Rick Warren? Really? I’m afraid so. Rick Warren, who compares homosexuality to incest and pedophilia. Rick Warren, who labels advocates of the social gospel Marxists. Rick Warren, who makes common cause with James Dobson and his ilk. Rick Warren will give the invocation when President-elect Obama is inaugurated.
What does this mean? In terms of policy, let’s hope very little. But in terms of symbolism, a great deal. As a statement from People for the American Way notes, this elevates Warren, who has already airbrushed his rough edges so effectively that many observers think he’s a moderate, into a position of bipartisan authority. And that’s a real shame, although I suppose it should help boost bumper-sticker sales.
Update: John Cole provides a reasonable counterargument. I remain unconvinced.
Update II: As jazzbumpa notes in the comments, Bérubé brings the hammer down.
155 comments
December 17, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Anderson
Let’s see: Obama expressly campaigned as someone who would try to bridge partisan differences and reach out to the other side of the aisle.
Now he’s doing that, and it turns out that those other people — the one’s on the other side — have DIFFERENT BELIEFS than we do!
And despite that, Obama is putting them in charge of major policy decisions, like what invocation to give at the inaugural!
Wake me when the horror stops.
December 17, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Walt
Uh-oh, Ari. Now that you’ve criticized Obama you will be flung from the charmed circle.
December 17, 2008 at 7:55 pm
learnlotsbetty
Don’t forget that Warren also finds gay marriage to be equivalent to statutory rape, Ari! We wouldn’t want to understate his views. Myself, I’m looking forward to the petition that will hopefully soon make its way around to register our disappointment. But in the meantime, I’m still laughing about this phone call to his church.
December 17, 2008 at 7:57 pm
ari
Look, Anderson, I didn’t squawk about retaining Secretary Gates at Defense. There were good reasons for doing so, in my view. And I recognize that President Obama will have to work with Republicans regularly over the next four-eight years, which will mean compromises on any number of issues that I hold dear. But, if you read the post, I note that policy isn’t the issue here, it’s symbolism. And I don’t like the symbolism of elevating someone like Warren, who’s both a bigot and, as I understand it, a lousy theologian.
December 17, 2008 at 8:00 pm
ari
I find circles confining, Walt. And betty, I didn’t know about the gay marriage = statutory rape thing. Makes sense to me!
December 17, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Neil the Ethical Werewolf
Perhaps Obama just needs the religious leaders in his life to believe a bunch of politically problematic bullshit.
December 17, 2008 at 8:16 pm
blueollie
Ari, I once jumped on you for being a concern troll.
But I agree with you here; Warren is a disgrace, not an example.
Sure, Warren did some good work with AIDS and poverty, but he is a homophobe and someone who believes that non-believers ought not to be allowed to hold public office.
Heck, even Hamas has done charitable work.
I see this pick as enabling bigotry. Sure, I understand embracing different views on most issues, but to me, this would be akin to asking a White Supremacist to share the stage.
Mind you, I like many of Obama’s picks; Chu for Energy was a winner.
PS: I sure hope that he doesn’t pick LaHood for Transportation; I don’t mind him picking a Republican but LaHood is dumber than a sack of hammers.
December 17, 2008 at 8:27 pm
dana
There are plenty of ways to have a religious officiant give an invocation that don’t include catering to the nasty part of their coalition, though I suspect Young Neil has the pragmatic answer.
Now that you’ve criticized Obama you will be flung from the charmed circle.
BY MICHELLE.
December 17, 2008 at 8:30 pm
ari
Okay, I take it all back. I’m not messing with Michelle.
December 17, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Iota
Isn’t this guy a step up from Billy Graham?
And after our long national nightmare of having to listen to that particular ghoul, isn’t this reason to rejoice?
All Warren is going to do is invoke the same miasmas any parson would invoke, and when he goes back to his church maybe some religious fever will go with him, and the country will breathe a little easier.
If this is about symbolism, then this guy sounds like as good a symbol for organized religion as anyone.
December 17, 2008 at 8:37 pm
gulo gordo
Yeah, hearing Rick Warren will give the Obama inaguration invocation is seriously annoying.
But I’m using all my allotment of real disappointment on the appointment of Salazar as Secy of the Interior. Hoping I won’t have to spend years on that project.
December 17, 2008 at 8:43 pm
ari
The Salazar appointment is pretty frustrating, too. Coupled with Vilsack at Agriculture, it’s hard to see land-use reform on the horizon. On the other hand, it could have been worse: Obama could have tapped Zombie James Watt for both posts. Holy crap! It looks like James Watt is still alive. That’s surprising, somehow. I would have thought a tree would have done him in by now.
December 17, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Vance
Truly depressing. I’ve got the sticker, but haven’t actually affixed it to my bumper…until now.
I take Anderson’s point, to an extent. But it’s misleading to treat this as a minor policy or executive choice. Rather, it’s a major symbolic choice — O’s most visible such choice since the Wright episode.
December 17, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Spike
I’m planning on going down to the Mall for the inaugural and I’m wondering if I’ll have the stones to boo Warren when he gets announced. And if I’ll be the only one booing…
December 17, 2008 at 9:08 pm
ari
I was considering going to the inauguration. Then I decided against it. Now I’m wondering if I’ll even watch, a question that makes me feel surprisingly sad. I’m probably overreacting, a heat-of-the-moment response, I suppose. But I can’t imagine tuning in knowing that Warren will be providing the invocation.
