December 18, 2008

12/18: Rickrolled

Pres.-elect Obama's decision to have evangelical minister Rick Warren give his Inaugural invocation was met with fierce outcry within the gay community. Many pro-gay Obama supporters, however, saw the move as prudent, big-tent politics. "Perhaps," other liberals argued, but Obama still could have picked a more moderate evangelical than Warren. On the other side of the blogosphere, conservatives were happy to snipe from the sidelines.

OBAMA: Smiting The Hand That Feeds You

In an open letter to Obama, Human Rights Campaign Pres. Joe Solmonese wrote, [Your selection] is a genuine blow to LGBT Americans. Our loss in California over the passage of Proposition 8 which stripped loving, committed same-sex couples of their given legal right to marry is the greatest loss our community has faced in 40 years. And by inviting Rick Warren to your inauguration, you have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table."

While Warren is widely viewed as a moderate voice among evangelical leaders, liberal bloggers are not convinced. Here's why:

• Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "[W]hile Warren is certainly more tolerant of discussion than activist leaders like [James] Dobson and [Pat] Robertson, his beliefs run counter to Obama's on most of the major social issues of the day. Warren is opposed, on religious grounds, to abortion rights, gay rights, stem-cell research, and euthanasia. In 2004, he described these issues as "nonnegotiable" and "not even debatable." What's more, just this month, Warren supported Prop. 8 in California for absurd reasons, and offered an incoherent theological rationale to Sean Hannity's assertion that the United States needs to "take out" Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."
• Box Turtle Bulletin's Jim Burroway: "This is the same Rick Warren who recently said that the relationships of his “many gay friends” are no different from child rape, incest or polygamy. He also jumped on the paranoia bandwagon surrounding same-sex marriage by falsely claiming that Prop 8’s failure somehow would have overturned the Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and religion. ... Warren himself has acknowledged that the only difference between himself and Focus On the Family’s James Dobson is just “a matter of tone.” So given President-elect Obama’s stated commitment to bringing the country together, it’s hard to fathom the reasoning behind choosing such a divisive figure. What’s worse, this decision to include Warren revives memories of the controversy surrounding ex-gay advocate Donnie McClurkin’s partication in an Obama campaign event in South Carolina during the primaries. This announcement will certainly be taken as another punch in the gut.

And a punch it was -- at least to Obama's far-left supporters:

• Feministing's Ann: "So many pro-choicers, gay activists, and progressive Christians worked their asses off to elect Obama, which makes Obama's decision to give Warren a platform at the inauguration a real fuck-you. I can't even handle the irony that Warren's appearance will be immediately followed by Aretha singing "Respect" and "Someday We'll All Be Free.""
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "This must be a record, winning Time's Person of the Year and Atrios's Wanker of the Day on the same day."
• NO QUARTER's Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy: "You know, I really don’t relish having to say, “I told you so,” but dammit, I did. So did a whole bunch of other people. Obama has never done ANYTHING but give lip service to the GLBT community - WHEN are people going to get that through their thick heads???"
• Taylor Marsh"The contempt Obama's choice says for all things liberal is stunning."
• Washington Blade's Kevin Naff: "This is change? ... Obama should rescind the invitation to Warren. His presence on the inauguration stand is a slap in the faces of the millions of GLBT voters who so enthusiastically supported him. There are plenty of affirming religious figures in this country who could step into that role and not alienate and offend scores of Americans. This tone-deafness to our concerns must not be tolerated. We have just endured eight years of endless assaults on our dignity and equality from a president beholden to bigoted conservative Christians. The election was supposed to have ended that era. It appears otherwise."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "That's being thrown under the bus I can believe in."

