always one of the things I have most appreciated about Obama, is the sense of inclusiveness he tries to foster. I want the president, whoever s/he is, to make me feel welcome. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, I think it would be wrong of me to expect him to turn some people away.

Now, evangelicals, I wouldn't say they are the equivalent of white supremacists and holocaust-deniers, but they are pretty disagreeable to me. In fact, I can't stand them. I couldn't be friends with one. But that doesn't mean I think the president should treat them with disdain. In fact, it's probably a good idea to make them feel welcome, since I think having such a large group as divergent from the American mainstream as they are feeling alienated could have a lot of really dangerous consequences. i am thinking domestic terrorism here. If Obama reaching out to evangelicals results in less alienation and thus less extremism, I am all for it. And if doing so can open up space for political collusion on issues like Global Warming, that's good too.

Or look at it this way. Over half the country is against gay marriage. So is Warren. Lowery is for it. The preachers speaking at the inauguration will, in comparison to the country, be disproportionately pro-gay marriage!

[MR Bill]

CNN is just now spinning outrage that "Obama will talk to:"(pictures of Kim jung Il, Ahmadinejad, etc)"but they don't want him to talk to this man"(Rick Warren).
Progressive are gonna get rolled here.

[Stephen]

MR Bill,

Huh. I don't remember saying that Obama needed to have Ahmadinejad pray at his inauguration and the reanimated corpse of Kim Jong Il act as an advisor on food management, but I guess anything's possible.

If not for missing white women and false equivalence cable news gasbags wouldn't have anything to say.

[low-tech cyclist]

Picking our battles is fine, but sooner or later we need to, you know, actually pick a battle or two.

Truer words were never spoken, Stephen. It seems that Democratic powder being saved for fighting Republicans remains eternally dry, and lefty powder being saved for keeping the Democratic Party from capitulating to the GOP on some future major issue remains perpetually dry as well.

Like you, I'm pretty damned tired of it.

[Bryant Woods]

Obama wants everyone in the conversation. When we stand on opposite sides of the fence and yell at each other, nothing gets done, and nothing is no longer acceptable. If Warren, and folks who are comfortable with him, are drawn into the conversation with folks who differ but are willing to listen to them, maybe they, in turn, will listen and hear something that expands their world view.

I hold reasonably progressive views, but I'm surprised and disappointed at the intolerance some progressives are showing towards Warren and Obama. The guy has been right all the way down the line, and we need to get behind and trust him. Isn't it pretty clear he knows what he is doing? Some of the coming initiatives are going to be close calls. If it takes getting the support of a few social conservatives to get real health care reform passed, then Rick Warren can be the damn Senate chaplin for all I care.

[litbrit]

Rick Warren does not believe that women--like me--have the right to control our own bodies.

Rick Warren is a bigot who believes gay and lesbian Americans--like the ones in my family and circle of friends--are second-class citizens who do not deserve the same rights as other Americans.

It's not that I "disagree" with him (although I do). It's that his presence on the stage indicates to me and the millions of other liberals who supported PE Obama--and worked for him and wrote about him and stood by him--that fairness, justice, and *ahem* the wise words of Jesus himself about tending one's own garden are less important than placating (or "reaching out to") a contingent of American society who cannot get the notions of privacy, autonomy, and separation of church and state through their thick skulls.

Drive that purpose as you count the millions of royalty dollars you earned "writing" treacle-coated platitudes for the woolly masses, Mr. Warren. Perhaps you could spend a few of them on a course or two about the U.S. constitution.

I'm not happy.

[Stephen]

Obama wants everyone in the conversation. When we stand on opposite sides of the fence and yell at each other, nothing gets done, and nothing is no longer acceptable.

Don't be ridiculous. No one wants "everyone in the conversation." The KKK's Grand Wizard isn't invited to the conversation. Anti-semites aren't invited, serial killers have been left out, Bernard Madoff probably won't be on the dais, militia "commanders" haven't received any invitations - there's all sorts of people who simply wouldn't be welcome at either Obama's inauguration or any part of his administration.

If Warren had said that African Americans are inherently criminal, which is why they represent such a high proportion of prisoners, would that be ok? What if he preached that Jews were evil, money-grubbing Christ-killers? What if Warren said that women don't have souls, that rape is impossible in a marriage, that victims of domestic violence need to just suck it up and learn to behave? Would his inclusion still just be "inviting everyone to the conversation?"

