Political Physics: The Rick Warren Conundrum
.
A blogumn by Monique King-Viehland
Obama, Rick Warren & The Purpose Driven Inauguration
I should start by saying that I have a copy of A Purpose-Driven Life by Rick Warren. I think my mother gave it to me. I did not like it, so I’d suggest taking whatever I say with a grain of salt.
Even before the talking points were leaked to the press, Barack Obama’s selection of mega preacher Rick Warren to give his inaugural invocation continues to spark controversy among gay rights advocates and pro-abortion groups. Warren is known for his staunch anti-abortion stance and was ardent supporter or Proposition 8 in California. That is why his selection has baffled Obama supporters, particularly since the candidate is pro-choice and supports equal rights for gay and lesbian couples.
The reaction among many Obama supporters – gay and straight – has been swift, angry and bitter. The president of Human Rights Campaign, Joe Solomonese, sent Obama a letter that read, “Your invitation to Reverend Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at your inauguration is a genuine blow to LGBT Americans….[w]e feel a deep level of disrespect when one of the architects and promoters of an anti-gay agenda is given the prominence and the pulpit of your historic nomination.” In the Los Angeles Times, longtime celebrity publicist and gay activist Howard Bragman noted, “Obama didn’t realize, after all the support he got from the gay and lesbian community, we feel betrayed right now.”
And then there are the host of celebrities who poured their support and money into the Obama Campaign, who spent almost as much money working to stop the tide of Proposition 8 who are also feeling betrayed.
In response to the backlash the Obama camp issued a statement that read:
“Pastor Rick Warren has a long history of activism on behalf of the disadvantaged and the downtrodden. He’s devoted his life to performing good works for the poor and leads the evangelical movement in addressing the global HIV/AIDS crisis. In fact, the President-elect recently addressed Rick Warren’s Saddleback Civil Forum on Global Health to salute Warren’s leadership in the struggle against HIV/AIDS and pledge his support to the effort in the years ahead.
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.
The Inauguration will also involve Reverend Joseph Lowery, who will be delivering the official benediction at the Inauguration. Reverend Lowery is a giant of the civil rights movement who boasts a proudly progressive record on LGBT issues. He has been a leader in the struggle for civil rights for all Americans, gay or straight.
Also, for the very first time, there will be a group representing the interests of LGBT Americans participating in the Inaugural Parade.”
In a recent press conference Obama himself stressed that being inclusive and building bridges is critical to rebuilding the Nation and is a key component of how he intends to run his White House, “A couple of years ago I was invited to Rick Warren’s church to speak despite his awareness that I held views that were entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion,” he said. “Nevertheless I had an opportunity to speak, and that dialogue I think is part of what my campaign’s been all about, that we’re not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is to be able to create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable, and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans.”
And supporters of the selection of Rick Warren think Obama is right on point. Earl Ofari Hutchinson of the Huffington Post argued that Obama’s selection of Warren was “more than a crass political move, it was about numbers and influence.” Warren’s selection could give Obama access to the sixty to eighty million Christian evangelicals that are “still too big, too important, and to politically strategic to ignore.” Even if only a small opening, it could still be significant for Obama.
As Steve Chapman noted in the Chicago Tribune, “What Obama would clearly like to do is to at least soften the views of evangelical Christians. One way to begin that process is a clear and even controversial display of goodwill–saying, in effect, “We disagree on some things, but I intend to listen to your concerns, and I want to be your president.”
Listen, I think Obama should have made a different selection. Even if he wanted to appease evangelicals under the notion of “you may not have voted for me, but I will be your president too,” there have to be a lot less controversial selections than Warren. I find his stances on abortion and gay rights appalling. And I think the “answer” of we are also including Reverend Joseph Lowery was lame and insulting – kind of like the “I have black friends” comment. However, I do believe that this is only the first of many times that Obama is going to rub “us” – read “us” as whatever works for you (e.g., gay, straight, pro-choice, anti-war, pro-bailout, etc.) – the wrong way. See if he really intends to run his White House in a truly bi-partisan fashion and really plans to mend and/or build bridges, he is going to piss “us” off.
We loved his message of “one America” during the campaign, but living it may be a different story.
.
More reasons to annoyed (to put it lightly) by the Rick Warren pick. Check out Chris Hitchens article on Slate
http://www.slate.com/id/2207554/
More reasons to annoyed (to put it lightly) by the Rick Warren pick. Check out Chris Hitchens article on Slate
http://www.slate.com/id/2207554/
The Big tent works both ways. We all loved the one America speech. It seems to me that Obama is working toward that one America and yes that will anger some on the left just like I'm sure the fact that Warren said yes angered some on the far right.