OBAMA II: Dear Prudence

In contrast to the general uproar within the liberal blogosphere, moderate pro-gay bloggers, while disappointed in the Warren selection, were willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt:

• Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "Jim Burroway is understandably pissed.... [Earlier AS post: "Warren is a man who believes my marriage removes his freedom of speech and cannot say that authorizing torture is a moral failing. ... [Obama's selection] is a depressing omen."] ... [But] I think the choice of Warren is almost certainly designed, in fact, as a unifying move - and it is a signal that Obama has every intention of reaching out to Christianists who have some liberal leanings on poverty, the environment, and heterosexual HIV and AIDS. ... I understand where Obama's coming from, and I don't think this is an inherently bad idea. Building such a liberal Christianist coalition is something I saw coming, and sadly see no way to avoid. But not on the backs of gay people, please, Mr president-elect. Wedge politics is wedge politics, whether practised by Clintons, Bushes, or, yes, Obama."
• New Republic's Damon Linker: "I completely understand why Andrew is upset by Obama's choice to have Rick Warren deliver the inaugural invocation. ... [But] Warren is beloved by mainstream evangelicals, who have helped him to sell millions of books extolling a fairly anodyne form of American Protestantism. ... It is in Obama's interest (and the Democrats') to peel as many moderate evangelicals away from the GOP as he can. Giving Warren such a prominent (but purely symbolic) place in the inauguration is a politically cost-free way of furthering this partisan agenda. Now, Andrew might be right that Obama will not prove to be a champion of gay civil rights (at least when it comes to the issue of marriage). But we can be absolutely sure that no presidential candidate of the current Republican Party would be anything other than a rabid opponent of these rights. And that means: What benefits Obama and the Democrats -- and what harms the Republicans -- contributes (if perhaps only negatively) to Andrew's cause. And that should be what counts."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "I understand [the far-left's] sentiment completely. ... I would prefer someone else. But I also understand that I would much rather have Warren given a few minutes to speak about religion at a time and manner appropriate for religious discussion than I would having Obama [appoint right-wingers]. When Rick Warren and folks like him are driving policy in an Obama administration, I will then muster the necessary outrage. So while not my first choice, not a big deal. Let him speak for a few minutes and be done with them."
• Benen: "If there was any reason at all to think Warren's invocation carried with it policy implications for the Obama administration, it would be far more serious. In fact, I suspect Warren will get a very high-profile role on Jan. 20, but have no meaningful influence at the White House on Jan. 21.

Still, as one WH'08 candidate famously said, "words matter":

• Benen: [E]ven if it is symbolism, the Warren choice strikes me as Obama's biggest mistake since the election. He's elevating a conservative religious leader to new heights, giving him stature and credibility, and making his far-right message that much more meaningful when he challenges Obama administration policies in the future. It's all risk, no reward."
• BooMan: "I don't care about the politics of it, which may be beneficial to Obama's legislative goals; I care that inviting gay-bashing preacherman Rick Warren to do the inauguration invocation is gratuitous and mean-spirited. This decision is a needless insult to every gay person in the country and to all those that support gay rights."
• Impolitic: "I can't believe there isn't some other pastor in America, who is less polarizing, that would be available to do it. I get that Obama wants to reach out to the opposition and all that, but this really is a slap in the face to all the sane Christians who supported him. Not to mention, the progressives and those in the gay and lesbian community."
• TPM's Greg Sargent: "This isn't going to help dispel the "Obama stiff-arming liberals" narrative. ... As you regulars know, this blog has argued that it's premature for liberals to get too agitated about Obama's cabinet picks and that we should wait to let his policies do the talking. But I'm not sure how you can defend this one...."

Almost lost in the uproar over Warren is the fact that Obama has also asked a pro-gay minister, Joseph Lowery, to give the benediction. (Obama had taken a similar "Big Tent" approach to the McClurkin uproar by adding the openly-gay minister Andy Sidden to his religious tour.) Among the bloggers who took notice:

• Faith In Public Life's Dan: "But [Warren]'s not the only one who will be praying from the podium on January 20. [Lowery], a civil rights icon and supporter of same-sex marriage, is giving the benediction at the end of the event. I can't read the administration's mind, but my guess here is that they're crafting an inauguration meant to appeal to voters who voted against Obama as well as his supporters. ... [E]verything I've read so far focuses on Rick, and that's not the whole story."
• Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates: "It's worth noting that Lowery is fairly outspoken supporter of gay marriage."