December 17, 2008 at 9:46 pm
dana
I think the “good crazy” pastor will also be there, too, no?
December 17, 2008 at 9:49 pm
ari
You mean the guy Coates blogged about? (A good blogger would find a link. I am not that blogger.) That would be nice.
December 17, 2008 at 9:51 pm
ari
Good crazy link. I guess I am that blogger. Will wonders never cease? Still, a really good blogger would have found the link before posting the first comment.
December 17, 2008 at 10:15 pm
davenoon
On a related note, I see that Rick Warren is supposed to be “America’s Pastor,” or some such stupid fucking thing. I also see that he has a goatee, which is just insane. Only people with severely–
um….
Oh, wait. Never mind.
But you know, it seems like nobody heard of him before 2002 — he just kind of came out of nowhere. And now he’s going to take over the world. I don’t want to suggest that Rick Warren is anti-Christ, but . . .
December 17, 2008 at 10:25 pm
ari
I know that as America’s foremost facial hair blogger, you feel qualified to sit in judgment of the goateed. But I’m here to tell you that, well…you’re probably right. Maybe I should shave.
December 17, 2008 at 10:27 pm
davenoon
No, no — don’t do it!
December 17, 2008 at 10:34 pm
priyanka
thanks for this post
December 17, 2008 at 10:39 pm
ari
My pleasure. But before you go, do you like my goatee?
December 17, 2008 at 10:45 pm
MrTimbo
Bleh. I’m going to merrily think of this as a sop — just a savvy PR move to give the ignorant religious a little christian-pop-culture charge when someone mentions Obama’s name. I mean — keep those mofos softened up.
Still — and I think Barack is TOTALLY AWESOME and is who I would want to pilot us through the current mess and that if we’re lucky we’ll end up with a historically significant reorganization of our society for the better — BUT I am finding myself getting better and better at concocting plausible innocent explanations for moves like this. Worrisome? Not really. Not yet.
December 17, 2008 at 10:53 pm
RobinMarie
This makes me sad.
December 17, 2008 at 10:57 pm
ari
My goatee? It’s not that bad, really. Or maybe it is.
December 17, 2008 at 11:08 pm
RobinMarie
Fortunately your goatee does not garner anywhere near the total awfulness of selecting Warren.
There are an awful lot of angry messages over at change.gov right now. Does anyone think there is any chance he might reconsider?
December 17, 2008 at 11:09 pm
davenoon
Dude, the goatee is fine. Just see if you can rock a chin curtain one of these days…
December 17, 2008 at 11:16 pm
ari
Do you think Obama would make me Sec. of Ag. instead of Vilsack if I busted out a Napoleon III Emperor? Because I’d totally do it for that job. Especially if I could change my last name to Vilsack.
And no, Robin, I can’t imagine Team Obama reconsidering the decision. They had to know the left/progressives/liberals/weenies like me would be upset by Warren. They made the call anyway. Now there’s no way to unring that bell. And I doubt they’d even want to. Obama has positioned himself as a moderate, independent of the left, while cozying up to evangelicals, all without making policy commitments (this is Cole’s point in the linked post above). It’s good politics, in other words.
December 17, 2008 at 11:18 pm
RobinMarie
But the problem, MrTimbo, as Ari pointed out is one of symbolism. By selecting Warren, Obama presents his bigoted views on homosexuality as just another polite “political difference.”
But the change that progressives, of my stripe at least, want to see is where the issue of gay rights is understood as a fundamental question about civil rights and social equality in this country; NOT a question about all the things someone like Warren will tell you it is, ie “religious freedom,” “parental rights” etc etc.
Sometimes symbolism isn’t that important, but sometimes it is very much so; it indicates out what a community finds acceptable or not. Thus by granting some sort of currency to the type of bigoted opinions Warren holds, Obama takes a step backward in redefining and improving the political discourse in this country. And that sucks pretty badly.
December 17, 2008 at 11:21 pm
RobinMarie
“It’s good politics, in other words.”
Aye, I suppose so.
But now when I go home for Christmas I am going to look even more radical than Obama to my father. And that can’t bode well.
(Excuse the momentary lapse into something that matters not at all to the issue at hand.)
December 17, 2008 at 11:24 pm
ari
More radical than a seekrit Mooslim/antichrist/coke addict/Kenyan citizen with a fake US birth certificate? Somehow I doubt it. But if so, try growing a goatee; the awesome facial hair will deflect attention away from your politics.
December 18, 2008 at 2:50 am
drip
Isn’t Warren a resident of Colorado? Maybe he will get Salazar’s seat.
December 18, 2008 at 3:26 am
drip
He’s a resident of California. Sorry for the error, but it seems to implicate EotAW in several scandals based on the nearness equivalency model of American politics.
December 18, 2008 at 3:30 am
Michael Turner
I hate this choice, it’s like “do you want your dogshit a la mode, or with salsa topping?” but wake up: there’s usually not much to like about political reality. I mean, compare Rick Warren to Dubya’s choice for the inaugural invocation, Franklin Graham (who is appallingly bigoted and intolerant compared to his father). If you can’t see the difference, I don’t know what to tell you.
For the foreseeable future, there’s always going to be some major evangelical who can claim the ear of the President. Rick Warren is almost certainly the best of some unpleasant choices, and you can’t choose to not choose. This one’s forced.
A political realist said this about Al Gore’s unnecessary loss: “He went too far left on cultural issues.” That realist was Bill Clinton, who got hated over “don’t-ask-don’t-tell”, even though that was probably the best compromise deal possible on the table at the time.
