The Left Adapts To Power; Or, Overcoming Learned Pessimism

The Rick Warren dust-up seems to signal a knee-jerk reaction on the part of many liberals and progressives to what progressives would normally interpret as a slap in the face.

The contrast, though, between the impressively (from that point of view) liberal administration appointments that obama has been rolling out over the past few days and the choice of an anti-gay pastor to speak briefly for one morning (and presumably not about gays, or any other divisive social issue) is fascinating.

There has been some praise for Obama's choice of Hilda Solis as an ally of labor, but that praise has been nothing compared to the fury in many quarters about the symbolism of Rick Warren.

The Obama team probably misread the situation a bit, but it's easy to see how they might do so: the transition team obviously wanted two contrasting religious voices for the invocation and the benediction. Seen in this light, the Warren pick is far less controversial.

The deeper dynamic, though, is this: liberal groups are used to being treated like stepchildren in Washington. They are used to being under seige at all times, and it's going to take some adjustment to realize that gay rights are probably not in danger because of things like the Warren pick.   (An Obama adviser, discussing this matter with me, urged patience, saying that Obama is committed to the substance of his campaign promises to expand gay rights.)

A little private reassurance would go a long way, and it seems that the Obama team ihas not accounted for the fact that everyone, on all sides, is going through a period of psychological adjustment from the Bush years.

This includes liberal interest groups accustomed to being slapped around by Bush and taken for granted by Bill Clinton.

When new programs start coming down the pike, and Obama's priorities on gay rights (and on anything else on the progressive agenda) become clear, most of this early defensive posturing will probably be seen as premature and overblown.  Until Barack Obama does something substantial to advance gay rights, groups like HRC can hardly be blamed for feeling the deja vu.

Comments

Marc, you are half-right.

One reason why this is a huge mistake is that it is not just "liberal interest groups" who have been slapped around by Bush and used by Clinton - it is actual people and their struggle to build a meaningful life for themselves against tough odds. Don't lose sight of that with your intellectual shorthand.

Another reason why this is so terrible is that the country has been suffering from a great unwillingness to face reality for the past 10 years - from "grands projets" to exotic mortgages. Warren represents a type of blithe willful ignorance of gay people and a lack of intellectual coherence that ranks up there in Palin territory. Yet he is given cover - by the media mainly but also by you - under a rubric of religious tolerance. His ideas will eventually collapse under the weight of their own internal flaws, but what will be the cost of providing him with protection at the expense of real people's lives in the meantime?

It's time for us all to come back to reality - the era of pretending and pandering to religious zealots has to end.

Posted by Patrick M | December 19, 2008 4:05 PM

I'm sympathetic to Obama's general view that the left is panicking when it needn't be. I think, in general, that this will be the most progressive administration since FDR's, and arguably the most progressive administration America is capable of electing.

However, I think that picking Warren was a major error. Warren not only campaigned for Proposition 8: he stated that his reason for doing so was that if it failed, it would become illegal for pastors to preach against gay marriage. I can see no way to parse that except as deliberate falsehood. Moreover, Warren evidently spoke openly about the possibility of assassinating Iran's president Ahmadinejad. Aside from the question of how consistent that kind of talk seems with any Christianity Jesus would recognize, one wonders how US citizens would feel if the shoe were on the other foot.

I have tried to find a counter-argument to the gay activists who wonder why an outright anti-Semite would be unwelcome giving the benediction at President Obama's inauguration, but Rick Warren is welcomed. Notwithstanding his soft language and support for environmental causes, I haven't yet found one that has convinced me.

Posted by bcamarda | December 19, 2008 4:28 PM

It's not just about what the selection of Warren might or might not signal about Obama's committment to LGBT rights. As angry as I am about Obama choosing Warren for the invocation, this doesn't change my opinion of the likelihood of his working for gay and lesbian rights in some substantial ways in the future. The anger for me comes from the decision to exclude gays and lesbians from a hugely important symbolic event in the history of our nation, an event which should be a moment of togetherness and is instead being twisted to mean something else. That in and of itself is worth protesting.

Posted by former deaniac | December 19, 2008 4:38 PM

bcamarda,

The answer to the counterargument is that it's important for the president to maintain a sense of a unified community and foster civil discourse for the major ideological factions in the country. If, for example 61% of the country held [nonviolent] anti-semitic views to the extent that Warren holds nonviolent homophobic views, I think a symbolic gesture showing both sides' commitment to civil discourse and cooperation on common ground issues would be important and powerful. While alone it doesn't do much, it is important as an overall strategy to avoid the sort of culture war that has crippled the gay rights movement for decades, provoked unnecessary hatred, and done so much damage to our country. Should we work through these problems and finally put homophobia to rest as a major faction in our society, then such gestures will no longer have much relevance or function. Until then, I believe efforts to promote civility, recognition, and cooperation ultimately benefit the side of progress, as we win when we get more people to start empathizing.

And yes, I would maintain the same view if this were 1952 and we were talking segregationists/anti-segregationists, and I would maintain the same view if this were 2052 and we were talking vegetarians/factory-farm supporters.

Posted by Klaus | December 19, 2008 4:41 PM

I don't see how gays and lesbians are being excluded from the inauguration. Can you only be "included" if everyone you disagree with is excluded? That mentality seems counterproductive to me, and as we learned from the failure of the "No on 8" campaign, outreach to those with whom we disagree is going to be a vital part of moving forward. If you say, "I cannot be a part of this until each of my opponents disappears," your self-imposed exile will be long and fruitless.