OBAMA III: Should've Asked For Exact Change

Reaction on the right over Warren was relatively silent. But many conservatives took the opportunity to jab liberals for their naive, uncritical support of Obama during the election:

• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "The only question is why are you surprised? It’s not as if there was a lack of voices during the Presidential campaign saying stuff like “hey, we really don’t know who this Obama fellow is. He’s kind of an empty vessel and we seem to be projecting onto him what we like best. Anyone else concerned about that?” ... I’m afraid you set yourself up to be disappointed."
• Jammie Wearing Fool: "The funny thing is, it was an overwhelming Obama vote in California that helped pass Prop 8. The angry gay left just cannot rationalize it yet that the guy they poured their gay marriage effort into also brought out the voters who reject gay marriage. When you're a single-issue voter, you're often going to be angry when you don't get your way. ... I almost feel sorry for Obama having to deal with these children."
• Riehl World View: "It seems to me that for the most part the Right does get impassioned about some things, freedom, genuine Rights and protections. Post-election they bascially [sic] return to those values, trying to apply them equally no matter who won or lost. Contrasted with a Left that seems to harbor a free-floating anger and even rage ready to sieze upon any target should it dare to raise its head - and the contrast couldn't be more revealing or any more stark. As he moves forward with his Presidency, Obama may just discover that his most consistent ally when he acts prudently and responsibly will be on the Right and not the Left."

Many on the right perceive Warren to be, in fact, a rather mainstream religious figure:

• Right Wing News's John Hawkins: "Although Rick Warren takes his Christian beliefs seriously, he has always come across as a centrist politically. In other words, he can fairly be called "religious," but he's not really a member of the "religious right." Since that's the case and since Barack Obama has spent much of his adult life surrounded by ultra-left wing, pseudo-Christian wackadoodles like Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger, Warren seems to be a sensible choice to do his inaugural invocation. However, Obama's selection of Warren is flipping out the left side of the blogosphere, which is generally appalled by people who hold mainstream Christian beliefs."
• Mere Rhetoric's Omri: "So maybe [Warren]'s a genuine moderate. Although he kind of seems more like a squishy opportunist than a squishy pragmatist.
• Hot Air's AllahPundit: "Enter Warren, one of the most politic choices available, who’s been courting Obama for more than two years.... I’m far from well informed about this, but isn’t Warren’s reputation among religious conservatives that of a bit of a squish? ... Predictably, the perpetually aggrieved are agitating for Obama to boot him."
• Christian Broadcasting Network's David Brody: "Look at it this way liberals. It could have been worse for you. He could have picked James Dobson to deliver the invocation and Alan Keyes for the benediction."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Pandering We Can Believe In

The Next Right's Jon Henke: "[S]tirring up a great deal of grief on the Left ... is exactly what Obama intends. ... Bill Clinton faced an opposition Congress, so he had to moderate on policy. Obama faces a friendly Congress, so he has to moderate on rhetoric. I'm not sure why this rhetorical moderation is still a surprise to anybody. Obama has been doing this for awhile: he praised Reagan, recognized legitimate grievances of opponents of affirmative action, affirmed the excesses of New Deal/Great Society liberalism. But while each of those set aflutter the hearts of independents, moderates and the Right, none of them involved actual policy changes. Most people have only a very superficial intersection with politics, so trivial gestures - like inviting an evangelical preacher to deliver the invocation for a Democratic President - are powerful. They send the signal to a low-information public that Obama is one of them, sympathetic to them, respectful of them...without actually requiring substantive political concessions of the Obama administration. And if the noisy Left cries foul at Obama's un-progressive rhetoric...well, so much the better for the substantive progressive agenda. Rhetorically moderate, politically Left. Expect to see that over and over again from President Obama."

LEST WE FORGET: That's All You Got, Black President?