Fighting Back in the Age of Obama

"The middle way is no way at all. If we finally fail in this great and glorious contest, it will be by bewildering ourselves in groping for the middle way." -John Adams, 1776

I've spent the last week or so debating with my friend and fellow Huffington Post contributor Lee Stranahan the significance of Rick Warren's syllabus of ridiculous statements and how it's an awful idea to be rewarding such remarks with a speaking part on the inaugural dais. Despite Lee's better efforts to convince me otherwise and regardless of my support for the Obama campaign and transition, I simply can't go along with the president-elect on this one.

I can absolutely tolerate the tradition of inviting a pastor to deliver an invocation at the inauguration (despite the establishment clause), but this particular pastor has a closet full of Santorum-ish pederasty remarks and Buchanan-ish alcoholism metaphors that ought to fully disqualify him from speaking at this otherwise historic occasion. And I still can't quite grasp the political upside for the president-elect, especially given the very un-Obama distraction and drama that's accompanying it.

But this isn't necessarily another angry take on Rick Warren.

This is about fighting back in the age of Obama.

The maxim that's been most often tossed around this week to explain the Warren invitation has been: "We can disagree without being disagreeable." Some supporters of the president-elect's choice of invocation speaker have grappled onto this idea in the spirit of the Obama change message and used it as a blanket explanation for why we should embrace Rick Warren -- even though his more controversial remarks, by the way, are nothing if not "disagreeable."

It's important to underscore that this maxim, while repeated in the spirit of unity, also contains the word "disagree."

And it goes without saying that many of us vigorously disagree with Rick Warren's comments on same-sex marriage and abortion, not to mention his vocal condemnation to hell anyone who doesn't abandon their Judaism. But for whatever reason, we're expected to go along with this one as if Warren were just another random pastor. We're expected to just suck it up and take it even though some of Warren's public statements have denigrated millions of Americans. We're told by very serious people to grow up. You know, in the spirit of not being "disagreeable."

Nevertheless, we can bet on the fact that the far-right is going to be uncorking a pandemic of crazy so unrelenting as to make the 1990s seem quaint by comparison. And I worry that if this notion of political and ideological détente is taken too far and too seriously, we're going to be summarily stampeded by a doped-up herd of shrieking Limbaughs, and then collectively atomic-wedgied by the far-right until the president-elect is rendered as ineffectual as Majority Capitulator Harry Reid.

"If we finally fail in this great and glorious contest, it will be by bewildering ourselves in groping for the middle way," John Adams wrote in a letter to General Horatio Gates, the hero of the Battle of Saratoga.

Adams didn't make any blanket claims against all forms of compromise -- in fact, democratic politics is all about finding a "middle way" and despite his bellicosity, Adams knew this. But the middle way doesn't apply this time. Should we have found a middle way with Rick Santorum when he compared same-sex marriage to pedophilia and bestiality? No way. In fact, everyone including the eventual president-elect worked to forcefully eject Santorum from the U.S. Senate in 2006, mostly because of his terrible and weird "gay marriage is like bestial marriage" remark, as well as other trespasses against liberty, decency and tolerance. I can't think of anything more disagreeable, in fact, than spending millions of dollars to fire a man of from job. And Rick Santorum sure as hell deserved it.

But then again perhaps we should've found a middle way with Santorum. Maybe we should've looked beyond his divisive, derogatory "man on dog" comment and elevated his brand of wingnut zealotry -- you know, in the spirit of inclusion. After all, the Senate should reflect all of the views of America, no? No. Even if at that time we were seeking common ground with the Senate Republicans, I can't imagine recusing ourselves from attacking Santorum's brand of fundamentalist hackery.

On some topics a middle way can, no doubt, be found between the left and conservative evangelicals -- but that doesn't mean hugging-it-out with someone who quite literally said that making abortion rare is like denying the Holocaust. Just because Rick Warren is jolly and friendly doesn't mean that some of his stated views are any less incendiary than other similar awfulness spoken by the likes of Rick Santorum or Pat Buchanan or Rush Limbaugh.

So where's the line here? How crazy is too crazy before we're permitted to let slip the dogs of progressive war and forcefully declare "enough!"? As someone who has followed the president-elect's career, I can't imagine that he's suggesting that we're not allowed to stand up for our values with an appropriate level of force.

That's precisely why this could be President-elect Obama's first post-election political blunder.