We need to get past the idea that if you don't agree with me on every issue you can't be part of the discussion.
I also find it upsetting that Obama and his people don't seem to be taking non-evangelicals seriously or the importance of prayer. I personally do not want to be led in prayer by a bigot, and I don't know many other religious people who would. If Obama is serious about bringing both sides of the aisles together, I think he should focus on selecting people that both sides can agree on as opposed to someone as divisive as Rick Warren. I don't think "one America" means "being okay with horrible people."
Ernessa, don't get me wrong, I am not saying that "one America" means that we have to be okay with horrible people. I'm saying that sometimes there is not going to be someone who "both sides can agree on" especially in cases like this where both sides are so far apart. Sometimes it is black and white and there is not room for gray. But as I said before, I believe that Obama made a bad decision in selecting Rick Warren…..we're on the same page with that one.
I think I'm with CH on this one. I agree with Ernessa that "one America" shouldn't mean "being okay with horrible people." But I'm not sure Warren rises to the standard of horrible if the stuff that Obama's statement says about him is true. "Problematic," maybe, "horrible"–no. I do think the deeper calculus is at work here. So far I'm reserving judgment on these kinds of moves. Seems to me like Obama's being true to his own stated ideals; I may not approve of Warren but I approve of what seems to me still to be Obama's integrity. So far I see a deep, deep intelligence and sweeping wisdom in almost everything he's said about what he's doing, even if it's not always apparent in the actual doing (though most often it has been). I'm cutting Mr. Obama a lot of slack right now; I full expect that at some point he'll really piss me off, he's not a God, but I think he's a damn wise man with a lot of guts, vision and integrity and I'm willing to allow that he might see a bigger picture than I do still.
I totally agree. But I think it is hard for folks to grasp that "the big tent works both ways." I think that truly making room for people at the table who do not agree with us is hard for people to do.
Jeff, I too an willing to cut Obama some slack, but I must admit the selection of Rick Warren is hard to swallow and I understand the backlash that is coming from the both the gay and the pro-choice communities. They feel betrayed…..I am disappointed.
i'm with katrina on this one. this choice reaks (sp?) of false equivalency like listening to 'his side' is similar teaching evolution and 'intelligent design'… hate it and it taints what should be a wonderful day for me and all the other queer & pro-choice folks who worked and voted for him. on such a symbolic day, no it won't do.
I think we can accept One America and working with people you disagree, but choosing Rick Warren for such a historic moment is a slap in the face to be as a lesbian. If Obama developed a committee on fighting HIV/AIDS and invited Warren to serve I would have no problem with that. The inauguration is something that everyone should be able to celebrate especially those who worked so hard to get him elected. I gave money, made phone calls, canvassed in NH and immediately made plans to be in DC on Jan 20th win Obama won. Now, Obama's choice of Warren has tainted the entire process for me. It will be difficult to stand there and completely appreciate the historical moment when a man who thinks I'm a sexual deviant is offering a prayer.
I agree that the big tent works both ways, but choosing Rick Warren is more than just saying I'm going to listen to ideas from the other side. This is a man who compares gay relationships to pedophilia. While I've been a big Obama supporter I have also been critical of the One America rhetoric for just this reason. If we treat ALL ideas as legitimate including those that marginalize and discriminate against certain groups, then what do we stand for. I think there has to be a point where one draws a line in the sand. People who want deny individuals their civil rights seems like a sensible place to draw that line.
Katrina, thanks for commenting. And I cannot imagine the disappointment you must be feeling given the role that you played in the campaign. You captured the issues associated with this notion of "hosting everyone at the table" or "one America" better than I did. It is a bit of a double-edged sword, but your right there needs to be a line. I hope this selection is not an indication of where that line is or who will be "at the table" in the future.
Hard to argue with you on that, Katrina. Obviously my perspective on it's a little more abstract. Which doesn't make it right; may in fact make it wrong. And what you propose would probably have been a better way to manage that big tent: put Waren on an HIV committee and leave him off the inaugural platform. Well, maybe this is Obama's big fuck-up number one. As he himself said (g-rated version), there will be others. Hopefully they'll be few and far between and he'll be more right than wrong on GLBT issues (he's already wrong on the big one of gay marriage as far as I'm concerned; though again, it may be political calculus–he's for the rights of marriage without calling it marriage, which is probably as far as a mainstream politician who wants to be president can go right now).
