On Civil Rights, Obama Must Lead, Not Tinker

News that Obama invited Rick Warren to say a prayer at the inauguration is a troubling sign for a president elected to be a new kind of leader.   The decision suggests that on civil rights issues, Barack Obama might be more of a tinkerer than a leader.

So far, Obama has shown himself to be a bold leader on the economy.  His proposal to spend a trillion dollars in public works projects is nothing less than visionary in the current environment.  Not all policy experts will agree with the fine print of Obama's economic appointments or proposals, but the fact that he sees investment in public works as a key to national recovery tips the Reagan era of trickle down economics over.  In a time of economic upheaval that sends people back to The Grapes of Wrath to understand what comes next, Obama's public works proposal shows real leadership.

On civil rights, however, the same cannot be said.  Rather than lead, he seems to be tinkering.

Marriage equality for gays and lesbians is not just some "social issue" akin to school uniforms, warning labels on music or smoking in restaurants.  It is the current epicenter of the civil rights movement in America.

That has not always been the case.  When Lincoln took office, the abolition of slavery was the epicenter.  When Wilson took office, the women's suffrage movement was the epicenter.  When FDR took office, poverty was the epicenter. When Kennedy took office, segregation was the epicenter.

Thinking about Obama's presidency in terms of an  'epicenter' of civil rights changes how we think about Rick Warren speaking at the inauguration.

Rick Warren is not just a pastor opposed to gay rights. He is a highly political leader of a mega-church who has compared abortion to the Holocaust and opposed marriage reform in terms equivalent to the bigoted plaintiffs in Loving v. Virginia -- the landmark 1967 civil rights case overturning anti-miscegenation marriage laws.  In an era where gay rights are the epicenter, Rick Warren is a widely recognized voice arguing against those rights. 

Translating Rick Warren into the terms of previous civil rights eras is the key to seeing why his role at Obama's inauguration is so troubling. By comparison, if this were Lincoln's inauguration, Rick Warren would have been the equivalent pro-slavery pastor giving the invocation.  If this were Wilson's inauguration, Rick Warren would have been the equivalent of an anti-women's suffrage pastor saying a prayer.  For FDR, he would have been the same as inviting a pastor opposed to rights for the poor. For Kennedy, he would have been the same as inviting a pastor who spoke out repeatedly about the dangers of desegregation. 

In each of these cases, for the president-elect to invite the a voice known for arguing against progress -- and to do so in the name of political peacemaking, as Barack Obama has done with Rick Warren -- would have revealed a tinkerer on civil rights, not a leader.

The denial of marriage rights for certain Americans is not, of course, a "social issue," as President-elect Obama has argued.  Like the denial of citizenship to African-Americans, the denial of voting rights to women, the denial of basic needs to the impoverished, and the refusal to dismantle Jim Crow laws, the denial of marriage rights is a persistent failure in our system.  It is a failure that cannot be fixed by tinkering with politics.  It can only be fixed by persistent vision and leadership. 

On this crucial subject of civil rights leadership in a flawed system,  Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote the following in 1987:

I do not believe that the meaning of the Constitution was forever "fixed" at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the Framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, we hold as fundamental today. When contemporary Americans cite "The Constitution," they invoke a concept that is vastly different from what the Framers barely began to construct two centuries ago. (T. Marshall 1987)

The lesson Marshall taught us then is still valuable, today.  To all those who argue that our nation's perfection was cast in stone from the start -- and that we must maintain all first principles if we are to survive -- you are wrong.   The government that the framers first devised was weak with contradictions from the start, and as a result we have had to go through painful periods of correction, sometimes to make it work.   Anyone saying that definitions and institutions should not be allowed to grow to achieve greater justice for all is either unaware of Marshall's wisdom or working actively to undermine it.

In the context that Marshall defined, each president is faced with a choice:  to lead the nation towards greater justice or to tinker with the current system and leave the leadership to someone else. 

If President-elect Obama wants to speak to Rick Warren under the guise of leadership on civil rights this can be done quite easily without including him in the inauguration program.  Obama can initiate a 'Civil Rights Dialogue' as president and invite Warren to come forward to air his views on that public stage. In that context, Obama can make it clear that he views Warren's anti-civil rights positions as impediments to the contemporary effort to end government sanctioned injustice. 