Politically, I have to admit it’s brilliant. Yes, all over the left-progressive-liberal blogosphere, reactions to the choice of Rick Warren range from disappointment to denunciations, even to I-told-you-so (from those who equate Dem and GOP parties.) But here’s a basic fact: in polls on the political priorities of Americans, civil rights for LGBT runs dead last. (Silver lining: Americans aren’t much more excited about “values” issues like abortion, either.) What I’m lovin’: the right wing blogs seem very quiet about this selection, so far. Any move that can shut those people up even for one day definitely commands my respect.
Here’s some Rick Warren on gay marriage. Theologically, historically, and constitutionally suspect, I’m sure, but hardly hatin’ big-time on LBGT. Actually, the whole interview is fascinating, and says much about where evangelical christianity is, in America today.
December 18, 2008 at 3:32 am
Michael Turner
[/i]
Sigh.
December 18, 2008 at 4:07 am
jim
Why the surprise? We knew during the campaign that Obama considered Warren a serious person. Obama criticized Prop. 8 on purely procedural grounds. So Warren’s support of it couldn’t be a deal-breaker.
December 18, 2008 at 4:23 am
Russell Belding
Just curious…how are the bumper sticker sales going? As a proud displayer of one of them, I just want to see how special I still am.
December 18, 2008 at 5:35 am
silbey
Warren put Obama and McCain on stage together during the campaign, which gave O some credibility for evangelicals. This strikes me as both political (as people have identified above) and payback for that favor.
The symbolism’s terrible, but consider that Warren will be done (in an official capacity) on Jan 21. That’s better than if he had been appointed to an office in the administration.
December 18, 2008 at 5:54 am
TCG
The Dude is just a preacher. All he is going to do is give a prayer. It not like he or Dobson will be responsible for policy or, say, running the EPA.
I would not get worked up over the fact that crazy preachers are popular among a subset of the population. This is not new.
December 18, 2008 at 6:33 am
Michael Turner
I’m trying to find out if this was actually Obama’s decision in the first place. I’ve seen some indication that it was Joint Senate Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, suggesting that it’s bipartisan and not even entirely in the change.gov bailiwick. But that site doesn’t even give me a proper Googlecache entry, despite having been spidered very recently.
There’s this, though, saying that Obama, Biden and the Chairman of the committee made the choice of Rick Warren. Who’s the Chairman? Make that chairwoman, and make it — yes, Diane Feinstein. Ooh, is she in deep shit now, she’ll probably get picketed in SF for this.
The committee also features the rather right-wing Bob Bennett, and John Boehner, who appears to have at least insinuated that Obama’s many “present” votes made him a “chicken shit.”
So even though this committee was obviously packed to the gills with Dem leadership, I think they had to toss the GOP something like a bone. In this case, it’s a poisoned bone, but rightwingers like Boehner and Bennett could hardly afford to be seen stomping out of that committee objecting to a majority favoring Rick Warren for the invocation.
Who gets the last word, religiously, at the inaugural? Good news. You wanted Rev. Joseph (“Good Crazy”) Lowery? You got him. And just before the U.S. Navy Band plays the National Anthem. You think anybody’s going to remember what Rick Warren said, hours before, after Lowery speaks? I don’t think so.
December 18, 2008 at 6:41 am
Deborah
Yikes from the reaction and the headlines I thought he was getting a cabinet position, or a policy position.
He’s a minister saying a prayer.
I’m not a fan of Warren, but he’s not the far right. There are worse choices.
December 18, 2008 at 6:56 am
Anderson
Gay marriage is (1) an incredibly divisive issue that (2) is literally going to die away with the older Americans most strongly against it.
Obama has before him the spectacle of Clinton’s falling on his face in the first 6 months of office with the whole gays-in-the-military fiasco.
The country is falling apart, and Obama has to get a lot of difficult shit enacted and implemented if he’s going to be re-elected, to say nothing of the 2010 midterms. He cannot afford for gay marriage to become the focus of his administration.
I do not expect gay rights to be much of a priority for him in his first term. That disappoints me, but it’s a disappointment with America, not with Obama. If we were better, he could do better.
December 18, 2008 at 6:59 am
ari
I think you’re almost certainly right about the calculation, Anderson. On the other hand, this is a real thumb in the eye for many people, a pretty obvious pander, and, most of all, leadership can matter.
December 18, 2008 at 6:59 am
ari
Anyway, I’m not going to retroactively vote for McCain. I’m just disappointed is all.
December 18, 2008 at 7:05 am
Anderson
At best, one could hope that the more involved people like Warren get in mainstream/left causes (environment, say), the more they’ll be exposed to a range of other viewpoints, and the more tolerant they’ll become.
That’s a stretch, but it’s got more potential than excommunicating potential allies because they fail a litmus test. Obama doesn’t seem to even have any litmus paper.
More generally, I think that a stone-cold paleocon like Daniel Larison has been more right about Obama than have been many on the left: Obama is a liberal, sure, but he only looks progressive compared to someone like Hillary, who is barely distinguishable from a Rockefeller Republican.
December 18, 2008 at 7:22 am
Anderson
Now, for the opposing point of view, Mark Kleiman is pretty damn funny.
December 18, 2008 at 7:54 am
grackle
Maybe there is still time to pump for Gene Robinson giving a little homily too? Start the petition. Rabble rouse!