The Big tent works both ways. We all loved the one America speech. It seems to me that Obama is working toward that one America and yes that will anger some on the left just like I'm sure the fact that Warren said yes angered some on the far right.
We need to get past the idea that if you don't agree with me on every issue you can't be part of the discussion.
I also find it upsetting that Obama and his people don't seem to be taking non-evangelicals seriously or the importance of prayer. I personally do not want to be led in prayer by a bigot, and I don't know many other religious people who would. If Obama is serious about bringing both sides of the aisles together, I think he should focus on selecting people that both sides can agree on as opposed to someone as divisive as Rick Warren. I don't think "one America" means "being okay with horrible people."
Ernessa, don't get me wrong, I am not saying that "one America" means that we have to be okay with horrible people. I'm saying that sometimes there is not going to be someone who "both sides can agree on" especially in cases like this where both sides are so far apart. Sometimes it is black and white and there is not room for gray. But as I said before, I believe that Obama made a bad decision in selecting Rick Warren…..we're on the same page with that one.
I think I'm with CH on this one. I agree with Ernessa that "one America" shouldn't mean "being okay with horrible people." But I'm not sure Warren rises to the standard of horrible if the stuff that Obama's statement says about him is true. "Problematic," maybe, "horrible"–no. I do think the deeper calculus is at work here. So far I'm reserving judgment on these kinds of moves. Seems to me like Obama's being true to his own stated ideals; I may not approve of Warren but I approve of what seems to me still to be Obama's integrity. So far I see a deep, deep intelligence and sweeping wisdom in almost everything he's said about what he's doing, even if it's not always apparent in the actual doing (though most often it has been). I'm cutting Mr. Obama a lot of slack right now; I full expect that at some point he'll really piss me off, he's not a God, but I think he's a damn wise man with a lot of guts, vision and integrity and I'm willing to allow that he might see a bigger picture than I do still.
I totally agree. But I think it is hard for folks to grasp that "the big tent works both ways." I think that truly making room for people at the table who do not agree with us is hard for people to do.
Jeff, I too an willing to cut Obama some slack, but I must admit the selection of Rick Warren is hard to swallow and I understand the backlash that is coming from the both the gay and the pro-choice communities. They feel betrayed…..I am disappointed.
i'm with katrina on this one. this choice reaks (sp?) of false equivalency like listening to 'his side' is similar teaching evolution and 'intelligent design'… hate it and it taints what should be a wonderful day for me and all the other queer & pro-choice folks who worked and voted for him. on such a symbolic day, no it won't do.
I think we can accept One America and working with people you disagree, but choosing Rick Warren for such a historic moment is a slap in the face to be as a lesbian. If Obama developed a committee on fighting HIV/AIDS and invited Warren to serve I would have no problem with that. The inauguration is something that everyone should be able to celebrate especially those who worked so hard to get him elected. I gave money, made phone calls, canvassed in NH and immediately made plans to be in DC on Jan 20th win Obama won. Now, Obama's choice of Warren has tainted the entire process for me. It will be difficult to stand there and completely appreciate the historical moment when a man who thinks I'm a sexual deviant is offering a prayer.
I agree that the big tent works both ways, but choosing Rick Warren is more than just saying I'm going to listen to ideas from the other side. This is a man who compares gay relationships to pedophilia. While I've been a big Obama supporter I have also been critical of the One America rhetoric for just this reason. If we treat ALL ideas as legitimate including those that marginalize and discriminate against certain groups, then what do we stand for. I think there has to be a point where one draws a line in the sand. People who want deny individuals their civil rights seems like a sensible place to draw that line.
Katrina, thanks for commenting. And I cannot imagine the disappointment you must be feeling given the role that you played in the campaign. You captured the issues associated with this notion of "hosting everyone at the table" or "one America" better than I did. It is a bit of a double-edged sword, but your right there needs to be a line. I hope this selection is not an indication of where that line is or who will be "at the table" in the future.
Hard to argue with you on that, Katrina. Obviously my perspective on it's a little more abstract. Which doesn't make it right; may in fact make it wrong. And what you propose would probably have been a better way to manage that big tent: put Waren on an HIV committee and leave him off the inaugural platform. Well, maybe this is Obama's big fuck-up number one. As he himself said (g-rated version), there will be others. Hopefully they'll be few and far between and he'll be more right than wrong on GLBT issues (he's already wrong on the big one of gay marriage as far as I'm concerned; though again, it may be political calculus–he's for the rights of marriage without calling it marriage, which is probably as far as a mainstream politician who wants to be president can go right now).