Rather than asking us to accept a less offensive character from the right, the president-elect has asked us to embrace someone whose more obnoxious assertions rival the most extreme views of the opposition -- on the most extreme and divergent issues. So we're being told that vocal opposition to even the most terrible proclamations of the far-right is simply unacceptable in Obama's America. Affording him the benefit of the doubt, however, I don't think this is the president-elect's intention, but that's exactly how it comes off. In other words, if there are more Warren debacles on the way, the president-elect could end up permanently and irreversibly alienating his left flank while castrating his most loyal supporters, thus laying out a nice smooth track for the on-coming Republican crazy train.

BobCesca.com

Order my book: One Nation Under Fear, with a foreword by Arianna Huffington. Also available in stores.

Comments

[Bobotheclown]

There are two ways of seeing this:
1. Obama has over reached in his policy of inclusionism and has gone so far as to give an administration stamp of approval to what approaches right wing hate speech. This miscalculation will alienate his liberal supporters who will think twice about voting for him next time and weaken the democratic voting consensus to the point that the conservative attack machine regains the white house.
2. Obama has cunningly shown that he is willing to include, in fact to honor, a pastor who has the largest following in the evangelical community. This group has historically voted overwhelmingly Republican. This large voting block will see that their views are given a respectful hearing and significant numbers of them will vote Democratic in the next election creating a broad based collition that cracks the base of the Republican hate machine at its source and insures a Democratic majority for a generation.
Given that Obama has achieved politically what most pundits had considered impossible it is possible that Obama is smarter than you all think he is. I for one am willing to continue my support for the first progressive winner in 40 years, at least until he is elected. Aren't you?

[kevinabt]

i'm more offended by Rom Emanuel and Clinton than his choice of speaker for the inaugeration.

[tangelan]

Where was all of this ri gh te ous ind ign ation before the election? Was everyone so focused on getting Barack elected that other ballot measures were ignored? I live in Atlanta and I didn't hear about Prop 8 until November 6th. It was like a cold shower washing away the euphoria of November 4th. That's when the h@teful blogs started accusing minorites of reverse r@cism for voting yes to Prop 8. I think everyone who supported Barack should give him the benefit of the doubt. EVERYONE is talking about this now. Even if you don't like the Warren choice, you have to admit that the attention of the nation is now on this issue. Isn't that a good thing? I don't know about anyone else but this has certainly gotten my attention.

[Jaradan]

Let's make sure to save some of our protesting energy for, you know, actual policy-making. At this rate, we'll all be burnt out by the time Jan. 20 comes around.

[Jaradan]

Bob, I'm usually with ya. But I have to disagree with you here. No one really likes the Rick Warren choice. It's not like we're all high-fiving each other over this, but some of us strive to see Obama's overall point of the selection: Inclusion even when you don't want to include that person/gro­up/special interest. If you don't like it, you have some options:

1. Don't attend or watch the inaugural
2. Skip the Rick Warren invocation
3. Continue to whine about it
4. Suck it up like I'm sucking up the fact that ANY reverend will be speaking at the inaugural, like I sucked up Hillary as Sec of State

[Rmtns]

I've been thinking, we need to respect Obama's choice of pastor for the inaugural invocation, but there is no need to stand by idly and take it without some protest. I suggest that when Mr. Warren takes the podium, we quietly rise and turn our backs to him en mass. No need for cries of indignation, no words need be spoken, a when he finishes and leaves the stage, turn and resume our celebration of this good thing that we have brought about.
We have the moral high ground here, let's not turn into the right wing of this country and become bitter, back-biting and intellectually challenged. We need to be the change, and change the tone and way that political speech is handled here.
We can definately make a stand without commotion, or even being impolite, just stand up for your beliefs and show your back to this unapologetic bigot. This act will show that we do not approve of this particular individual, and yet will not disrupt our victory celebration.

[BoulderSue]

I truly wish Barack had found another pastor for his inaugural invocation. I can only believe that he genuinely believed he tried "reaching out" to the other side in a a gesture of good will. On the other hand, per Tevya, he goofed. But if Pastor Rick were indeed the the good guy he would have us believe, he would quietly thank Obama for the honor and turn it down. He is no true Christian or gentleman who continues his blatantly non-Christian statements, allowing another Christian catch the heat for it. His tremendous ego gets in the way of acting as a Christian or gentleman.. I will forgive him for his anti-Christian attitudes, as my Christian upbringing has taught me, have e-mailed Pastor Rick to that effect, and will put up with his three minutes standing in the shadow of someone who genuinely (I beleve) struggles to live up to his faith. In the meantime, Pastor Rick exposes himself for what he is.That can't be bad. Perhaps he will even recognize it, himself. I have no pipeline to God and my "Christianity" is not exactly orthodox, but I think I can recognize a hypocrite with a very large ego who BELIEVES he has said pipeline, when I see one. Let's just separate politics out of this and celebrate a new beginning on January 20th! I'll be paying attention to the benediction, about which no one is saying much...........!

