Obama's Rick Warren Pick Makes Perfectly Good Sense

President-elect Barack Obama almost certainly knew that he'd take some heavy flack from gay rights and abortion rights groups for picking mega preacher Rick Warren to give his inaugural invocation. Warren backed the anti gay marriage Prop 8 in California to the hilt and rails against abortion. But Obama picked Warren for shrewd political and apparently heartfelt personal reasons. A tip of that came back in mid-August when he traipsed to Warren's Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California to talk to his evangelical flock.

At the time Warren reportedly had to arm twist some of his more recalcitrant members into accepting Obama's appearance. But accept they did. Or at least they didn't publicly grouse about it. But Obama also did his part to make the sell. He flatly said that he'd do more than any other presumed liberal Democrat had done in recent times to get an ear from evangelicals even if that meant breaking bread with preachers who were hardnosed opponents of gay rights and abortion.

The Warren visit wasn't really anything new in Obama's drive to court the evangelicals. In January when he needed to snatch the legions of black voters away from backing Hillary Clinton in the South Carolina Democratic primary he did the politically expedient thing and grabbed at the hugely popular gospel crooner Donnie McClurkin. He ignored the loud shouts that McClurkin was a gay bashing homophobe and headlined him at a giant part revival part campaign rally in the state.

Obama understood the power of religion, the evangelical appeal that is, to lure thousands of doubting and hostile believers to his fold. He has written and repeatedly talked about his professed testament of faith and deep belief in traditional religious values.

The Warren church visit and picking him for his inaugural invocation fit in perfectly with his evangelical court.

But the Warren pick is more than a crass political move. It's about numbers and influence. The surge in mega churches such as Warren's Saddleback Church with membership that tops 30,000 and the proliferation of televangelist programs, and Christian broadcast networks nationally and in local areas has made it easier to spread the evangelical message and subtly influence political causes. The Association of Evangelicals has been on the frontline in fulfilling that mission. The NAE had nearly 50,000 member congregations with 30 million members in 2005.

In a survey by the Detroit News in 2005 following Bush's reelection the question was asked whether the church should have more influence in politics. Nearly sixty percent agreed. Though the majority of Christian evangelicals are Republican leaning, many of them are Democrats too (about thirty percent in some surveys), and that boded well for Obama during the election. They would vote for Democratic candidates as long as they are conservative and adhere to the moral values tenets. Obama just had to make sure that he toed just close enough to their line on faith and morals values issues to not have them dash to the barricades to vote against him as would have been the case if Hillary had been the nominee.

Obama spotted a small opening to the evangelicals with the death of Jerry Falwell in May 2007. The evangelicals no longer had a nationally known name leader of stature to rally, inflame, implore, and energize them, and with the abysmal failure of the Bush and the GOP congress to get any thing done on their agenda opposing abortion and gay marriage evangelicals had hopelessly soured on them. The talk then and now is that many young evangelicals aren't totally consumed by these issues and are more worried about the economy, the war, poverty, HIV/AIDS and global warming.

There is some truth to that and Warren has certainly harped on those themes to help push his following off the charts. The larger truth, though, is that not all evangelicals share the same politics, ideology, and or hardly uniform in their thinking on abortion, gay marriage, and family values issues. Many are liberal, moderate, and even solid Democrats. They do care about the economy, education, health care. Some are even supportive of abortion and gay rights, deeply opposed to the Iraq war, and backed Obama.

But millions more didn't and still have no hesitation in describing and identifying as evangelicals and loyally backing GOP candidates with their votes and organizing for them. Christian evangelical leaders have long known that if they could galvanize the faithful they could not only elect local and state officials but presidents as well. They also knew that they could influence if not outright dictate public policy, namely passing legislation, initiatives, and amendments, and influencing public opinion.

The sixty to eighty million Christian evangelicals are still too big, too important, and to politically strategic to ignore. Obama knows that and that's a big reason Warren will pray at his inaugural and will get Obama's ear after the prayers end.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His forthcoming book is How Obama Won (Middle Passage Press January 2009)

Comments

[allonfla]

To the Commentators: All of your statements have been made before about other issues and none of them came to be true. And only speak for yourselves - not all of the gay community voted for Obama, Obama got 1/4 of the evangelical vote - Obama sees them as important as you are.

[vjoseph]

Interesting, thanks allonfla

[Psyche]

Not sure this article adds anything to what we've figured out but till find Obama's tack depressing. Didn't have any illusions that he would govern as other than a centrist. But at this point his obsession with "unity" may lead him astray " powerless to accomplish reasonable goals, with a message so diluted that it's not clear what his principles are.

Republican are not allergic to bold (even outrageous) moves. They don't apologize or worry about peeling off a few voters from the other side. They appeal to their base and charge ahead - voters see this as a sign of strength. Democratic pandering, timidity, and need to be "cooperative" are seen as weakness.

Polls do indicate younger evangelicals are less hard-nosed and have broader concerns. Obama's machinations aren't likely to affect this natural drift one way or the other. True believers, on the other hand, are likely to go to their graves as rigidly consrvative as ever. They'll die off eventually but Obama is wasting time and energy on them now.

While he pursues his kumbaya fantasy, the hard-nosed conservatives will be doing everything they can to obstruct and discredit him. At the same time, his supporters are likely to lose the enthusiasm that helped to propel him into office. A demoralized base is deadly; he needs to listen (not just give the appearance of listening) and demonstrate some sensitivity to their concerns. He's a very bright and skilled politician but he can be tone-deaf.

[RichJ]

Basically you're saying that to appease the 60 - 80 million evangelicals, Obama made the choice to throw under the bus the 5 - 10% of the population that is gay. I couldn't disagree more with any of your other points. For one thing it was not a failure of the Republicans from 2000 - 2006 to get their anti-abortion and anti-gay agenda passed. They don't want them passed because both are rallying points for their base.
Why should it be Obama's purpose to elevate this man to the national status of the likes of Jerry Falwell ?
Why isn't a rabbi or Muslim cleric being asked to speak?
Obama talks about one America but Warren is opposed to that idea as gay people are clearly second class citizens evidenced by his ardent support of Prop 8. And Warren uses vile talking points to defend his position.
I am reminded of the Charlie Brown comic strip where Lucy once again jerks away that football after promising Charlie Brown that this time would be different.

[vjoseph]

So, are you willing to completely disregard the fact that Rev. Lowery who would be doing the benediction, hence be the most important clergy man during this entire ceremony and who happens to be a progressive and for same sex marriage?

[arthuride]

Obama is trying to appease too many people too fast--and thus is losing his appeal to those who helped to elect him. This is but one more sign of politics as usual. I regret that in the end I cast my vote for Obama (McCain was more than I could accept). The USA, with Obama, will be just more of the same--sliding further backward in time and down into the gutter.

[vjoseph]

Moving too fast?!! What kind of speed do you want him to move? If you are unhappy, I guess you didn't bother reading about him or trying to figure him out prior to voting for him! So you were swayed by what the media was telling you, that he was the most liberal senator in the Senate! That's your fault for believing that, not his

[ESerafina42]

"In a survey by the Detroit News in 2005 following Bush's reelection the question was asked whether the church should have more influence in politics. Nearly sixty percent agreed."
____

"The church" (which church?) shouldn't have ANY influence in politics. (Neither should the synagogue or mosque.) The BIll of Rights may be tattered and torn after the past eight years, but it still existed, the last I knew.