Posted by vance | December 19, 2008 4:49 PM

Vance

Here's how gays and lesbians are being excluded from the inauguration: a man who built his career on efforts to deprive us of equality under the law is giving the invocation, and we have no visible place on the platform.

It is not true that gays and lesbians are completely excluded, however. A gay and lesbian marching band will perform in the inaugural parade.

Yes, we are invited to provide entertainment. After all, comedy, music, and fashion is what we do well. That and waiting tables. After that, I suppose we need to shut up and go home to our non-spouses and our non-families, being the non-entities we are.

Posted by Alan | December 19, 2008 5:13 PM

Alan,isn't the minister giving the benediction someone who preaches about supporting gay rights and has spoken out in support of gay marriage? I believe his name is Lowery and no one is really acknowledging this fact. Showing that both sides of this issue can co-exist and usher in a new administration seems to be what Obama has always been about. Because the reality is that many of the people who oppose gay marriage aren't going to go away and are a part of the fabric of this nation as well. I have had to learn to get use to racist being apart of my country even if they will never get use to me. Its hard but ultimately for your sanity doable.

Posted by Tonia | December 19, 2008 5:28 PM

Vance, how can gays and lesbians feel included if the man leading them in prayer prays to and invokes a God that thinks that who they are is wrong. And not only that, but that this God calls for him to work actively to deprive them of the pursuit of happiness and to inflict mental anguish and suffering upon them?

If Rick Warren wants to attend the inauguration that's fine, and if he wants to disagree about policy in a public forum that's fine too. But he should not be given the important and symbolically powerful position of speaking to and for people of all faiths and walks of life on behalf of the Office of the President of the United States. Someone more neutral ought to be chosen.

Posted by former deaniac | December 19, 2008 5:34 PM

@Tonia,

The problem is not that Warren doesn't support gay marriage. It is that he has compared gays to pedophiles, incestous and polygamist. That he doesn't admit unrepentant gays in his church and a big etc. And that he was one of the most prominent leaders of the Prop 8. That, you might want to remember passed a month ago or so.

The guy is a big fat bigot.

@Klaus,

In your analogy we are talking about a leader of segregationists, anti-semites, etc.

Posted by Eduardo | December 19, 2008 5:44 PM

Obama's not inviting Warren because he's a bigot, he's inviting him because 46% of Americans who voted for the other guy mostly share his views. How would YOU go about reaching out to them?

Posted by David | December 19, 2008 5:51 PM

@David,

I have trouble believing that 46% of Americans would compare gays to pedophiles or abortion to the Holocaust etc. Although the mayority of the ones who are so bigoted most likely do.

There were people who voted for McCain out of racism. Should Obama reach out to them by giving a racist pastor the invocation? How about the antisemites? YOU tell me.

Posted by Eduardo | December 19, 2008 5:58 PM

I think Matt Yglesias cut to the heart of this thing here.

"it’s very easy for a person who isn’t part of the minority group that’s being symbolically dissed to dismiss someone else’s concerns as merely symbolic and not that big a deal. But it’s worth considering how much public policy acts consistently to reaffirm the symbolic commitments of majority groups. If Barack Obama were proposing to eliminate Christmas as a national holiday and end the White House Easter Egg Hunt, nobody would be surprised to see people get very upset even though the concrete stakes would be low. And it matters a lot to potentially vulnerable minorities to see their own concerns symbolically reaffirmed for members of the majority. When you see the reverse taking place, and being done by the erstwhile leader of the political coalition that’s supposed to be taking care of your interests, that’s a very disturbing development."

Posted by janinsanfran | December 19, 2008 6:04 PM

What got me and what I think a lot of people are upset about isn't so much the Prop 8 support; that sadly was to be expected from a California evangelical pastor. It was the interview with Beliefnet where he equated gay marriage to incest, pedophilia, and polygamy. What will future generations think about such a man given such prominence on this historic occasion?

Posted by Eunice | December 19, 2008 6:19 PM

(cross-posted)
Warren, though a shameful homophobe, is more important right now than racists or antisemites because he represents a majority view in this country (even, alarmingly, in California), while the other types of bigotry do not. If racism or anti-semitism were as popular as homophobia, then I'd say yes, we need to keep these people involved, as long as they aren't advocating violence.

The homophobia=racism analogy is spot-on. Now let's take a trip back in time, to 1964, when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act into law. He said at the time, "We've just lost the South for a generation." The South, which had previously been a solid Democratic voting block, instantly turned red and is now the stronghold of bigots in this country.

Now it's easy to say "fuck the South", but really, the South has been doing all the fucking for the last 40 years, and it's because they were told to sit down and shut up. No, it's not OK for them to continue being racists or homophobes. But shunning small-minded bigots just makes them angrier. So resentment built up. The result has been Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton (DOMA), Bush II, and we're just now starting to get out of the woods from that action. Shutting out people who hate you and your friends, especially as you take power, is a sure-fire way for them to become worse and worse bigots, then when they come back to power, they want revenge.

I believe that in the long term, we'll be OK - in 20-40 years gay rights will be a given, just because of where demographics are headed. But as they say, in the long term we're all dead. The only way to avoid the mistake of the Civil Rights Act is to hold hands with the bigots as we show them why they're wrong.

Posted by David | December 19, 2008 6:52 PM

David: In 20-40 years, I'll probably be dead. I don't want to wait. As for your question: "Obama's not inviting Warren because he's a bigot, he's inviting him because 46% of Americans who voted for the other guy mostly share his views. How would YOU go about reaching out to them?" My answer: Is that reaching out really necessary? If so, can it not be done in a forum other than the inaugural invocation? How about a White House "Warren meets gay leaders" summit somewhere down the road a bit? Why now? The timing and political hamfistedness is an insult.