But I think the beard thing is way more fun. As my wife, quoting the Arabs says, a kiss without a mustache is like bread without salt; so keep the goatee, Ari, please, and I so like the Rajneesh orange shirt.
December 18, 2008 at 8:41 am
Nathan Williams
I’m finding this all a bit weird. As a certified cranky atheist, I’m galled by, but resigned to, the existence of an invocation at all. Isn’t this an official state occasion? Why does an explicitly religious bit appear in it at all? So I’ve got a lot of grumpy to go through before I can be upset by the particular choice.
December 18, 2008 at 9:03 am
jazzbumpa
Actually, a kiss without a mustache is like lips without snot. But that is a midwest-o-centric position.
Re: Obama – He will probably unseat Clinton as the best Republican President of my lifetime. “Change you can believe in” was a nice slogan, but helium in the balloon that suspends my disbelief is slowly dissipating.
Oh, well. The neocons will soon be gone.
December 18, 2008 at 9:04 am
Charlieford
Smart move, symbolically/politically. Obama wasn’t elected because the nation has shifted dramatically to the left on the “values” questions. We’re still basically where we’ve been for the last several years (or decades, take your pick). The lesson since the ’60s has been that when the left pushes their agenda, the right gets inflamed even more, and everyone’s surprised and dismayed to find out how many of them there are. Obama’s election was do in part to “values” dropping in urgency among the electorate (for obvious reasons). If 2008′s presidential election had been a referendum on the culture wars, it’d be President-elect McCain. The Warren pick is likely/hopefully an indication that Obama gets it–that he recognizes that a re-inflamation of the “culture wars” (see 1992, 1993, 1994 if anyone needs reminding) will be disastrous to his presidency. That’s not to say that there isn’t something noble about symbolic political martyrdom.
December 18, 2008 at 9:05 am
Charlieford
“do”? “due.”
December 18, 2008 at 9:09 am
jazzbumpa
Damn it, Charlie.
I hate it when people present an opposing viewpoint that is so – uh . . . ah, , , , oh – - – sensible.
December 18, 2008 at 10:15 am
jazzbumpa
On the other, other hand, Berube pretty effectively skewers the selection.
Notable Quote: But that’s my point: because Warren’s appearance is purely symbolic, the insult here is completely gratuitous.
http://www.michaelberube.com/index.php/weblog/poetry_and_pragmatism/
December 18, 2008 at 10:57 am
Charlieford
Berube: “My god, man, what are you thinking? Rick Warren alone undoes all the good of Elizabeth Alexander and Aretha Franklin combined.” Translation: “It’s not enough that we be included. More importantly, they must be rejected.”
December 18, 2008 at 10:57 am
TF Smith
So the point is that by elevating Warren, he is defenestrating Dobson?
I’m on the restore the original PofA language side of the ledger, myself, but if the choice is Orange County megachurch over Colorado Springs megachurch, I can see it.
I don’t like it, but I can see it.
December 18, 2008 at 11:12 am
Anderson
Berube is great, but the whole point of being a brilliant satirist is that you don’t have to be a politician.
Politicians have to get along with people they disagree with … in fact, they have to work with those people. Sometimes they even have to make deals where they sacrifice one goal in favor of advancing another one.
December 18, 2008 at 11:46 am
Russell Belding
I’m recalling the 2001 invocation, with the most holy Rev. Franklin Graham, which was either just before or just after Gomer Pyle sang. After going on for quite some time in what may have been termed an inclusive invocation, he finished up with “We pray this in the name of the Father, and of the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.” That last part was said very quickly before he scooted offstage, as if he were thinking, “HA! Take that, Jews and Muslims!” Presumably, Warren won’t be worse, although that’s cold comfort.
December 18, 2008 at 11:51 am
ari
Anderson, will you explain, for serious, which goals the inclusion of someone like Warren advances? And, if you’d be so kind, do show your work. No fair to say, well, this reaches out to evangelicals. Sure, it reaches out to them. But to what end? Are some evangelicals now going to support Obama because of this? Again, I understand the need for political compromise. I just don’t see this as that.
December 18, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Anderson
Anderson, will you explain, for serious, which goals the inclusion of someone like Warren advances?
I thought I did that in my first comment. Obama is on record as wanting to promote interpartisan relations. Warren, by virtue of his being someone with whom you, I, and Obama profoundly disagree on a number of issues, qualifies.
The “will evangelicals support Obama because of this” is a logical error, imagining as it does that there’s *any* magic step (short of calling for a pro-life amendment to the Constitution?) that Obama could take that would make evangelicals support him. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
However, evangelicals are not a monolith. Obama evidently perceives daylight between a Rick Warren and a James Dobson. Warren is very, very popular with a whole lot of people, who are going to get a little warmer and fuzzier towards Obama because, by including Warren, Obama makes them feel included, too.
(I note that John Cole, who seems to take the same view I do, is from West Virginia, and I’m from Mississippi. He and I may have more experience being around evangelicals and Republicans than some other commenters here. Being a Dem in a red state helps one appreciate the need for compromise and civility.)
December 18, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Jason B
I’m of two minds here. One is that Rick Warren is a terrible choice. The second is that there is no good choice. In a portion of the ceremony that endorses Christian America, I can’t get too worked up when that’s slightly further restricted to straight Christian America.
When we take the oogedy-boogedy out of the ceremony, the whole thing’s solved.
