The Case For Obama’s Inauguration Pick: “Disagreeing Without Being Disagreeable”
As you may have heard, President-elect Obama recently chose the influential and sometimes controversial Rev. Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. This has created a mini-controversy (or, HUGE controversy in the eyes of cable news) between Obama and some of his most liberal supporters. I say “mini” because, quite frankly, I THINK people will get over it. It is, however, the first time Obama has had any significant rift with these supporters.
Obama’s choice is controversial because Rev. Rick Warren has spoken out against same-sex marriage and abortion. Rev. Rick Warren also supported Proposition 8—California’s ballot measure, which amended the State Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Liberal and gay rights groups are, therefore, angry that Obama would showcase this evangelical pastor in such an important historic event. Of course, Obama doesn’t support same-sex marriage either, but he has certainly spoken out against amendments that would ban it.
Here is a picture of how the media has framed this:
First, let me say, that I’m as liberal as anyone when it comes to gay rights. But to tell you the truth, Obama’s choice of Warren actually excited me. Before some of you get mad, here’s why:
First of all, it just doesn’t seem accurate (to me) to paint a picture of Rev. Rick Warren as the typical religious right leader. Obviously, I disagree with him on gay marriage. Personally, I’m not religious, and I couldn’t care less about who gets married. I haven’t even figured out whether I ever want to get married, but for those who do, I say, “go for it!” I also think that public opinion on gay rights is extremely generational. To me, it is only a matter of time before there is overwhelming public support for same-sex marriage. The point, though, is that Rev. Rick Warren shouldn’t be defined by his opposition to gay marriage. There is a lot more to this guy: He has fought for social justice on behalf of the poor, and done a lot for people with H.I.V./AIDS. Beyond that, he is, from what I’ve seen, a guy who genuinely respects opposing points of view, and sees great value in reaching out to the people that hold them.
Now, sure, he doesn’t look great in this sound bite:
But, if you look at this other clip, you might come to the conclusion (I did anyway) that he’s a more reasonable and much less hateful guy than a lot of the “extreme” leaders of the religious right. And even if I’m a sucker and he’s just another pastor who uses a moral platform to encourage hate and fear in a subtler way (I really don’t think he does), the fact remains, that he is one of the most popular religious figures in America (some call him a “minister to the nation”) who represents the views of a lot of Americans. I think that by choosing Rev. Warren for this invocation, Obama is telling these citizens, “we clearly disagree on some things, but let’s not let that get in the way of achieving the many things we can find common ground on.” Now, isn’t that why we elected him in the first place? Or did we expect Obama, the uniter, to “stick it” to the other side every time he got a chance…
Here’s his response to the criticism:
Part of the magic of this country, is that we are diverse, noisy, and opinionated. That’s the spirit in which we have put together what I think will be a terrific inauguration, and, that’s hopefully gonna be a spirit, which carries over into my administration.
Sounds great to me. Let’s not forget, I’m pretty sure Rev. Rick Warren won’t be in the oval office when they are discussing gay rights and abortion policy.
I’ve always thought that the biggest road block to Obama’s brand of politics would not be his conservative opponents but his most liberal supporters. The ones who are in favor of reaching across the isle and working together until the first time it affects an issue important to them. I understand (and share) the frustration among gay rights activists towards Rev. Rick Warren (when I see him compare gay relationships to a brother-sister relationship I laugh), but we have to understand that Obama is in no way endorsing Warren’s positions on gay rights and abortion.
He is, instead, acting on his most important campaign promise: Talking to ONE America. Respecting other points of view. Focusing on issues we can find common ground on. Disagreeing without being Disagreeable.
YES Phil, yes yes yes.
Obama is not betraying anyone. He’s giving the country exactly what he said he was going to. I agree with you wholeheartedly when you say he is “talking to ONE America.” The problem is that for Obama’s approach to even begin to be successful, it requires the rest of America to think this way as well.
I think that when people were voting for “Change,” they assumed that meant things would change to the way they think they should be. And why not? The “I’m right and you’re wrong” way of thinking has dominated politics (and really, any arenas of disagreement) for as long as I can remember. Any argument I’m in, I’m usually thinking “How can I win? How can I make this person think the way I do?” The funny thing about that, at least in my experience, is that I always end up leaving the argument feeling entirely unsuccessful and wishing I had said more. That could just be because I’m bad at arguing, but I think it’s more than that. When talking about arguing, a friend of mine in high school said something to the effect of “We always try to be right when we should be trying to reach some middle ground. Either a compromise or if possible, some kind of super-agreement that combines the best of both points of view.” I think there is an enormous amount of merit in this, and I think this is the kind of thinking that Obama is bringing to the White House.