Posted by Scott | December 19, 2008 7:06 PM

It's hard to get past the juxtaposition of Obama's major inaugural themes of inclusion and unification being preceded by an invocation delivered by someone who clearly sees some Americans as lesser citizens. Finding opportunities to engage Warren despite differences may well be appropriate for Obama, however it's hard to see Warren as the religious figure this particular occasion calls for -- one who can deliver an invocation that is full, wholesome and inclusive of every American. Evidently, religious gays will have to do without an invocation at Obama's inclusive, unifying inauguration...

Posted by Steve in Sacto | December 19, 2008 7:41 PM

Hold the phone folks, this is for real. The service starts with an invocation, and ends with a benediction ("blessing"). Did you see who's giving the OTHER prayer?

Joe Lowery:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2008/12/19/obamas-other-inaugural-preacher-supports-gay-clergy-same-sex-marriage

These guys are bookends on the service: starting with intolerance, and ending with inclusiveness. Taken as a whole, it's a powerful message, one I hope (and expect) Obama will deliver on.

Posted by David | December 19, 2008 7:48 PM

Wow. Yes David - did you hear he has also invited David Duke to hold the Bible as he is being sworn in? It is truly amazing and inspirational how far he is going to demonstrate inclusion.

Posted by Patrick M | December 19, 2008 7:56 PM

Other than Hilda Solis, I can't think of what "impressively liberal" appointments you're thinking of, Marc. Vilsack? Clinton? Salazar? Geithner? All centrist, establishment candidates in their respective fields. The only person who really signals progressive promise to me is Jared Bernstein, Biden's economic advisor. That's right, the vice-president's advisor is the only other member of the progressive coalition at the executive level.

Posted by Stefan | December 19, 2008 8:05 PM

Look. Like it or not, the homophobic bigots are a majority in this country. As I've already made the case, and as you can see Sullivan make the case here:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/12/taking-yes-for.html

we can't afford to ignore or shun them any more. It's key that this happen now, at the start of the new administration, as a symbol of where we're going.

We can't get to where we want to be unless we're honest about where we are. And that means accepting the reality that we want to change.

Posted by David | December 19, 2008 8:18 PM

The gay and lesbian community can rant and protest 24/7 for the next month and Rick Warren will still deliver the invocation on 1/20. Obama does not back down. So, you may as well come to terms with it. Or not.

You could burn your political capital hyperventilating about some "symbolic" diss that has ZERO tangible impact on your life. Or you can focus on how you will make sure Obama enacts gay equality policies.

Posted by Yvonne | December 19, 2008 9:12 PM

Christopher Hitchens is right, religion poisons everything.

Posted by Gary | December 19, 2008 9:25 PM

David, you are being simplistic. These are just platitudes - please give at least the outline of a deeper argument here.

Here's my take: Instead of using "bigots" for the majority, I prefer to think about levels of ignorance. And this is a complicated process as there are many different types of ignorance out there and applies across the board - some who demonstrate with violence, some who are political, some who are traditional, some who have very mixed feelings, some who are well-meaning but uninformed, some who are gay themselves but have internalized homophobia, some who are broadly open. And there are also some of us who may have thought about this issue for a long time and may be comfortable with the ins and outs of it, but have our own ignorance of what it is like to be in someone else's shoes.

So there is a lot of ignorance to go around and no one is the holder of absolute knowledge. But I think the big problem here lies in the symbolic nature of this invitation. On a day that is about hope and rejecting the past, an honor goes to someone who is one of the most ignorant, most intransigent, and most powerful in terms of encouraging ignorance. He may speak with a soft voice but he wields a harsh stick.

There may be a symbolic value in including a very ignorant person in the start of a new administration, but it also symbolically places a high value on that person's ignorance. The hope is that by doing so you are also including everyone else up to his level of ignorance in your circle; however, the risk is that you do not have the reach, and not only do you lose him but those who have been long inside the circle. And you are left with this ignorant person outside the circle and even more emboldened in his ignorance because of the publicity and honor he has received. This is the great risk, the great unknown, the great problem with this tactic. And no one has laid out a rationale for how it could really work because it can't in itself - it needs to be part of a much larger, complex, well-thought-out process.

And an alternative strategy for making progress is to start with those people who are just a small bit less ignorant than you and engage with them, especially as you have more common ground to begin with. Given success there, you can gradually move out in ever-expanding circles, so that you finally do include those who are the most ignorant.

Personally, I think the second strategy is the most likely to succeed. But I would like to see a well-thought-through analysis comparing the potential of both approaches - it could be very helpful if we were able to have this type of discussion about different strategies right now.

Posted by Patrick M | December 19, 2008 9:44 PM

The Warren choice for an important symbolic role is deeply disappointing not because of any policy relevance on gay rights. This is not a controversy about this or that interest group maneuver or favor. It is, for many of us, disappointing as an indication of cruelty and cyncism on Obama's part. His operation seems to have used the Warren choice -- and the inevitable gay protects to it -- as a ploy to try (no doubt fruitlessly) to build support from exclusionist conservatives. That is a sad thing, because it is never appealing for a powerful political leader to bash a small and threatened minority for expedient reasons.

More than that, though, this key choice reveals how little Christianity means to Obama. He elevated Wright when he thought that would help him politically, then abandoned him. Now he elevates a self-seeking right-winger who engages in highly visible bigotry, even though Warren's words and his church's practices violate what Obama says he believes as a Christian and an American: that we should all be included and work together.