The above positions were almost universally believed by white American Christians just a short time ago - and I daresay they still have a substantial following. In fact, 50 years ago white Christians were a higher percentage of the population, making those views even more mainstream than they could possibly be now. If Warren advocated all of those beliefs, he would merey be representing mainstream Christian beliefs, especially for someone who was raised in a conservative Christian household in the 50s and 60s.

Rick Warren thinks gays are criminals deserving of the death penalty - that's what the Bible says, after all, and he believes the Bible. Plus he lumps them in with child rapists and murderers. But that's ok.

Un-fucking-believable.

[Sir Charles]

What Stephen and Deborah said.

This is cynicism dressed up as broad mindedness. I am an enormous fan of the president-elect, but this is wrong, morally and tactically, an enormous affront to fair-minded people.

[notdave]

Is there a reason Warren but not the KKK is speaking at the inauguration? People keep making these two sound equivalent- I want to know if they are. Is there a reason Obama has invited Warren but not holocaust deniers and the KKK?

[oddjob]

It is extremely easy to forget that it is Obama's temperament (probably life-long, but certainly since he was teaching Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago) to listen respectfully, and to treat respectfully, those with whom he disagrees, and then despite according them that respect going ahead and holding to liberal opinions and acting in accord with his liberal opinions.

I don't have a problem with the fact that he is so temperamentally inclined.

I do have problems with Warren. He is a "kinder, gentler" Dobson. PFFFT!

Having said that, PROVIDED OBAMA CONTINUES TO SUPPORT AND ADVOCATE THE POSITIONS HE STATED WERE HIS AGENDA DURING HIS CAMPAIGN, I can stomach his naming Warren as the preacher delivering the invocation.

It stinks that the US of A is so enamored of bigots like Warren, but my generation (I'm 48) has made this possible. Grover Norquist and Abramoff are more or less my age. We were the ones who were jazzed by Reagan and revolted by Carter.

Warren will become an historical anecdote. Obama, if he sticks to the positions he espoused during his campaign, I believe will be transformational.

I am still waiting to see the hard evidence of President Obama "walking the walk" when it costs him political capital to do so. I am, for the present, willing to cut him slack with regards to Warren. I believe he still has a lot to prove, and the Warren selection is troublesome, but it is not the end of the world. It is a symbolic choice consistent with Obama's long-established willingness to respectfully listen to those with whom he disagrees (even as he drives them crazy because he listens to them, and then still votes in ways that they hate).

[oddjob]

Is there a reason Obama has invited Warren but not holocaust deniers and the KKK?

Those in agreement with Warren are many, and not yet in widespread disrepute in the USA.

I don't know this to be the reason, but I strongly believe it to be the reason.

[Sir Charles]

oddjob,

I too am 48 and am actually going to do a post about our generation one of these days. I awent to school with Abramoff. He was a year ahead of me in college. Sorry I didn't know him well enough to kick his ass.

But you're right -- our age cohort and those immediately younger than us formed the backbone of the right wing rule in this country. Even now if you looked at the election results, there were states where our age cohort were even more conservative than the over 65 set.

[oddjob]

You must have found being a part of this age cohort acutely painful! I did not because even now I'm more moderate than liberal, but I have learned that "conservative" doesn't mean anything if it comes down to hard choices while in rule. I haven't voted "conservative" since 1988 when I held my nose & voted Bush/Quayle. To this day I regret that choice, although I don't regret not voting for Dukakis. Even now I remain of the firm opinion that he would have been an awful president. Bush was lousy, too!

[oddjob]

(And yes, I know Jim Hightower's slam on moderates, about how the only things found in the middle of the road are yellow stripes & dead armadillos.)

[Sir Charles]

oddjob,

It was indeed acutely painful. I've felt pretty out of step at times.

Funny thing though -- I never liked Dukakis. He was governor of Massachusetts when I was a teenager growing up there. He was a cold fish. He even managed to lose a Democratic primary when the incumbent governor. I knew he'd get his ass kicked even when he was way up in the polls in 1988.

Your evolution politically must have been interesting, although I get the sense there are a number of people on lefty sites who were once moderate Republicans.

[oddjob]

Coming to terms with being gay within a year of the '92 GOP National Convention played a large role. :-)

I will probably never be "liberal", but even when I voted for Republicans I did so because I was most concerned about fiscal sanity, and I didn't perceive the Democratic majority in the Congress to have much interest in that. Since then, of course, I have learned the hard way that "conservative Republicans" ("fascist Republicans" would be a more accurate moniker!) have even less interest in it!

[oddjob]

He was a cold fish.

Yup. That's what bothered me about him.