When inclusion becomes relativism

President-elect Barack Obama erred in asking Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. A spokeswoman for Obama implied that the move was made for the sake of "inclusion." But what does it mean to include someone in one of the most symbolic events in recent memory who, with respect to gays and lesbians, acts contrary to the inclusive principles that supposedly got him invited in the first place? I can tell you: that the Obama team has crossed the fine line between being inclusive and relativistic.

This is somewhat ironic. During the now infamous morality forum during the campaign, Obama insisted that he believed in good and evil. C'mon Commander-in-Chief-to-be, where's that moral clarity now? Warren has called gays and lesbians horrible things. Let us be clear if the President-elect will not be: Warren is a bigot.

There is a time for shrewd co-opting of one's political opponents. I will even grant that there are significant areas where secular progressives and evangelicals (to whom the label progressive can sometimes also apply) could come to fruitful agreement. But the Innauguration is a time to elevate an example to the country and the world of what an Obama administration will stand for. Will relativism be one of them?

Many believed that "change we can believe in" would mean bringing people together in a level-headed movement that was pragmatic and at least somewhat progressive. When I marched for Obama in Boston's gay pride parade last summer, it was because I believed he would at least stand against people like Warren, not legitimate them by putting them at the inaugural podium.

I want to be reassured that this really is an act of shrewd politics. I want to know that the furor over this choice will win Obama political capital enough to accomplish some truly astounding things.

But I also believe that Obama has gone astray with this decision. Inclusion is the right way to go for this event. Selecting a man who in many ways represents its antithesis is not. By embracing Warren and elevating him like this Obama has compromised the purported purpose for the invitation, inclusion, and morphed it into something to the contrary: relativism.

Comments

[Stashpanache]

I am beginning to wonder if President elect Obama stands for anything? I am getting the uncomfortable feeling that there is no line in the sand for him on any issue. I am a straight grandmother who is sick about his decision. And, by the way, it is especially disconcerting for the press to cite only the gay community as being opposed to this.

[Morgan Warners - Huffpost Blogger]

A really good point! It seems an awful lot like people are saying, "Oh, look, it's those loony gays up to their tantrum antics again!" This isn't only a gay issue, as you point out. I have a lot of friends are concerned about Warren's stance on women's rights. Concerns about his elevation definitely cut across "interest groups." After all, why can't a lesbian be just as concerned for her right to marry as for her straight sister's bodily autonomy? People identify in many dimensions, and across interest groups.

[XCITIZEN]

I just emailed info@barac­kobama.com to tell them how disgusted I am at this travesty.

This is the message I got in return:

Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting President-elect Barack Obama and Obama for America. Barack greatly appreciates the outpouring of messages he is receiving from across the country and from Americans around the world. He is deeply honored by the confidence the American people have placed in him...

EMAIL THEM AND TELL THEM WHAT YOU THINK, AND ENCOURAGE EVERY OTHER PERSON TO TO THE SAME. info@barac­kobama.com

[Social Construct]

The author uses two words that, when used together, somewhat undermine the argument. Pragmatism and progressivism tend to lead towards a path of relativistic viewpoints, especially in the political sense. I will not disagree that Rev. Warren's stance on the lesbian-gay rights issue is repugnant to anyone espousing a progressive political bent. However, a pragmatic progressive would tend to be less absolutist in suggesting a person that takes an opposite stance politically is inherently evil or is to be excluded from participation within the progressive movement.
Another way to look at Rev. Warren's inclusion would be to recognize that giving someone of his ilk some acceptance would be better than excluding him, and others like him, and possibly sending them off to organize with more hardcore intolerant conservatives. In this case, inclusion, while perhaps weakening support amongst more absolutist social justice proponents would strengthen the progressive base as a whole. It's a tightrope that is worth walking.

[Morgan Warners - Huffpost Blogger]

Maybe in your view, but not mine. Progressive, as a term, implies moving forward just as much as it holds connotations of liberality. A conservative progressive is an oxymoron. This is not a relativistic term. Being a pragmatic progressive does mean bringing people together to "move forward" but not in a way that disregards WHERE we are moving along to. I think the Inauguration is an event of such magnitude that it tends to legitimate whoever is invited to participate. Contrary to your suggestion, I was and am fully behind the capacity and desire of the President-elect to bring people together who normally wouldn't even step into the same room. But that is to be done in specific circumstances, i.e. insofar as it helps bring about the president's vision. Perhaps we are expected to keep the faith until it "really counts" for Obama to act on gay rights. But for a lot of people, this does really count.

[Social Construct]

Thank you for the response. It has given me another way to look at this issue and that is what makes all the shortcomings of our country bearable; that we can debate openly, and if we keep open minds, learn from one another.

[rodnacious]

Tolerance is the counteractive of your thoughts of relativism my dear Sir. No one should be able to impose their thoughts on another, nor should they be able to classify one human being as good and another as evil.

The disappointment here is that so many fractions are feeling that they alone are ultimately responsible for Obama being elected to the Office of President. Back up, realize that you are only one part of the whole. Just because you feel that your one vote made all of this so is what is so ironic.

[Spontini]

The real shock is that the GLBT community should be surprised by Obama's actions with respect to Warren, as they are reminiscent of the Democratic primary. Obama put together an "Embrace the Change" group to tour the South that included Donnie McClurkin, a gospel singer who had disparaged gays and lesbians. When GLBT complaints were raised, Obama's campaign responded with the same "come together" rhetoric. In light of his conduct, it is incredible for Obama to claim he is a "fierce advocate" for GLBT equality. A "fierce advocate" would invite a lesbian minister to deliver the invocation at the inauguration and then tell those on the religious right who objected about "coming together." The sad truth is Obama never was a "new breed" of politician.

[methepeople]

maybe i just don't get it. can i ask then: as a christian man, what christian pastor should obama have picked to give the invocation? would he have to choose someone who's views on LGBT issues are in accord with yours? more likely than not, that preacher's views on the LGBT community would have been the same as warren's, maybe less widley known, but the same. i think everyone needs to relax

[Trinite]

Your discussion is right-on. Warren is an unqualified bigot and Obama has tied himself and his presidency to him. He has not lost my support for the good that he can still achieve as President, but he has lost my respect for his understanding of the human heart, its capacity for true evil, as in Warren. Obama has also lost my financial support. I will now listen to him from afar, as I did Bush, Reagan and all the rest, except JFK, until Obama came along. But he's ruined that now.

[demetra]

Pure evil? Give me a break. I have heard more hate speech from liberals than I have from right wingers. YOu can respect those you disagree with without feeling threatened.