If Obama did care deeply about his stated values, he would have found an authentic spokesperson for them to give the invocation on this historic occasion. An evangelical Christian, perhaps, even someone with qualms about gay marriage as a particular policy, but nevertheless a minister who believes and practices the inclusion that Christ really stood for. Not someone who has gone out of his way to say hateful things very recently, as Warren has done.

Instead, Obama is showing signs of believing that Ivy League expertise and cynical political "pragmatism" will be enough to underpin leadership in an era of peril. That is disappointing to learn about him, it reveals a shallowness of belief that will not suffice. In a time of trouble, a leader must articulate strong shared values, not just reach the right tactical decisions. Tactics alone will not be enough -- a point Obama made himself about the Iraq war. And the cynical/manipulative Obama revealed in this wrongheaded decision about the Inauguration is not who most of us voted for...

Posted by Theda Skocpol | December 19, 2008 10:39 PM

Yvonne:

Oh my God, how the gay community has the nerve to oppose something that He himself did? The nerve! The nerve!!!

Flash news, darling: We vote, we campaign, we donate. We also elected Him. He will need our votes in 4 years. In 2, since he will nice majorities in Congress to do anything.

But mainly we are citizens. And people. We decide what we like and what we don't. STFU won't work.

You all get used to it.

Posted by Eduardo | December 19, 2008 10:42 PM

Oh, where I wrote "he will nice majorities" I meant to write "He will need nice majorities"

May Him Who Not Err forgive me.

Posted by Eduardo | December 19, 2008 10:44 PM

What Yglesias via janinsanfran said.

The way I see it, presidential inaugurations serve a similar function as New Year's Eve celebrations--a time for renewal and for us to put our best foot forward at the beginning of a new journey. That's especially true with this particular inauguration. But Rick Warren is not our best foot. He's the gangrene-plagued foot we should have had cut off years ago. And to see Obama put him forward at this time not only reminds us of our painful recent history (which happened to involve a lot of tissue damage), but it makes us doubt our own future health. Ick.

Posted by slag | December 19, 2008 11:00 PM

Eduardo, instead of addressing what I said, you go off on a ridiculous rant. I never told you to STFU or anything close to it. I said that you're wasting your time. Warren will give the invocation at the inaguration. Period.

If you don't vote for Obama in 2012, that's on you and it won't be much of a departure since gays supported Obama in smaller numbers than any democrat in the past 20 years. Or maybe you'll enjoy life under President Palin or President Mittens or President Huckabee. I mean they just LOVE gays and have committed themselves to gay equality!!

Posted by Yvonne | December 19, 2008 11:04 PM

Yvonne-
If you say something worth addressing, I'm sure someone will respond in-kind.

Posted by slag | December 19, 2008 11:19 PM

Oh, look at poor Slag. He wants to whine about Rick Warren and nobody cares. Obama just left for a 12-day vacation but not before making it clear that Warren would give the invocation. Will you hold your breath until he returns and let it ruin your Christmas and New Year?

Posted by Yvonne | December 19, 2008 11:25 PM

Yvonne, are you kidding me? 7 out of 10 gays and lesbians voted for Obama. How is this a low number?

Did you want 10 out of 10? There are republican gays and lesbians, and we're not some magical group that controls the voting actions of our peers.

Posted by Steve | December 19, 2008 11:32 PM

Yvonne,

I didn't say I won't vote for him in 2012, I said that we vote, and that we voted for him overwhelmingly. So spare me the President Palin crap.

It is a big stretch on your side to say that if gays don't vote for Obama it won't be much of a departure from 2008 just because we vote for him in very slightly less numbers than in 2004. It is simple not true that we voted for Obama less than any other democrat in 20 years. And of course if straight people would vote like us they wouldn't be 1 republican in congress. We also donate money and time in very disproportionate way related to our numbers. We are an important constituency of the Democratic Party and Obama needs us as much as we need them. We elected him, too. And anyway, as citizens we will let him know what is in our minds.

I might have misread you. But it is very difficult not to read a desire that we just get over it, accept what the Obama did, and shut up. Because you know, he won't back down. That wasn't what you meant? Fine. My apologies.

What about this then: Stop telling us what impact our lives and what not, what should we be angry about or not, when to "hyperventilate" or not. Because we will do what we think we should.

Posted by Eduardo | December 19, 2008 11:33 PM

Steve, that's 10 percent lower that what Kerry and Gore got (nearly 80%). And gays overwhelmingly supported Clinton in the primary, even though Obama addressed gay rights issues even when he wasn't talking to a "gay" audience. He called out African Americans about homophobia in all-black settings and his deputy campaign manager is openly gay.

But now gays act like they "made" Obama and he'd better dance to their music. They act like this inauguration is all about them. Rick Warren has offended progressives of all stripes including the pro-choice community but we're looking past him to focus on this administration's policies.

Posted by Yvonne | December 19, 2008 11:41 PM

Eduardo, OK, let's take it down a notch because we got off to a bad start.

I know you're angry and disappointed. I'm straight and I've been advocating for gay marriage for 20 freaking years. I don't like the Warren choice either but it's irrelevant in terms of how it will impact your life. If Warren doesn't give the invocation, Prop 8 will still be the law in California. So given that (and the fact that Obama isn't going to change his mind) all of this seems like misplaced energy.

And people like Avarosis calling Obama a bigot and a homophobe is completely counter-productive. Some are accusing everybody who says Warren should speak a hater. That's way over the top and unfair.

http://obeygiant.com/headlines/stopobama-time-stop-intolerance

Here's the guy who created the Obama poster. He's disappointed, too but he's doing something other than demonize Rick Warren. He's doing something that will make a difference!

