Rick Warren: What Was Obama Thinking?

Barack Obama's choice of Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the inauguration invocation was either the most cynical or the most naïve move the president-elect has yet made.

To begin with, this strikes me as a strange move for a careful guy like Obama to make. He didn't have to make it. If he felt his swearing-in had to have some religious flavor to it, he could have chosen from a field of hundreds of respected clergyman. Like, say, Jim Wallis, or any number of African-American preachers who aren't Rev. Wright.

So why this choice?

Here's what the cynics would tell you, as posited by Hilary Rosen in Huffington Post:

"There is a new political reality for LGBT people to deal with and how it works will be a measure of the sophistication and capability of the community. It was never a community that represented more than 6 or 7% of the vote in most campaigns, and it seems the biggest numbers are achieved in districts that are already reliably Democratic. Raising and giving political money always helped the community to play a larger role at the table than its numbers would seemingly offer and yet in this new era of online fundraising, constituent fundraising has diminishing importance. So we saw lots of mollifying and calculating when it came to new Obama Administration appointees for other constituencies but to date not much more than a little handwringing when it came to LGBT appointees"

So the LGBT constituency is not all that important to Obama. It can be thrown under the bus and "change we can believe in" will survive. Where else does this group have to go?

Then there's the Obama camp's Kumbaya approach. We may each have fiercely different opinions about issues but we can all come together as Americans. We can, as they say, dialogue.

Now, I'm all for dialogue. It helps us understand where the other fellow stands, and how he/she feels and why.

But then what? Do I change my mind? Does the other fellow? Sometimes, on issues that are highly technical, or those we consider clearly peripheral, maybe. But not about any viewpoint or conviction we consider fundamental to who we are. If I meet a rabid racist who does a great job of explaining to me how he is just a product of his racist parents, I may understand how he got where he is, but would that persuade me to become a racist? Never. There's a difference between sociology and conviction.

At that level, dialogue is not only irrelevant; it can be damaging. The struggle for civility and understanding can take political correctness to a whole new low. It can have the effect of homogenizing us.

Wouldn't it be more honest if we just recognized that, on some issues, "getting to yes" just won't work?

The Rick Warren issue is one of these. He may be doing lots of good works in areas like HIV/AIDS, alleviating poverty, advocating for action on climate change, et cetera. And we should be grateful to him for that. But similar work is being done by hundreds of other bona fide clergymen (and women) who just don't happen to preach at megachurches.

What Rev. Rick chooses to say on January 20th is irrelevant. It's all the other stuff we already know about - but won't hear a peep about on inauguration day - that we'll remember. It's Warren's views on issues like same-sex marriage and a woman's right to choose that frame this mega-preacher in many minds. To millions who don't agree with him, he's little more than Jerry Falwell in a Hawaiian shirt.

Nothing he says is going to change that. And nothing we say is going to change him. Evangelicals will be happy; LBGT-ers will feel the stick in their eye.

Is this important? As Hillary Rosen points out, the LBGT community not an existential constituency for our new president. Moreover, inauguration preachers don't make public policy; what they say on January 20th is usually forgotten by January 21st, if not sooner.

But symbolism is important, and it's especially important for this particular inauguration. Regardless of how he may try to nuance it, Rick Warren is part of the constituency that was courted and won over by George W. Bush. And it was the enthusiastic support of this constituency that played such a major role in W's journey to the White House. We can dialogue with them from now till The Rapture, but many of their ideas will still be anathema to most of those who elected Barack Obama.

So this is not change we can believe in. In fact, it's not change at all. It's more of the same. And that's not what we voted for.

Obama's choice of Rick Warren is a totally avoidable mistake of considerable proportion. The clergyman or woman who delivers the invocation next month could have been - should have been - a symbol of the values Obama believes in most deeply - the ones that won our support.

Rick Warren is not that person.

Comments

[ReverseCurve]

There is an overwhelmingly percentage of Americans who are not gay. Obama said he would be a president for all the people ("there are no red states, blue states, etc., ...there are only the United States").
Mr. Warren is going to say a prayer or two.
Gays need to take a giant step backward on this choice and fight for more imporatnt things. Gays are not the only populace in the US.