December 18, 2008 at 12:13 pm
bitchphd
The thing that bothers me most about this is the way it reflects on the Obama / Prop 8 vote issue. It does rather suggest that Obama’s opposition to gay marriage is indeed real, and not just political pandering. Le sigh.
December 18, 2008 at 12:17 pm
bitchphd
Sometimes they even have to make deals where they sacrifice one goal in favor of advancing another one.
Chicks Fags up front!
December 18, 2008 at 12:18 pm
bitchphd
Crap, I gather that strikeout isn’t enabled. Well, just picture “chicks” as having struck out by “fags” in the great ballgame of sacrificial lamb.
December 18, 2008 at 12:19 pm
silbey
And, if you’d be so kind, do show your work
Hey, who are you, Jonathan Dresner? No one shows their work on this blog.
I’ll show some work, though (poached from here: http://rosenthalswelt.blogspot.com/2008/11/evangelical-vote-their-own-statistics.html ):
“2004 – “weekly churchgoing evangelicals”:
61 – Bush
39 – Kerry
Margin: Bush +22
2008 – “weekly churchgoing evangelicals”:
54 – McCain
44 – Obama
Margin: McCain +10″
If having Warren speak at the inauguration (while not being in any substantive policy making office) brings that margin down even further, thus solidifying Democratic propsects in the Mountain West and potentially North Carolina and the border South, then that’s useful politically.
December 18, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Anderson
The thing that bothers me most about this is the way it reflects on the Obama / Prop 8 vote issue.
Cf. Marc Ambinder:
That said, his team bungled this a bit. Reaching out to gay groups to give them a heads up might have softened the edge of their reaction and given them internal confidence that they were valued members of Obama’s coalition. Dropping the list (like it’s hot), without pre-notice, must have seemed like a sharp slap in the face. The LGBT community is still very raw about Proposition 8, and one would assume that at least someone in Obama’s inner circle would be aware of this.
I think that’s fair. Note also the silver lining that Ambinder sees:
On the other hand, the coverage of gay community outrage accomplishes something tangible: isn’t this the first time that Warren’s been tagged as something other than a moderate, get-along cleric?
The more play his “let’s assassinate enemy politicians” remarks get, the better. Either Warren will have to tack center & act more responsible, or he’ll marginalize himself.
I guess that Obama probably supports gay marriage; I guess that he also sees it as a no-win issue for him at a time of serious national crisis. The last thing he needs is for his political capital to evaporate in a hailstorm of “should gays be allowed to marry???” TV talking heads.
December 18, 2008 at 12:24 pm
bitchphd
I guess that Obama probably supports gay marriage
I was trying to reassure PK, to whom Prop 8 was *the* issue for this election, that despite saying he didn’t, Obama probably really did, and was just being politically “pragmatic.” I’ll run Warren by PK this afternoon and let you know what his read it, but I’m betting that it’ll be “I told you so, Mama.”
December 18, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Anderson
… It seems as if PK grew up sometime when I wasn’t looking. How old is he now? No, wait, don’t tell me, I feel too old as it is.
December 18, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Buster
but I’m betting that it’ll be “I told you so, Mama.”
PK understands Shakespeare and outthinks the majority of the bloggers? Be proud, Mama B!
December 18, 2008 at 3:16 pm
bitchphd
Warren put Obama and McCain on stage together during the campaign, which gave O some credibility for evangelicals. This strikes me as both political (as people have identified above) and payback for that favor.
Ah, I had missed this. Makes sense. Regrettable in terms of gay marriage symbolism, but presumably (one is sorry to say) that wasn’t on Obama’s mind when decision was made.
Obama wasn’t elected because the nation has shifted dramatically to the left on the “values” questions. We’re still basically where we’ve been for the last several years (or decades, take your pick). The lesson since the ’60s has been that when the left pushes their agenda, the right gets inflamed even more
Disagreed. Obama was elected, in part, because he effectively demonstrated to a lot of Americans that the “values” questions are not, in fact (and never have been) owned by the right. Gay marriage is not inimical to families; it’s quite a conservative move, and I for one support it in part *because* it’s supportive of (gay) families, especially families with children. The lesson since Reagan–not since the 60s–has been that the right can very effectively market the message that the left opposes “family values,” and I hope to god that the lesson of Obama is going to be that there’s a really big difference between marketing bullshit and walking the walk.
December 18, 2008 at 3:37 pm
ari
Thanks, silbey, that was the work I was looking for. This comment, by Stephen at cogitamus, suggested that Obama made no inroads with evangelicals, which made this pander seem sillier. Your statistics, though, really do help clarify the issue for me.
And Anderson, I grew up in Ohio, aka real America, so you’ll want to avoid challenging my views on anything having to do with politics. See what I did there? Analytically impressive, I know. And really, I wasn’t trying to be a jerk above. I was totally serious. I was looking for someone to show me something that would indicate that Obama can make inroads with evangelical voters. I asked because I had just read Stephen’s post. I wasn’t, in other words, trying to put you on the spot.
December 18, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Next to Godliness. « The Edge of the American West
[...] 18, 2008 in raw material | by eric Ari’s fulmination over Rick Warren reminded me, awhile back Elvin Lim did a neat bit of scholarship on presidential rhetoric. [...]
December 18, 2008 at 3:55 pm
jazzbumpa
Silbey -
I attribute that change to the Paul Weyrich effect. The old bigots are dying off. From what I’ve read, young evangelicals are not as hung up on the gay issue as their parents
Since Nixon, the Republicans have been actively courting the evangelicals. What is more welcome than somebody who comes around and makes you feel wanted? Colson was a big part of that, and so was Dubya, when Poppy was POTUS. (I got this from Hartman today.)