Posted by Yvonne | December 19, 2008 11:49 PM

What Obama's horrendous invitation to the abominable Rick Warren indicates to me that Obama just doesn't give much thought to LGBT persons as anything more than an abstract constituency group. It's easy for him to be fervent in his support of LGBT equality (when he gets to define what equality is) without thinking much about what it means to real people who live under the heel of discrimination. In the same way he made a few offhand anti-woman remarks in the campaign because he just doesn't give much thought to the reality of women's lives -- his voting record is virtually impeccable on women's issues -- he just didn't think much about what an insult it would be to millions of people to invite such a vile person to participate in his inauguration, or to place a gay anti-gay crusader on his campaign stage.

I can only hope that the storm his poor decision has set off will open his eyes a bit. I am sure he will never admit to such an effect, but perhaps he will think in more personal and individual ways about the women and LGBTs whom he has so casually insulted this year.

Posted by Vico | December 19, 2008 11:52 PM

Oh my God, only 70% of gays voted for Him! And they think Obama owes them anything? And his deputy campaign manager is openly gay! His deputy campaign manager, people! DEPUTY. CAMPAIGN. MANAGER

Bunch of ingrates, the gays. And self-centered as hell. You equate them to pedophiles and they get mad.

Posted by Eduardo | December 19, 2008 11:54 PM

Yes, Eduardo. Only 70%. 10% less than voted for the past two Democratic nominees. Considering how disgusting the Republican party has been to the gay community over the past four years, it's a disgrace that any gays voted Republican. Why is that, do you think?

Obama owes you something. He owes you to follow through on his campaign promises about such issues as DADT. But you don't own him.

Gays are no more responsible for Obama's election than any other single group. Young people voted for Obama in overwhelming numbers, more than 65%; Latinos voted for Obama in overwhelming numbers, around 66%; blacks voted for Obama in astounding numbers, around 95%.

Posted by Yvonne | December 20, 2008 12:05 AM

It's amazing to me how many people DIDN'T listen to Obama during the very long campaign.

His entire message is centered around we are all Americans, no red states no blue states, etc.

He means what he says folks.

This is a huge country populated with 300million very diverse folks. He means to be Prez to all of us.

That includes the ignorant, the bigoted, the racist as well as progressives.

If you had listened to him during the campaign you would also know his practice of gathering all camps together to find common ground. He also said his practice is to be the best persuader in the room and to bring as many of those that disagree with us to our side.

Be unhappy if it suits you, but don't blame it on Obama as he is doing exactly what he talked about non-stop for two years. It ain't his fault you didn't listen.

Posted by G Davis | December 20, 2008 1:25 AM

See G Davis, that is exactly right. He said he would be the president of ALL of us, no divisions. So the choice of someone in this symbolic role who represents the power of the evangelicals but who actively uses that power to be intolerant and harmful to another minority, the gay-supportive progressive 30% or so, is nothing but divisive. It is the exact opposite of what he said he would do.

The job is about bringing us together. Bigots may be part of the country, but you don't get to include them in a role that foments more division. You have to find another way that is actually truly inclusive. That is why this is his biggest political mistake so far.

Posted by Patrick M | December 20, 2008 3:10 AM

These guys were already twitchy.
Obama's gone a centrist, establishment route with his appointments, but by and large liberals were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt-- assuming this was a preference for experience rather than a rejection of their ideals. There was, of course, some concern, and some uneasiness about this.

Then Hildebrand wrote that godawful STFU message, to a base that's got a colossal chip on their shoulder because they're used to being treated, rather unfairly, like radical nutjobs. These are people who've lived with little but disappointment for their entire political lives; people who feel (with some accuracy) that the officials they've worked very hard to elect have routinely betrayed them and their interests; people who have learned, painfully, not to trust.

And you have an Obama surrogate who just yelled at them to stop their whining, when they were voicing what amounts to little more than low level background insecurity.

The predictable result of that was that the next time he did something that was at odds with liberal orthodoxy, they were primed to overreact, totally out of proportion.

Rick Warren's a homophobe with odious theological views. But he's also the author of the best-selling book, like, ever, and the most prominent religious leader in the country. It's definitely a bad idea for them to invite him, but you can see why they'd want to do so, and it's ultimately a symbolic measure rather than something with substantive harm.

He is a controversial figure, and there would have been protest-- but not this level of protest. Obama's team brought this one on themselves.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | December 20, 2008 3:25 AM

Here's the problem:

Obama wants the opening prayer to be one of unity for the nation. Yet the person leading that prayer bans some citizens from his Church because they are gay. So this prayer of national unity, voiced by a person who excludes some Americans from his Church, is inherently exclusionary.

I think there would be less of a problem if they had done two things:

1. Call ahead.

2. Switched the order around, so Lowrey gave the invocation and Warren the Benediction. That the first name people, who were excited about the Inauguration and looking forward to it, saw was Rick Warren is a large part of the reason the crap hit the fan on this one. Worse, Warren has used this firestorm to spread his bigotry--promiscuity, pedophilia, incest, polygamy, etc, being the equivalent of homosexuality.

As it is, I think they have to do something to mitigate the situation--something beyond private assurance. I think they might be able to get out of this pickle by inviting an openly gay and lesbian pastor to give a "co-invocation" with Warren. They could alternate lines. Of course, Warren would probably bail if they did that. Still, that would reflect poorly on Warren and prove that his rhetoric about "coming together" is completely hollow. (Though his throwing gas on the first this week already proved that).

As it is, I'm praying Warren goes off message and delivers a divisive and offensive prayer. It would serve the Obama folks right for this dumb pick, and it'd be comical to watch the reaction to it.