[NationalTreasure]

+Mr. Fischer:

"Rick Warrer: What was Obama thinking?" surely you jest? the answer is obvious Obama is just another hard hitting self-serving Chicago political opportunist

[mooph]

HuffPost's Pick

Seems to me that limiting the conversation to "those Evangelicals" and "those gays" is missing the larger picture. Here in CA, where Prop 8 passed by 52%, the population isn't 52% Evangelical and 48% LGBT. What about all of those middle of the road people who get to weigh in on this debate?

Selecting Warren had furthered this discussion -- albeit, at this point, only in a narrow way. There's a whole segment of the population that is capable of being swayed by a real debate and discussion -- one devoid of election-time pressures, deceitful tactics and other election distractions.

Even though the Prop 8 vote is over, there's work to be done in garnering more support for same sex marriage -- throughout the country. And thrusting Warren (already a media darling) into the spotlight (and, by default, LGBT leaders), there's a real chance to frame the debate and really have an in depth discussion about equal rights for all.

[ProudLiberalDan]

"Rick Warren: What Was Obama Thinking?"

----------------------

Let me answer your question. Obama is a smart and savvy politician and he knew darn well this would provoke an outrage in the gay community. He must have decided that it was advantageous to him to have those "gays outraged by Warren pick" headlines.

Warren isn't just a minister who is "anti-gay marriage, but pro-civil unions." He compares gay relationships to incest and pedophilia and gays are not welcome in his church unless they repent. He denies the very legitimacy of our existence believing we can be cured. It matters not whether Warren will be speaking for 3 minutes or 3 hours. With all the millions of clergy for Obama to choose from he deliberately chose one to anger us.

I could care less about any politicians lofty speeches. Campaign promises are just words. Look at Obama's action here. He deliberately poked the gay community with a stick for political advantage. This portends very badly for us in the future. It is terribly unfortunate that our new President won't draw a line in the sand on bigotry.

And these hypocritical posters lecturing us on "inclusiveness" are just spitting in the wind. If a new President had chosen a segregationist, misogynist or anti-Semitic minister to do the invocation, I highly doubt that people of color, women and Jews would be receiving condescending lectures on "inclusiveness".

[NWBrunette]

Absolutely right. Please submit your comments on change.gov (as I have). It will make a difference if enough of us do it. Thank you.

[DHC]

ProudLiberalDan: Great post, especially the last paragraph. I've had to stop reading the Comments on this topic just because of the posters you describe in the last paragraph. America doesn't feel like my country anymore, and my ancestors go back to before the civil war.

[mooph]

I would have to disagree with your assessment of "portending very badly for us in the future." I believe this is a tactic in a larger strategy. As the news coverage of the Prop 8 protests were winding down, where is the media coverage of those leaders in the LGBT community? So far, the coverage has focused on the mass of outraged people, which detractors liken to an angry mob -- not the most flattering portrayal.

Obama has defined the opposing side by spotlighting a single figure. Now there's an opportunity to spotlight a number of people, and perhaps drill down to a single point person, that go-to person who epitomizes the same sex marriage/equal rights argument and have a real debate, which the media seems ready to take on. Where are the Harriet Tubman's, Susan B. Anthony's, Dr. King's, Cesar Chavez's, and Nelson Mandela's? This is the time to define the side of equality, and Obama is willing to vault those people to the spotlight for open and honest debate.

[Unsui]

mooph, I think your right. Good comment.

[shelby35]

How many divisions do the gays have ;) I can count a lot more evangelicals than gays in this country and spiting them back into the GOP camp is short-sighted and idiotic. Keep in mind that in California, a relatively liberal state which voted to protect poultry. stem cells, and abortion, gay marriage went down 52 to 48, not small numbers and I can assure we don't have that many evangelicals. BTW, comparing this to prejudice on women and minorities is counterproductive as both share anti-homosexual views being they religious or culturally based.

