I'm going to bump my fun question out of the way because I read this story and just could not avoid comment. Many gay rights groups are angry at Obama because he's going to let Rick Warren pray at the inauguration. From CNN:
Warren, one of the most influential religious leaders in the nation, has championed issues such as a reduction of global poverty, human rights abuses and the AIDS epidemic.This is so unbelievably frustrating. Does Andrew Sullivan really think that because Rick Warren will pray at the inauguration that Obama is not going to advance gay equality? Really? I have grown so unbelievably weary of slash and burn mentality. Rick Warren is wrong about gay rights. He is wrong about preemptive war. But he is right about poverty, climate change, and global AID epidemic. He is right about encouraging the evangelical community to stop being single issue focused.
But the founder of the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, has also adhered to socially conservative stances -- including his opposition to gay marriage and abortion rights that puts him at odds with many in the Democratic Party, especially the party's most liberal wing.
"[It's] shrewd politics, but if anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now," Andrew Sullivan wrote on the Atlantic Web site Wednesday.
Earlier in the article American Way President Kathryn Kolbert said, "There is no substantive difference between Rick Warren and James Dobson. . . . The only difference is tone. His tone is moderate, but his ideas are radical." That is such B.S. When was the last time James Dobson said we should do something about climate change. I have lost my patience for this unhelpful all or nothing attitude. I can't stand liberal fundamentalist fanatics anymore than I can the conservative variety.
4 comments:
I think you should write Crazy Andy with this. It's a great point that you make: that one speaker at a ceremony portends total commitment by Obama to that speaker's every idea.
And I think Rick Warren is a fatuous blowhard, by the way.
I agree with you that Obama is not making Warren his Secretary of Hate; it's not indicative of the policies he will necessarily pursue. But it is a little bit of a bitch-slap to the gay community which is still reeling from the passage of Prop 8 (which in fairness it must be noted that Obama supported). The histrionics come not because it's important, but because of the insult.
But there is more to the situation. The frustration comes from the left's desire to have a Democratic president act like, you know, a democrat. It's frustrating to see ostensibly progressive politicians get elected and immediately pivot to the center. Now I've been on record for a long time as saying that Obama is much less liberal than widely believed; he is a cautious, pragmatic guy with centrist tendencies. Maybe the rhetoric about bipartisanship wasn't just rhetoric. I'm inclined to cut him some slack, especially with his personnel decisions. And the truth is that most of "The Angry Left," has been OK with Obama's team, including Gates.
We had all hoped he would naturally be an unabashed, unapologetic liberal; he probably won't, and he will have to make compromises to get stuff done. The result will be that Obama's centrist tendencies will be balanced by pressure from "The Left" for Obama to govern as a liberal. You can see that already on the Rachel Maddow show, which went from full-throated support for Obama pre-election to relentless criticism of Obama as being squishy in support of organized labor and in keeping Gates. This is a good thing. If the Democrats are going to ignore their core constituency, there needs to be an outlet for us to make our case, drive the debate, and hold "our guys" accountable.
SF writes:
But there is more to the situation. The frustration comes from the left's desire to have a Democratic president act like, you know, a democrat. . . . If the Democrats are going to ignore their core constituency, there needs to be an outlet for us to make our case, drive the debate, and hold "our guys" accountable.
See, I don't think this kind of complaining is because they want him to be a Democrat, it is that they want him to be the Democratic version of George Bush. And that's stupid. Obama is promoting a left of center agenda as he has on the campaign. He is also promoting unity, but for real, not W-style.
It's ridiculous to suggest that Obama is not acting like a Democrat. He is not acting like President of the 50.1% like W, but he is acting like a Democrat.
And its not good for our cause either. It shows the coalition of support is very weak and it means he can't push the agenda that is anything less than their dream agenda. This is why Republicans get most of what they want in legislations. Their obediant base supports them.
I think you are spot on, Jim. I think its particularly silly given that there is another minister as part of the ceremony who is very acceptable to the progressives.
I wonder if Warren is getting criticism from his "side" for being willing to do it. If both of them are getting fire from the home team, then its a good sign that they are on the right track. You know, progressives worked hard for Obama, but they weren't exactly going to vote for the Republican. Obama's message of being a bridge builder was a major part of his appeal.
Post a Comment