[reedmaker]

Thank you for this wonderful, rational commentary, Bob. I 100% agree with you. It is a huge mistake for Democrats, progressives, liberals, and whoever else constitutes Obama's base to feel that he is ever above criticism.

I think Bush was treated like that by Republican­s/conserva­tives for most of his time in office, and that led directly to the many disasters of the Bush years.

We all need to stay vigilant and intelligently critical of politicians--Obama and everyone else.

His choice of Rick Warren was arrogant and wrong--he thought he could drag us all along on his quest to include bigots in our national dialogue on civil rights issues. I, for one, am not following his lead.

[BN2112]

Mr. Cesca,
You have articulated spot-on how I have perceived this whole fiasco. Well done!

[Nan2008]

NO ONE SEEMS TO BE ACCOUNTABLE. 'fighting back in the age of Obama', hmmmmmm, does this mean he'll fight back like Nancy P. and Harry R? From the ingredients I've noticed Obama adding to his mix for CHANGE, seems to be the same old stuff, the only new ingredients seems to be adding stuff from the RIGHT.

[JeffBarea]

I completely agree with Bob Cesca on his points.

At some point you must draw a line in the sand.

And if your ally crosses over it to the other side, then - if only on that issue - he willingly becomes part of the opposition.

[pashupat]

I thought the same Jeff. Where do we draw the line? If this bigot, because he's got a big church, I assume, is part of Obama's inauguration, why not invite the Grand Wizard of the KKK, and the head of the Neo-Nazis. We can agree to disagree, no? Then everyone will feel all included, and warm and fuzzy.

[americanwhocares]

Spot on Bob!!!
The republicans are planning to hinder anything Obama wants to do. They do not care about the good of America; they only care about power so they can help the rich. I am always amazed at the ignorance of anyone who calls themselves a republican unless they are ultra rich.

[KarenGeorgetown]

I think the litmus test is easy. If you absolutely MUST deal with clergy in this supposedly secular state, and he believes in, as Bill Maher puts it, a Space God who denigrates one group of people in any way... don't ask him to do anything in or around your administration! In this case, like Tevye says, "There is no other hand...." Wrong is wrong. Cossetting wrong is wrong. Let's hope Obama learned his lesson.

[americanwhocares]

Great post Karen, Thanks so much!

[freddiefranks]

Good point, axcept for one thing. If you're dealing with clergy, you're dealing with religious people. It would hurt them just as much to have a liberal priest there (I mean, he's insulting Jesus!.... or something) as it would to have Warren there. I mean, come on, some evangelicals don't even like HIM!

In short, religion in politics is stupid and potentially disastrous. If you MUST have it... start packing to move.

(Note: I don't mind faith. Faith is great, the Bible says many good things too, not just crazy. Just religion in politics.)

[Motherunit]

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said "Sunlight is the best disinfectant." I don't believe Rick Warren deserves the honor of being included in the inaugural, but this has opened a dialog that has exposed Warren as the d-bag that he really is. His nice-guy veneer is being chipped away. His back-handed "Some of my best friends are..." pronouncements are being dissected on the national stage and shown for what they are.

Maybe, just maybe, Rick will have his three minutes and be greeted with stony silence. No applause. No cheers. No amens. Just silence. I can wish for that, can't I?

[elmoor]

Unless Obama can get the Warren-ites to finally focus on real Christian issues, such as hunger, poverty, cruelty etc, we will continue the distracting fights on abortion and gay rights for another decade.

Have you ever thought Obama is working to win them to our side so he can influence this debate in the future instead of just capitulating and joining their side?

[freddiefranks]

Gorsh, nobody thinks that far. As far as the media is concerned, this is the ONLY issue relevant to the Warren pick. It's sad really. I don't really blame the GLBT community, who after all need to fight to gain what they deserve. But they too are ignoring the point that maybe Warren doesn't care about them as much as other issues.

Finally the yelling seems to have died down: what has been accomplished, beyond stating their (fairly obvious) opinion in all this? Some eyes have been opened, but I think people sympathize more with the outrage at Prop 8 than the outrage against Warren. Sometimes I've been given the image of mob tactics: pick one guy to represent everyone who opposes them, and figuratively beat the c*** out of him.