Posted by The Bag of Health and Politics | December 20, 2008 4:00 AM

Excellent point Anthony. Though I do wonder if Hildebrand knew. Maybe he wanted this reaction. His post never made sense to me, and seemed off the reservation.

Posted by The Bag of Health and Politics | December 20, 2008 4:22 AM

Yvonne:

Actually gays didn't vote for Gore nor Kerry at 80%. And don't come to tell me that in 2004, the very year of the federal gay marriage amendment hysteria and the dozens of amendment to state constitutions that we were better treated.

So blacks voted more for Obama than gays. So, conceded: no racist pastor that doesn't allow blacks in his church. But since Latinos voted for Obama in even less numbers than the ingrate --and something else that you want to tell about us but for some reason just can't say it-- Obama could have invited someone who equates Latinos to pedophiles. And it would be OK because it is a disgrace that 100% of Latinos didn't vote for Obama after Tancredo said that he was happy because all the other candidates were out-Tancredo him.

Funny how all this has worked out. Obama picks this awful bigot to give the invocation in the inauguration, gays don't like it and then our allies of 20 years start attacking the gay community.

With allies like that...

Posted by Eduardo | December 20, 2008 8:35 AM

To all of those suggesting ways Obama could mitigate this or helf pacify gays:

You get nothing. Hear that? NOTHING!

This is the Obama inauguaration, not the gay and lesbian inauguration. You're not entitled to your "own" pastor and you will not be groveled to.

With high profile gays like John Cloud calling Obama a bigot and everyone who supports civil rights over gay mariage a bigot, you're losing way more support than you're gaining.

You will never get gay marriage or the repeal of DADT or DOMA without significant support from heteros and trashing everyone who doesn't worship at your feet ain't the way to go about it. I voted against Prop 8 but after six weeks of nasty divissive rhetoric from many in the gay community, I wish I had voted for it!

Posted by Belvedere | December 20, 2008 8:37 AM

"You will never get gay marriage or the repeal of DADT or DOMA without significant support from heteros and trashing everyone who doesn't worship at your feet ain't the way to go about it. I voted against Prop 8 but after six weeks of nasty divissive rhetoric from many in the gay community, I wish I had voted for it!"

Shorter Belvedere: Be good and quite or else we are going to have to fuck with you.

Because being good and nice have worked out so well so far.

And who the fuck is that John Cloud anyway? High profile gay? Please.

Posted by Eduardo | December 20, 2008 8:53 AM

I didn't tell you to be quiet, Eduardo. I said stop demonizing everybody as a bigot. John Cloud is a writer for Time Magazine. He wrote a column on 12/18 calling Obama a bigot. He went on MSNBC and called Obama a bigot. This is the same guy who defended Ann Coulter using the word "faggot" because "she has a gay friend" and said she is not a homophobe.

Demanding equal rights is not the problem. Demonizing everyone who disagrees with you as evil is. I know a lot of people who are mad as hell at being labeled bigots and homophobes simply because they don't object to the Warren invite.

Keep alienating people who are on your side by calling them names and see how far you get.

Posted by Belvedere | December 20, 2008 9:20 AM

Belvedere,

I am not demonizing anybody. I think Warren is a big time bigot that shouldn't have been invited to the inaugural.

My question about John Cloud was rhetoric. I learned who John Cloud is yesterday. He is big time only in his house --at lunch time. He seems to be a big time asshole. And now you are going to hang his assholeness around our collective necks? And for all the asshole he is he can't play in Warren leagues of bigotry.

I have said this a thousand times in this brouhabrouha:
It is not about gay marriage
It is not about gay rights

It is mostly the fact that this guy is a big time bigot. He has compared homosexuality to pedophilia, he doesn't allow homosexuals to be members of his church, he is into gay reparative therapy and this now: http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/faith_and_politics/rick_warren_moderate_1.html

It is also the fact that he is one of the leaders of the anti-gay movement not some small time opponents of gay right. And someone who is not above lying to win political battles.

So we "screamed". And the basic reaction is either "I understand you but keep it quite, Obama is gonna pass DADT. This is good political move." or then different variations of hostility because we are being a nuisance.

In the middle of all this some of us might have been not too polite. And the reaction from our fellow democrats? Control yourself because we decide which rights you are afforded and which ones you aren't. Or Obama is the decider and is not going to help you with your little issues.

See why we have to be skeptic? How much political capital will Obama win if he indeed prove a "fierce" advocate of gay equality? Uhm, not much it seems. Don't get me wrong I worked my ass out to get him elected. But he is a politician. But we'll wait and see.

Posted by Eduardo | December 20, 2008 9:45 AM

Eduardo: When you have Cloud and Avarosis getting a lot of media attention and making nasty, nasty comments about good people who have been big supporters of gay rights, it doesn't go down easy with folks like me. It makes me say "screw you, then! Since I'm a bigot, give me back my anti-Prop 8 vote!"

I understand why gays are angry about Prop 8. I don't understand why so many of you have to be so hateful to anyone who sees things differently and make everybody the enemy. I also don't understand why you think you're entitled to special treatment by dictating who can and can not speak at the inauguration.

You don't like Warren because Warren is a bigot and a homophobe. Got it. But gays act like they're the only group that matters. You don't get to call the shots. Warren is going to speak. There will be no gay or lesbian minister.

Posted by Belvedere | December 20, 2008 10:36 AM

I can see why gays and lesbians would not be delighted at Warren's inclusion. But I think perhaps the reason for the level of outrage is that his inclusion is symbolic. And the community has become accustomed to getting ONLY symbolic gestures from politicians. Call it the habit of minimal expectations.