For now, putting Rick Warren on the inauguration dais is tantamount to leaving that civil rights leadership to someone else.  After 8 years of George W. Bush emboldening opponents to equal rights, Americans deserve a President who seizes every opportunity to champion justice for all.

And as it just so happens, that is exactly the kind of president a majority of Americans think they chose in November.

So make it right, Mr. President-elect.  Put your outreach to Warren in a context that shows your commitment to greater and greater justice in America, and take him off the inaugural program.

On civil rights, Americans are tired of tinkers.

(cross-posted from Frameshop

)

Follow Jeffrey Feldman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffreyFeldman

Comments

[trueobsupporter]

I am Black Christian that supports gay rights; and I never thought I would ever see gay people attack Obama and Al over a three minute prayer. Calling Obama a bigot and attacking his mother and father is way over the line. This is an insult to every Black person in this country and many other people of color. Gays will finally have someone in the white house that truly understands discrimination. Why are you willing to throw all that goodwill away in three minutes? Gays are acting just like the right-wing people they hate.

Black people won their civil rights by peacefully means; not by demonizing the opposition. These insulting actions will cause gays to lose support. Is that what you really want?

[1will]

You cannot compare "Gay Rights" to the abuses and discrimination black people have faced over the years.

[carter2004]

Can, do, will. Yours is a non-argument arising out of a superficial understanding of civil rights principles. Where a group is being arbitrarily denied equal rights under the law, there lies a civil rights issue.

Sorry to crash the party. Get over it.

[Mach8]

Yours is a circular argument. And if you honestly think that the gay marriage issue is even remotely in the realm of the injustices done to African Americans, then get ready for more Prop 8s.

Gays/lesbians are destroying any sympathy that moderates have on this issue. Keep doubling down on anger and see what happens.

[1will]

Sorry to crash YOUR party but when gays are enslaved for hundreds of years, denied ALL rights for decades and lynched by the thousands (if not tens of thousands) then I'll believe there is a comparison between gays and blacks.

[hereinmiami]

No-one is saying that homophobia is THE SAME as racism; they work in very different ways. But why are you so invested in dismissing the suffering that homophobia has brought, and continues to bring? Does the fact that queer teens get kicked out of their homes by their parents, commit suicide more than any other group, not matter to you? Do you know what its like to be alone in your own family? What about the gays killed in the holocaust? Would you like me to tell you about how the South African army made gay soldiers have involuntary sex changes during apartheid? How much suffering is enough for another group's struggle to be legitimate to you? Why does it have to be a competition?

[Mach8]

So gay marriage is a civil rights issue akin to women's suffrage and African American human rights?

Massive FAIL.

Thinking like this is going to guarantee that this issue falls on deaf ears.

[JohnBisceglia]

Will an organized tax protest "fall on deaf ears"? People who think this is NOT a civil rights issue and feel as you do only inspire peopel like me to do everything I can to promote a complete tax revolt against the US government.

Suffering and harm are the results of marriage inequality; denying our families this basic right will no longer be "tolerated".

[RLForsythe]

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural,

Translation: You don't vote on people's "rights". If the majority votes to deprive a minority of EQUAL rights, it is oppression and tyranny. We’re not asking for special rights; we’re asking for the same rights everyone else has.

But it is, of course, your right to disagree with Thomas Jefferson. What did he know anyway, other than writing the Declaration of Independence, and much of the Constitution.

[twinfern]

Ah, yes, and in the spirit of inclusion, David Duke will also appear at the swearing-in.

[oafishcad]

The wound of prop 8 is fresh to the gay community. Obama is rubbing salt in it. He would never have a racist on the dais, or a minister who thinks women are chattel. He wouldn't pick someone who preached and worked to make Jews less than equal, or Muslims.Outreach? He refused to have his picture taken with the (heterosexual) mayor of San Francisco before the election. He doesn't want to be associated with "them".