Unfortunately, this allowed them to define family values in a contentious way. I mean how does the marriage of Bob and Larry undermine or threaten the marriage of Ron and Gloria? That never made any sense to me. But, then, what are the Republicans about if not division and dissension in America?
December 18, 2008 at 3:57 pm
eric
Barney Frank:
December 18, 2008 at 4:04 pm
ari
Barney Frank is not to be messed with.
December 18, 2008 at 4:21 pm
silbey
From what I’ve read, young evangelicals are not as hung up on the gay issue as their parents
Yep. They do seem to be particularly interested in environmental issues and guess who, of all the evangelical preachers, is particularly well known for a similar interest?
Can anybody name the person who gave the invocation or benediction in 2004? Without googling?
December 18, 2008 at 4:21 pm
silbey
Oops. [/i]
December 18, 2008 at 4:24 pm
ari
Louis Farrakhan? Jeremiah Wright? Professor Griff? No? Too bad.
December 18, 2008 at 4:30 pm
eric
Can anybody name the person who gave the invocation or benediction in 2004?
But that’s silly, silbey. We don’t expect better of G. W. Bush, we do of Obama.
(Anyway, was it Franklin Graham?)
December 18, 2008 at 4:50 pm
silbey
But that’s silly, silbey. We don’t expect better of G. W. Bush, we do of Obama.
You may expect, but you won’t remember. Well, you might, but no one else will.
Invocation for second Bush term: The Reverend Dr. Luis León
Benediction: Pastor Kirbyjon H. Caldwell
(Trent Lott organized the shindig, which has another resonance entirely).
see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/administration/inauguration05/inaugProgram/2005inauguralprogram.pdf
December 18, 2008 at 5:14 pm
silbey
By the way, in the program, they left out the part where Cheney grows to 50 ft tall, sprouts horns, and consumes freshly-selected babies (with Nazi middle names) while speaking an ancient dialect of Aramaic.
I thought that was the best part, myself.
December 18, 2008 at 5:51 pm
andrew
Silbey’s numbers appear to have mislabeled “weekly churchgoers” as “weekly churchgoing evangelicals” (if I’m following the links correctly). CNN’s poll numbers: 2004, 2008.
Also from CNN:
2004 – Protestant/Weekly
Bush 70%
Kerry 29%
2008 – Protestant/Weekly
McCain 67%
Obama 32%
Obama seems to have improved more among Catholics than among Protestants. There isn’t an evangelical/weekly category, as far as I can tell.
December 18, 2008 at 5:54 pm
ari
So that might mean that Stephen’s right after all. Or at least has some numbers suggesting that he’s right. Stephen?
December 18, 2008 at 6:05 pm
andrew
By the way, in the program, they left out the part where Cheney grows to 50 ft tall, sprouts horns, and consumes freshly-selected babies (with Nazi middle names) while speaking an ancient dialect of Aramaic.
I thought that was included under
The Vice Presidential Oath of Office
will be administered to Richard B. Cheney
by the Speaker of the House of Representatives
The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert
December 18, 2008 at 6:44 pm
silbey
Yes, it looked like the blogger I cited misinterpreted a _Christianity Today_ article using the CNN figures. Damn bloggers.
Anyway, the white evangelical numbers in CNN are:
Bush 78 Kerry 21
McCain 74 Obama 24
So a shift to Obama, but not as big a one as I originally posted.
December 18, 2008 at 6:50 pm
ari
And Stephen Suh, in the comment I linked, argued that we can account for that shift by looking to the evangelical community’s disdain for McCain* (and vice versa) until pretty late in the electoral season. Which leads me back to, reaching out to evangelicals, on the basis of coalition building, might be a sucker’s bet.
Also, I’ll never trust you again.
* Rhyme. High five!
December 18, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Galvinji
What I find interesting about all of this — and I’m ticked off about Warren, too — is to look at this from Warren’s point of view. Here is a prominent evangelical presenting the invocation at the inauguration of someone who was accused in right-wing circles of being a secret Muslim.
Anyway, Obama’s rhetorical strategy is to acknowledge the thinking of his opponents while making his case, giving people the space to be persuaded. There has to be some way to fit this choice into that strategy.
I grew up in Ohio, aka real America
Shaker Heights, Ohio, is not real America. Have you forgotten the 1984 mock election at Shaker Heights High School, won by Walter Mondale by a margin of 4 to 1?
December 18, 2008 at 7:22 pm
silbey
Also, I’ll never trust you again.
*Sob*
I do wonder what evangelical *turnout* was in 2008 vs. 2004.
December 18, 2008 at 7:28 pm
ari
Shaker Heights, Ohio, is not real America.
You are a coastal elitist, if I’m not mistaken. And a Jew, to boot. Given those facts, I won’t be lectured by you about anything, for I am a true American. And a Jew, to boot.
I do wonder what evangelical *turnout* was in 2008 vs. 2004.
Yeah. Surely Pew knows. But I haven’t been able to find the numbers. Come to think of it, I seem to remember reading somewhere that evangelicals are very hard to poll for some reason.
December 18, 2008 at 7:40 pm
eric
for I am a true American. And a Jew, to boot.
Tell it to Swede Lvov.
December 18, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Galvinji
You are a coastal elitist, if I’m not mistaken. And a Jew, to boot.