The idea that someone else might get the symbolic gestures, while they get the substantive actions is going to take a while to set in. It's just way too new for it to even occur to most of the community.

Posted by wj | December 20, 2008 10:49 AM

Belvedere,

"You don't like Warren because Warren is a bigot and a homophobe. Got it. But gays act like they're the only group that matters. You don't get to call the shots. Warren is going to speak. There will be no gay or lesbian minister"

I just wonder if Warren were a raging anti-semite or a segregationist we would be hearing that the blacks and the jews were acting as if they were the only group that matters. And who is calling for a gay minister? We just didn't like one of the leaders of the anti-gay crusade. Isn't too much to ask to him to pick someone who isn't so relevant in his homophobia?

wj,

"The idea that someone else might get the symbolic gestures, while they get the substantive actions is going to take a while to set in. It's just way too new for it to even occur to most of the community."

First, the problem with the symbolic gesture is that they have real consequences.

But, to your point. The second part of your equation, that is, the "substantive actions" hasn't happened yet. As a matter of fact, it was leaked very soon after the elections that Obama is not planning to tackle DODT which already has the support of 2/3 of the people. So pardon me if I am being a little bit skeptic. If Obama delivers in the substantive actions thing I will be the first to acknowledge it.

To everyone:
But If he doesn't, and that's now my question to all of you that are criticizing us for our reaction, are you going to push Obama to fulfill his promises or are you going to be asking us to be patient again? And again.

Posted by Eduardo | December 20, 2008 11:45 AM

Eduardo, I will never again push Obama or anybody else to do a damn thing for gays. I will never again vote against anti-gay measures like Prop 8. I will never again advocate on behalf of gay equality with some of my less enlightened friends and family members. Why? Because I'm a bigot, according to a lot of outspoken gays.

You have lost me and I'm sure I'm not the only one. And I hope you've lost Obama, too, since he's being called a bigot and a homophobe. Since he's been cast as a hater, I hope he treats the community like he is one and doesn't lift a finger to repeal DOMA or DADT. Maybe he can even sign a few more anti-gay measures into law while he's at it!

That way you'll really have something to be angry about and maybe you'll realize what a stupid, non-issue this whole Warren thing is.

Posted by Belvedere | December 20, 2008 12:00 PM

Belvedere, for goodness sake, take a deep breath, or a lude, or a vacation. You're going to stop supporting basic civil rights because some people in the blogosphere said a handful of things you don't like? Really? Talk about getting upset over a non-issue.

Marc, your post will seem prescient if Obama delivers on his campaign promises to gay people. It will look depressingly naive if he doesn't. Time will tell. In any case, it's worth reminding him -- and every politician -- that if they want to retain your support, they need to not treat you like crap.

Posted by NoahB | December 20, 2008 12:17 PM

We really never had you, Belvedere. Because you fail to understand that my rights as an equal human being don't depend in how stupid or unfair or imperfect or even a bad person I am; that they don't depend on whether I hurt your feelings and that they are not yours to take and remove according to how much you like gays today. I have those rights because I am a human being.

And boy, just for the sake of irony here. Some guy compare us to pedophiles, campaign actively to take away our rights, doesn't allow us to be members of his church, thinks that homosexuality should be criminalized, lies about how if we don't lose the right to marry the church will lose their freedom of speech. Then Obama asks him to participate in his inauguration. We didn't like it and raise hell. We don't see it as mere symbolism but fear that the promises he made might not be delivered. A couple of gays, that is, a blogger and a journalist, says Obama is a bigot. Then because of that you are going to fuck with us forever?

Gee, those touchy gays, eh?

Posted by Eduardo | December 20, 2008 12:21 PM

I don't give a crap about Warren and don't give a crap about what he said because he's just another ignorant Bible thumper. But I do care what the gay community is saying about good, loving straight people who have been in its corner for years.

I hope Obama shows you what having a bigoted homophobe president would be like since so many of you are rushing to define him as one.

Posted by Belvedere | December 20, 2008 1:14 PM

Eduardo, Just a note: Obama's only relation to DADT is whether he will sign or veto a bill from Congress to repeal it. And I don't see him going so far as to veto it.

So if you want to get rid of it (and God know we should, ASAP!), start lobbying the new Congress. That's where any action has to start.

Posted by wj | December 20, 2008 4:58 PM

Except that nobody is defining Obama as a homophobic belvedere. Not Eduardo, not NoahB, nor anybody else in this tread.

Yet you are declaring how you would want to fuck over all gays their lives just because a single writer who has already been denounced by the people in this tread has been impolite to Obama?

Nobody has declared you a homophone, yet you argue loudly here how you will work against gays and how you want your vote against prop 8 changed into a for because why? they didn't call you, or Obama anything here.

I'm not gay so I don't feel the troubles of the gay community as they do, but I understand that they have reason to be wary of any president actually following through on their promises made to them.

But nobody called Obama a homophobic, nobody you a homophobic, nobody called for a gay or lesbian preacher. In fact they've all been less negative then you here, so please take a breather, and reread this tread tomorrow when the tempers aren't as high.

Posted by Ernst | December 20, 2008 5:12 PM

@wj

Agree. But this is only technically. He can push for it or he can ask the dems in congress to please wait a little til better conditions. Check this: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/

And check Obama's team denial here: http://www.washingtonblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=22644

And agree also on the need to lobby congress members. This won't happen by inertia.