[Eyewideopen]

I think all gays should boycott the inauguration. Don't watch it and don't attend any of the events. Does anyone want to unload their tickets???? If so, how much?

[mercury613]

"He would never have a racist on the dais, or a minister who thinks women are chattel. He wouldn't pick someone who preached and worked to make Jews less than equal, or Muslims"

Exactly. We're supposed to excuse this guy's bigotry just because he hides it behind religion? No way.

[AbbieXHoffman]

Can someone tell me what BO stands for besides compromise?

[Midnightrain]

He is a brilliant strategist. If you can't see that, then I guess you'll ride out the next four years with your panties constantly in a bunch.

[jmpurser]

Actually it "suggests" that he's going to be a clintonesque failure and caricature.

[AbbieXHoffman]

If he is as successful as Clinton, I will be thrilled!

[Sioen]

Clearly, you think gays are less than equal to everyone else.

[jmpurser]

Clinton paid the bills given cash basis accounting. Given America's recent history in that regard that makes him a success though the picture is a little cloudier if you look at the books on an accrual basis.

However in terms of equality in economics and civil rights Clinton was a disaster. Obama has taken his first step down the Clinton path. If you don't know what to fight for then you WILL lose.

[hortonhearsawho2]

Obama hs never sought out, nor, claimed to be a Civil Rights leader. He has led by example. He has lived his life as a product of civil rights....keenly aware of it's importance in America.

[hortonhearsawho2]

Being a product of Civil Rights, he is aptly aware of its importance. Ccivil Rights have and never will be a tinkering objective, for lack of a better term.

[ApolloSpeaks]

REV. RICK: COURAGEOUS PICK OR POLITICAL PLOY?

Barack Obama's "courageous" choice of Rev. Rick for giving the opening prayer at the inauguration had nothing to do with "reaching across the isle" in the spirit of bipartisanship and unity. On the contrary, picking an outspoken right wing opponent of gay marriage was a calculated ploy to divert attention from the very damaging Blagojevich affair. Using Rev. Rick to cause a new controversy shows us just how badly Obama is hurting especially from the salt that Hannity and Rush are rubbing into his wounds. Obama is not a "new kind of leader" but the same old politician giving us the veneer of something greater. If Blago doesn't resign or isn't removed from office Rick Warren probably won't be the last of Obama's ploys.

[Rockwell]

When Obama said he was against gay marriage I allowed myself to believe he was just being politically pragmatic. But the only reaons for Obama to put Warren on the platform is to jam a finger in the eye of gay Americans. He wants to show he's Mr Inclusive by embracing a bigot and to show he's not a puppet of them there gays.

Fine. If that's the message he wants to send, how about inviting David Duke to the podium? Wouldn't want folks to think Obama's a puppet of the African American community and what better way to illustrate that than to invite a White Supremicist to speak. And of course African Americans should be happy about that because it shows what an inclusive President Obama will be.

Why not invite Larry Flynt to deliver a homily? Women will be delighted to have a mysogynist in the spot light with the new President because it will demonstrate this new inclusive Presidency.

In fact let's be sure to invite every American who hates other groups of Americans to the Podium because that's the best way to illustrate what a unified nation we are.

Funny how everyone who's saying "what's the big deal about Rick Warren" aren't the target of his bigotry.

[hortonhearsawho2]

How about Obama just reach forward and kiss Warren right after the prayer...

[Rockwell]

No THAT's Change I can believe in! : )

[Mogamboguru]

"He, who tries to do it right for everyone, does it right for noone."

In his c.r.a.z.e. to bridge gaps and UNITE, Obama is overreaching it, I am afraid.

Sometimes even a leader, who's main agenda is it to unite a divided people, must accept, that there are groups of people, that are more v.u.l.n.e.­r.a..b.l.e­., more e.x.p.o.s.e.d and more in need of support than others.

H.e.l.l - you don't hold a common rally for the K.K.K and the Black Lutherian Church of Christ in the same room, too - in a f.r.a.n.t.i.c attempt to unite their antagonisms, only because you think, their amalgamation suits yout agenda well and, hence, must be a good idea?