Takes one to know one.
I won’t be lectured by you about anything
You sound like my students, circa 2000.
These numbers from Pew’s website suggests evangelicals represented 23% of the electorate in 2008 vs 20% in 2004. That doesn’t really answer the question about turnout, though.
December 18, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Galvinji
“suggest”. D’oh.
December 18, 2008 at 8:05 pm
ari
Where would we be without Pew?
December 18, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Michael Turner
. . . will you explain, for serious, which goals the inclusion of someone like Warren advances? And, if you’d be so kind, do show your work.?
“President-elect Obama, would you explain, for serious, how you’ve managed to reach out successfully to conservative evangelicals? How you swayed some of their votes in your direction, and away from the seemingly obvious knee-jerk choice of McCain-Palin? In order to get elected? So that you could enact that “change you can believe in” (AKA — back to the center, at least, after almost a decade of rightwing dominance, in case you weren’t carefully reading Obama’s actual documented positions)? Can you provide evidence that you still have hearts and minds in that quarter as the inaugural approaches, by way of a relationship with some of their leadership? Can you show you are interested in continually pulling them from the clutches of far-right demagogues and towards the Democratic Party? And, if you’d be so kind, do show your work.”
Obama: “‘Show my work’? ‘Show my work‘? Uh . . . OK.” [Turns around, whistles loudly]. “Hey! Rick! You still comin’ to my party on January 20? Yeah? Great! See you there.” [Turns back to his questioner.] “Anything else? I’m pretty busy. I won’t bore you with the details, it’s something to do with the economy today, like it was yesterday, and all of last week for that matter. But you know, fixing that economy is also about winning again in 2012. Because 4 years isn’t long enough to fix everything that went wrong during the last 8, and more. Look at it this way: A second term for me means eight years of no executive-branch pushback against the slow tide of American cultural change toward full LGBT civil rights. What, you want Canada, overnight? Last-minute plane tickets to Toronto are expensive, I think, but here, call this number, see what my people can do for you.”
You expected better of Obama? So would I — if we had elected him Lord Protector, King, President for Life. Unfortunately, Obama is going to be President of the United States of America. That’s the most powerful gig we could get for him. Sorry we couldn’t do better. America, the only major industrialized democracy in the world where a huge fraction of the population is Creationist. At this point, I don’t expect that much of America, except that it’s going to start struggling in a better direction (and might even make some progress in that direction, if we’re lucky.)
A return to mainstream values in America, as that mainstream moves in ever more sensible directions — that’s change I can believe in. Believing in much more than that is a set-up for disappointment. I know, because I’ve tried. You’re disappointed? Obama told you that you would be disappointed in him, around this time last year, IIRC. He told you that people are projecting onto him what they want to see, and that he wouldn’t be able to live up to it. Remember that now? So you’re disappointed. Just as he predicted.
And in four years, you’ll be disappointed with being stuck with the choice between Obama and . . . who? Mike Huckabee? Sarah Palin?
And who will you vote for?
Thought so.
December 18, 2008 at 8:23 pm
ari
He swayed evangelicals to vote for him, Michael? How do you know? That’s the gist of the discussion now. And please don’t call me naive. The charge is as tiresome and hollow coming from you now as it was a year ago when Clinton supporters were insisting that I didn’t understand the realities of American politics.
December 18, 2008 at 8:28 pm
jazzbumpa
To Michael’s point (I think, seen through my warped lens) the Democrats are now the party of thoughtful conservatism. Anything Obama, et al can do to hasten the unraveling of the neocon-religious right coalition is pragmatically justifiable; and also to the good of the country.
I really think there is room on the left for a genuine progressive party, but the system is rigged to only have two at a time. The Republicans need to dry up and blow away.
And, no, I don’t want Canada overnight. Not tonight, anyway. It’s already cold enough.
December 18, 2008 at 8:38 pm
ari
Anything Obama, et al can do to hasten the unraveling of the neocon-religious right coalition is pragmatically justifiable; and also to the good of the country.
I agree with this entirely. But someone needs to make a real case, as in showing their work, about how further elevating a bigot like Rick Warren is going to help accomplish the above. Absent some evidence that Obama’s gambit is going to work — assuming we even understand the gambit, which strikes me as an uncertain proposition — I reserve the right to be disappointed that a polite thug like Warren is going to gain more legitimacy by sullying what otherwise should be a very moving event.
December 18, 2008 at 8:45 pm
ari
And that’s not even getting into the basic question of human rights. Which is to say, nobody has convinced me that this move is shrewd politics, much less right.
December 18, 2008 at 8:56 pm
jazzbumpa
This is a hot, contentious topic on a lot of blogs I’ve visited tonight. It really seems to be dividing the left among three positions 1) profound disappointment, as Ari is demonstrating, 2) Obama is a shrewd politician who knows what he’s doing, so get over it, a la Michael T, and 3) Who gives a shit?
I must be a real weenie, ‘cuz I can’t figure out where I stand on it. I think I’m disappointed, but trying not to care.
December 18, 2008 at 9:03 pm
ari
Look, jazzbumpa, I’m as big an Obamaniac as the next whirly-eyed naif. I have been for years. And I’m not turning my back on the president-elect, nor forsaking the Democratic Party, because of this decision. But I am disappointed, perhaps even profoundly so, because elevating Warren is obviously morally wrong and also, as far as I can see, lousy politics. I’ve said throughout the discussion that I’d like someone to convince me that I’m missing an angle. And silbey did — for a minute. But it turns out that his numbers were a crock (not his fault, to be fair). So now I’m back where I started. I’m not sure how that’s hot or contentious. And frankly, I’m surprised by the reaction to the post.