I think Hillary Rosen makes a good point in the video above when she says “If Rick Warren were making racist remarks, this conversation wouldn’t even be happening.” It’s extremely unfortunate that there are groups of people in this country who are not offered the same rights as everyone else, but I do believe that within my lifetime that will change. I also believe that this and every other issue are best dealt with when all sides of an argument are represented. Sure, there are some issues that I believe are simply non-negotiable (incidentally, my support of gay-marriage being one of them), but the reality is that I’m not going to make any headway if I march into Rick Warren’s church, shout “You’re WRONG!” and then leave. Maybe he would listen to me if I sat and listened to him for a bit. This sentiment is precisely what Obama is trying to convey and I can’t think of a better symbol of his dedication to this mindset than to have people he disagrees with speak at his inauguration.
a) Great article. It’s always good to see the whole clip that the media rips apart to point the news in their direction. A+
b) I completely agree with the first comment
c) To expand on what Brian said: I think that when a lot of people voted for change, and saw that in Obama, they were misled somewhat. Now I’m not sure whether they were mislead by the media or by their subconscious. They saw a candidate who would bring about change. Change we can all agree we desperately need. To a certain extent, I think that meant whatever each voter wanted it to mean. We all knew Obama’s stand on any and every issue we cared about. But I think that voters agreed to vote for Obama because he fit their best description of the next president. Not everyone agreed with him on all issues. We are seeing those people speak out in rage regarding this decision. I think this controversy is about people who thought they got what they wanted in Obama and just came to the realization that they got 97% of what they wanted. His choice may be a little radical, but I think it comes with a strong hope that he is bringing people together, not driving them apart by showing our nation he can only tolerate certain opinions. Why widen the gap more by strongly supporting one opinion instead of a conversation of opinions. I voted for Obama because he would make decisions like this that support the conversation. Now why did everyone else?
One thing to note and be clear about here is that Obama asked Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. He didn’t ask him to advise him on his LGBT policy. He didn’t ask him to talk to his gay friends and tell them why they shouldn’t get married. He didn’t ask him to preach about gay marriage in front of a huge audience. He asked him to deliver a prayer. Saying that he can’t deliver a prayer because of his views on gay marriage is a little like saying you can’t buy ice cream or get your oil changed by someone who disagrees with you on the subject of gay marriage.
That being said, it’s definitely a symbolic choice. While I think the media and the liberal elites (and I somewhat count myself in that category) are blowing this a wee bit out of proportion, the fact of the matter is Obama could have chosen any number of pastors who are NOT opposed to gay marriage. We spent so much time building Obama up, it’s tough when he disappoints us; picking Warren to speak at inauguration, FISA, backing of Iraq timetables, etc. Remember two things. 1) He’s a politician, and this is what they do. 2) He’s a Hell of a lot smarter than most of us, he probably knows what he’s doing.
In short: liberals, you got what you wanted. Quit making a mountain out of a molehill–just remember that anything Obama does that seems even a teensy bit conservative, just remember that McCain probably would have done it too, except worse. So find something more useful to do with your time than argue about who’s giving the inaugural prayer (like make some serious headway on undoing prop 8 in 2010, or getting our troops out of Iraq).
-Z
My post on this forthcoming. There’s too much noise out there on this issue to not to add some of my own
Zack, be careful when you tell people not to make “mountains out of molehills.” Some of those people just had their marriages voided by Prop 8, for which we can certainly thank Rick Warren. Let’s put ourselves in their shoes for a second before we start telling others to calm down.
Obama’s choice of Warren is not “radical,” in fact it is very smart politics. Honoring the pastor in this matter does a number of things. First, it makes a friend out of a powerful religious/political figure, and by extension the many members of the Saddleback Church (many of whom were McCain voters). Second, it takes away political ammo away from the Christian Right, who still want to go after Obama on choice, prayer, etc. Third, as you all have pointed out, it makes good on the promise of “disagreeing without being disagreeable.”
Simon Rosenberg of NDN talks about the gay marriage issue as one that has yet to “mature” in the way that the abortion debate has. The mainstream media has yet to catch up in the way of nuance when it comes to gay marriage; as idtik likes to point out, yelling matches are much more fun to watch. Warren and Obama aside, the gay marriage debate is going to get much much uglier before it gets better. Especially in the wake of Prop 8, there’s going to be a lot more CNN (and real life) yell-fests before get some intellectual space.
Andrew Sullivan is light-years ahead of most people in terms of the intellectual debate around gay marriage. I recommend reading him every day, his post on Warren (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/12/taking-yes-for.html) in particular.