There are gaps, which simply CAN'T be bridged, Barack. You need to accept that. Or you will w.a.s.t.e all your power in f.i.g.h.t.s.which you cannot win.

In some instances, Obama needs to learn to build a s.p.i.n.e. Or he will go down in history as a s.q.u.i.d.d.

[hindy]

Well, this is Obama's first big mistake and, if as he said, he will be honest and admit his mistakes, he needs to admit to this one and correct it. Since the US is a nation of many religions, one solution could be to bring in moderate clergy from all liberal denominations of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddism, Hindu and others to do a group invocation at his innauguration. After all, all of these groups voted him in and deserve to pray for his success and safety.

What was Obama thinking by inviting this retrograde right wing jerk in sheeps clothing to represent all of Christianity.

I love Obama but I'm really disappointed in this decision.

[Travis2008]

How about taking the invocation as a religious prayer out of the ceremony entirely? And remove the benediction too. How about not speaking the oath of office with your hand on a book sacred to a religious sect?

Of course, injecting the rites and relics of a religious group into a secular ceremony doesn't annoy enough people to matter. I get that.

Mr Obama will be President of all of us. We won't agree with every decision. The GLBT community is disappointed in the choice of person to give a prayer. As a member of the non-religious community, I am disappointed that there is a prayer.

[FearlessFreep]

Sounds good to me.

[whit4brains]

As another member of the non-religious community I couldn't agree with you more.

[BethinIllinois]

And I'm a mainstream Catholic, and I completely agree with you. (Well, I actually kind of like the Bible for the swearing-in, just because it's traditional, but I see that those who are not believers would like it gone, and I could go with that.) It seems strange to have religion injected into our inauguration events at all.

[nolabels]

I could not agree more. He should be sworn in with his hand on the constitution if putting his hand on something gives the ritual more significance. At least the oath states that he has to protect the constitution.

[Sioen]

As an atheist, I agree with you completely.

As a gay man, I have to point out that Warren has never said you are not natural and don't deserve full human rights. He didn't say you are the same as child-rapists.

I'm not "disappointed," I'm grieving for the gays that will be beaten and killed as a result of the acceptance of this kind of hate.

Atheists aren't killed in America just for existing. (Not yet, anyway.) Gays are.

[Travis2008]

Sioen - It was certainly not my intention to minimize the feelings of any member of the GLBT community. My apologies.

[Sinclair]

"Change we can believe in" was lie.

The selection of Rick Warren and Barack's defense of his selection are positively George W. Bush-like.

It seems that Barack Obama is a "uniter" in the same sense that George W. Bush was.

[AlwaysaLiberal]

George Bush wouldn't have chosen someone with opposite views as his. That doesn't make sense. You are reaching.

[nolabels]

I guess you could say that Obama is uniting with the same people as Bush did.

[RighteousisRight]

Actually to be historically correct, Bush had Rev Leonis give the invocation at his inaugural and he is a liberal minister. Rev Billy Graham gave the invocation at Bill Clinton's inaugural. It has been done before.

[fflambeau]

I agree with you Sinclair. J. Feldman claims: "So far, Obama has shown himself to be a bold leader on the economy. His proposal to spend a trillion dollars in public works projects is nothing less than visionary... " To bad the same idea was supported by visionaries like George W. Bush and even John McCain. Also Mr. Feldman, how "visionary" was it to choose as Obama did Tim Geithner and Larry Summers to be his chief economic advisors? Both were architects of the kind of deregulation that got us into the mess. A visionary choice would have been J. Steiglitz or Paul Krugman but Obama has shown no vision whatsoever, except a right wing one, in his choices.

[William1950]

Who is he going to pick that would make everyone happy? an Female Episcopalian Bishop?

[Nonpartay]

Good question. With 35,000 sects of Christianity, most of them thinking they are the only true Christians, it would be hard not to offend someone, even if gays were not at issue. What difference does one prayer make anyway? Just because Warren is saying it doesn't mean Obama is going to change his own positions. Seems to me, this has been blown way out of proportion.

[rudyinbama]

Imagine how honored we all would feel if Obama had chosen Archbisop Desmond Tutu - one of the greatest men in all religion today.
I
.