[ckfan]

In November, Pesident-elect Barack Obama invited the Lesbian and Gay Band Association to march in the Inaugural Parade. Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery, a staunch supporter of gay marriage, has been invited to give the Benediction at the inauguration.

Yet, the only thing you and other columnists have focused on is the inclusion of Warren to deliver the invocation.

[ProudLiberalDan]

If a new president had invited a segregationist or misogynist or antisemitic minister to do the invocation, that is what people would be focusing on too. But they wouldn't be focusing on this hooey about "inclusiveness". They'd be rightfully outraged.

[ConstanceReader]

Because Rick Warren equates homosexual intimacy to pedophilia and rape, because the website of the Saddleback Church and quotes from Warren himself reveal himself clearly, concisely, inarguably as a bigot, as a homophobe. How, exactly, is a marching band supposed to equate to this?

[ProudLiberalDan]

The level of condescension of these apologists knows no bounds.

"Gee, don't gays love a parade? What's the problem?"

[Scarllatti]

Mr. Fischer, why not give these right-wing "evangelical christians" enough rope to hang themselves first? Give them the opportunity of dialogue. If they refuse that, I promise, I will be in your corner of the arguement cracking s.kulls.

Lets do the first things first and then take it from there.

[NWBrunette]

We've been doling out rope for goodness knows 50 years. Do you think maybe it's time to attach it to something at our end? It's a little past time for you to start "cracking" as you say. "First things first" was done a long long time ago.

[seawally]

Obama has said that he doesnt believe in gay marriage, but is open to civil unions. so i am uncertain as to how the choice of this pastor is an example of the gay's being thrown under the bus. rick warren has not been hired to work in the administration, he is not setting the tone for inaugaration day or the next four years- he will simply be asking for a blessing of our nation and the PE...can any of you even remember who gave the invocation four years ago, or eight years ago? we must keep things in perspective, because there are tougher fights ahead- like DOMA and DADT and this is wasted political capital for the lgbt community. we're giving rick warren far more power in our lives than he deserves. i didnt hear our community's outrage when Obama visited Saddleback Church to speak and to participate in a faith forum during the campaign. why? because we knew he was campaigning and it had to be done. i think some are surprised the outreach to evangelicals continues after the election has been won, but votes like prop 8 have shown that without coalition building or opposition neutralization we'll rarely win these ballot initiatives in most states. religious conservatives are far better organized and funded and if we can't get them to vote with us, we have to at least get them to stop voting against us, perhaps this is the first step in that process.

[ProudLiberalDan]

This isn't just about marriage.

Rick Warren is a bigot who compares gay relationships to incest and pedophilia and denies the legitimacy of our existence believing we can be cured.

I hardly doubt if a new president had appointed a segregationist, misogynist, or antisemitic minister to do the invocation that people of color, women and Jews would be receiving hypocritical lectures about "inclusiveness" and "coalition building".

[Catothemuchyounger]

Yes he does. But in saying those things, he is merely stating what most Christians think, and what the majority of people in the country think. This is just "traditional morality."

I am always surprised when people are shocked when some minister expresses the beliefs of plain, ordinary, garden variety Protestantism.

Obama is comfortable with Protestantism, and he thinks he can win a significant chunk of people who are influenced by people like Warren. He is looking to increase his likelihood of getting his agenda passed. He is not going to be too concerned about how this plays with gays. If anything, the controversy will help him with people who think he is a left wing radical.

[LALC]

This pick is not just about LGBT & abortion rights (which is about all we hear)!!
It goes way further. The same Bush policy; anti-stem cell . As for women, Warren preaches & believes that we should not take a lead role in family life (exceptions; to cook, launder, change diapers, etc).
He stands for Bush ideology, regression NOT progression.
The symbolism is extremely important - it's appeasement of & political pandering to his rivals.
I for one am getting sick of Obama's political correctness - "working across the isle" is fine to a point BUT this is getting ridiculous. He's trying way too hard!
As for the 3 min invocation from THIS man - (for this major history making moment so many have waited for) - well it's not AT ALL what Obama claimed to stand for!
As mentioned below, Wallis would or could have been perfect!