Posted by Eduardo | December 20, 2008 8:44 PM

As somebody else already pointed out it's not necessarily gays. Within the cabinet appointments you have exactly one liberal. The rest at most are centrists. Gates I am pretty sure is conservative. Lahood is a Republican who can't have been all that moderate being that he introduced the articles if impeachment against WJC. He's appointed Ken Salazar to Interior for gawd's sake. And JoeLow got away with treason with Obama's assistance. And Obama's people didn't think they were going to get a reaction by choosing a homophobe to be the next Billy Graham? It's not just that he chose Warren it's that there was no reason to choose Warren. He could have picked the guy in Tennessee who was the pastor of the Unitarian Church which was attacked by the nutjob who killed several parishners or TD Jakes or even current flavor of the month televangelist Joel Osteen.

Posted by mai name | December 20, 2008 9:51 PM

"Eduardo, I will never again push Obama or anybody else to do a damn thing for gays. I will never again vote against anti-gay measures like Prop 8. I will never again advocate on behalf of gay equality with some of my less enlightened friends and family members. Why? Because I'm a bigot, according to a lot of outspoken gays."

Belvedere, that makes no sense. If you really believe that gay people deserve the right to marry, to serve in the military, etc., you won't stop advocating for them because some of them insulted you. If you believe in equality, you don't stop believing in it because someone insults you.

Also: I think many of Warren's beliefs and his rhetoric are disgusting and morally wrong. But if we're looking at symbols, doesn't it matter that the last words of the inauguration will be delivered by a fierce proponent of gay marriage? I am upset about the Warren pick, although I don't know that Obama shouldn't have done it--but I am heartened by the fact that Obama clearly went out of his way to get a minister who strongly supports gay marriage to deliver the benediction.

Posted by Kate | December 21, 2008 11:29 AM

The President –elect’s choice for Secretary of Education, Arnie Duncan, hatches evil plot with cereal companies, Read more at, http://stopthepresses2.blogspot.com

Posted by Stopthepresses | December 21, 2008 12:03 PM

What's that you say- Obama (blessed be his name) may be a lying politician who uses various interest groups for his own ends and then "kicks them to the curb"???? Go figure.

Posted by fred t | December 22, 2008 10:08 AM

Wow Marc, this is the most partisan I've seen you in many a post. Sorry, but if Warren had said "Jews, love 'ya, but you shouldn't marry" this wouldn't be happening. You, like so many other fair weather gay rights supporters, just don't view gays as worthy of support worth your rhetoric.

Posted by Rusty | December 22, 2008 2:52 PM

I came out as a lesbian in 1978, at the age of 24. 9 years post-stonewall. A brief history:

The bad: I've been spit on, cursed at, mocked in public, and shunned by my family for periods of time. I had to navigate a horrific divorce without the benefit of the legal structures that benefit hets. I watched Reagon ignore HIV/AIDS, and attended scores of funerals and memorials for beloved family and friends.

The good: My rights in employment, housing and health care are now protected by my state (New Mexico), I have adopted three children (now, 10, 11 and 13 - and God help me, I'm 54...), have watched my family undergo an astounding transformation on the issue of lgbt rights and trans-racial adoption, have seen hate crimes against lgbt citizens added to numerous state hate-crime laws, and....really, there's more, but those are the changes that have effected me personally.

I marched on Washington in 1979 (euphoria/rage), 1988 (the height of the plague), and 1993 (the advent of the "cocktail" and renewed energy).

They all occurred in 30 years. 30 years, I repeat.

Yes, there is much more to do. I thought in the 90's that Clinton might be good for us. My bad.

And, I DO believe that Obama will do exactly what he said he will do in his campaign: get rid of don't ask, don't tell, and DOMA. And, these things, AND gay marraige/civil unions will also happen soon - in WAY less than thirty years.

All that being said, I can't get my panties in a twist too much about the Warren selection. Yes, if I fall in love again, i'd like to have it legal. I don't care what it's called. I also want my children to actually have a livable planet to inhabit, I don't want my sons drafted or going off to war, I want my daughter's reproductive freedom protected, and I want them ALL to have the opportunity to be everything they ARE. BTW, my 13 year-old currently identifies as bisexual, and is out about it in MIDDLE SCHOOL. There's been a generational shift.

Does that make me a traitor to my tribe? Or merely keeping my eyes on the prize?

I don't know, but that is what is true for me.

Posted by renegademom3 | December 22, 2008 3:49 PM

Hey, what about us folks who aren't Christians of any stripe and don't believe in the bible? Gay, straight or otherwise. I'm not feeling a whole world of slapped in the face because I thought there was separation of Church and State and my president is being blessed by a religious figure.

I'm not feeling excluded from the festivities or celebration. I'm stoked. I'm glad he's getting sworn in.

I put my time and my treasure on the line to see that it happened and I'll be damned if I'm going to miss the party because I don't like all the acts.

Rick Warren does not have that kind of power over me. If you're going to pout and take your toys and go home and not celebrate this moment that's on you!

I still believe in Barack Obama, because he's been remarkably consistent. He is who we thought he was. I don't agree with him on everything and that includes his lack of support for gay marriage.

That said, this is National politics. Progressive minded people finally have not just a seat at the table, but we own the damn restaurant and I am not fool enough to boycott just because they don't use all organic produce and use the occasional factory-farmed meat products.

Hell to the naw!

Posted by dkan71 | December 23, 2008 5:07 PM

I think Obama made a HUGE mistake with the Warren invitation, now that I know who he is. I had no idea who he was before all this press; had never heard of him in fact. That being said, however, I don't know why it is necessary to have an invocation or benediction at all. After all, the inauguration is not a religious event; it is a secular event and in my opinion there is no need for any blessings at all. The Presidential Inauguration is simply a public swearing in ceremony not a church service. I say we get rid of the invocation and benediction completely.

Posted by Genie Murphy | December 29, 2008 1:22 PM