[NWBrunette]

Well said. A key point here is values. Democrats must support our core values, even when they show up in issues and causes that we ourselves may not have a stake in. Lots of folks really don't care that much about the GLBT community and their struggles. And that's fine. But we ought to care about values the values that are at play - equal protection under the law, freedom from hate speech, etc. The fact that Obama has clearly demonstrated he doesn't care is indeed sad, and is purely a political calculation. And not one that supports our core values. As was said, that's the same old same old, not change we can believe in.

[antaeus]

This essay brings this episode, its causes and, more depressingly, its implications into focus.

Where do we go? What can we do now? Stay home in 2012.

[Scarllatti]

There is a planet called Mars. I recommend that to you.

[pixy242a]

Nobody is asking what Rick Warren expects from this relationship with Obama. Is he trying to make sure that Obama does not pass anything on Warren's (anti-)social agenda ?

[skeble1]

President-elect Obama's pick of Rick Warren for the inaugural invocation is more about symbolism than about what may be said in a few minutes. To the LGBT Community this is akin to what most blacks would think if someone against them had been picked. The LGBT Community had great hope that there would finally be a president with true respect and concens for its issues. Now those of us who support the LGBT Community question what is to come in Washington, more of the same or change? I have too many friends and relatives in the LGBT Community to turn a bllind eye to this pick. There is time for a less controversial person to be picked.

[ckfan]

So, when are we going to see a column praising Obama for selecting Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery? Or, does he not count because he's Black????

[hlhicks]

No, it doesn't count any more than his science team or his selection of Labor Secretary because his selection of Warren negates every good thing he has done or will do, ever. This 90 second prayer is a failure of epic proportions because it shows that Obama is a homophobe who will enact policy to codify that gays are second class citizens throughout the land. That is the level of hysteria that this debacle has reached. It is quite simply an overreaction and I fear that the Right is laughing their collective you know what's off. In the meantime, Ken Starr is up to his tricks and what is the LGBT community focused on? Rick Warren and their newly liberated hatred of Barack Obama. Circular firing squad forms to the left.

[LALC]

Forget the LGBT thing, abortion thing. Unfortunately, that's the only focus & I'm getting tired of that too!
As I posted above, Warren stands for Bush ideology = regression NOT progression!

[NWBrunette]

Praise him all you want, and extol his virtues. Nobody's stopping you and I for one, am listening.

[itmaybetoolate]

This must be part of Obama's "fierce defense of gay rights." (his words).

[NWBrunette]

And interesting how his "fierce defense" has so far not resulted in a public comment condemning the current administration for not signing the UN Declaration in support of gays and lesbians. I've never heard "fierce" sound so eerily quiet.

[ProudLiberalDan]

Agreed. Obama should have stated that Susan Rice would go to the UN and sign us up on as soon as she's confirmed.

[JimR]

He has not selected Rick Warren to lead his administration's policy on gay rights.

He has not selected Rick Warren to work with him in abolishing gay marriage everywhere.

He has not selected Rick Warren to hold any position in his administration whatsoever.

He selected Rick Warren to say a 3-minute prayer. And... that's it.

[ProudLiberalDan]

He had given a position of honor in a national ceremony to a man who compares gay relationships to pedophilia and incest and who doesn't believe in the legitimacy of our existence, believing we can be cured of sexual orientation. Gays aren't even welcome in his church.

You can say it is only a 3-minute prayer until you are blue in the face, but it doesn't make it any less a deliberate action by Obama to throw gays under the bus for political advantage.

[itmaybetoolate]

And if he had chosen someone who was anti-Jewish to say a 3-minute prayer, you would be okay with that too?

[calvinwazoo]

I'm right there with you on this. Obama has made a major blunder here, and it's largely his staff's fault in my view. Hey, take a look at my blog, I've linked to this blog in one of my recent posts. You can read my blog at http://liberallibertarianlunacy.blogspot.com/ I'm just getting started, and I would welcome your feedback.