December 18, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Michael Turner
Via silbey:
Bush 78 Kerry 21
McCain 74 Obama 24
So Bush, with his running mate Cheney having a lesbian daughter, and a wife who’d written a novel with heroines in a sexual relationship, still got 78% of the evangelical vote.
McCain, with a running mate practically chosen to appeal to Christian conservatives, gets 4 points fewer.
Ari, I just don’t get your argument about these people shifting toward Obama because they didn’t like McCain so much on their pet issues. Wouldn’t the consistent way to express such an antipathy be to write in Huckabee, or something like that?
Oh, I know, I know: they’re nuts. So I don’t have to seek rational explanations for their behavior.
Anyway, there’ll be a pro-gay-marriage evangelical getting the last word at the inaugural: Lowery. I’m sure if I bother to look around, I’ll find plenty of black evangelical leaders miffed about how Obama chose this pro-gay-marriage guy as if he represented all black evangelicals. Barack Obama: an Equal Opportunity Offender! How does it go again? “some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time”?
December 18, 2008 at 10:56 pm
ari
People vote for the candidate at the top of the ticket, Michael. And Bush was clearly a far more appealing candidate for evangelicals than McCain. Given that, I still haven’t seen any evidence that Obama made inroads with that bloc. And again, absent such evidence, I’m unpersuaded that elevating bigots as a kind of outreach to bigots is a political winner.
December 19, 2008 at 3:22 am
Michael Turner
OK, Ari. I give up. You’re right. Who could be convinced without clear, unambiguous, numerically-solid evidence? And the only such evidence so far suggests there’s been only one white conservative evangelical won over by Obama: Rick Warren. And that’s out of tens of millions of ‘em. I guess if we haven’t noticed much (any?) outcry from members of Rick Warren’s own Saddleback megachurch about this inaugural invocation, it’s because Warren has them in thrall, hypnotized, incapable of criticizing him for falling in line with the gay terrorist communist moozlim. That’s the kind of mind control experts those megachurch leaders are.
It’s still a good question, though. When I enter “evangelicals” at Google, its very first suggested search is “evangelicals for obama” promising 1,470,000 results. So I guess I’m not the only one to whom the question has occured. You’d almost think it reached that ranking because . . . a lot of evangelicals for obama were trying to find each other? And maybe it turns up so many hits in part because . . . a lot of journalists have noticed that a number of them were successful in that search?
People vote for the candidate at the top of the ticket, Michael.
I have exactly one friend (sort of) who I’d say is absolutely a conservative Christian evangelical. He was very hesitant about McCain. When Palin got the nod for VP candidate, though, suddenly he was almost deliriously in love with the ticket. He was like almost all hardcore Christian evangelicals in that respect. Evidence for that is not hard to find.
The thing is, though, he doesn’t represent all evangelicals. They don’t all have the same litmus tests. Many of them can be anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, but pretty reasonable and flexible on a lot of other issues. Even the one I mention above admitted to me he can’t get with Michelle Malkin-esque views on immigration because he can’t square the coldness of it with his view of the gospels.
Of course, if you want to stereotype them, go ahead. Stereotyping is good, right? It facilitates hatred, and hatred is what keeps us strong.
December 19, 2008 at 3:28 am
Michael Turner
“hardcore” -> “hardcore rightwing”. Distinctions, distinctions . . . we need more of them. They help.
December 19, 2008 at 4:24 am
jazzbumpa
It’s contention all the way down.
For what it’s worth, right to life Christian fundamentalists are pissed at Warren for participating in the murderers coronation. I found this via Huff Post.
Notable Quote:
From Pat:
This is terrible; this man call’s himself a Christian????Barack H. Obama is the most PRO-DEATH president America has ever elected!!!!! He has said that as president he is going to pass the “Freedom of Choice Act” how can our country get any better with this type of MURDER?????? Mr. Warren school be ashamed of himself, protection of the unborn is the MOST IMPERATIVE issue as a Christian!!!!! For without life do we continue to have a society at all??? I think not!!!!!
God Bless & MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/504326.aspx
I will say the discourse here is at a slightly higher intellectual plane.
December 19, 2008 at 4:53 am
tf smith
SLIGHTLY???!!!!!
Hah!!! Just IMAGINE if RYS allowed COMMENTS!!! Now, THAT would be inTellECTUALLLL!!!!
And THOSE RW hosers AT CLIOpaTRIA better WATCH OUT!!!!
December 19, 2008 at 5:48 am
silbey
I think the political calculation comes from three things. First, the 23% of the voting electorate that declares itself evangelical. That’s a *big* chunk of people and one that the Democrats ignore at their peril. Second, there *was* a shift from Bush’s 2004, albeit not as big a one as I had originally demonstrated (teach me to trust sources). The shift occurred all along the line of the religious: more than weekly churchgoers 64-35 Bush-Kerry went to 55-44 McCain Obama. If you’re an optimist, you see that as the start of pulling the evangelicals away (or at least reducing the GOP margin of victory). And I do take Michael Turner’s analysis seriously: the Palin pick was aimed at the base and to reduce that vote in her presence was an achievement. Third, as I mentioned before, Warren is environmentally conscious and I think that the Obama folks see that as a way to peel off younger evangelical voters.
Finally (fourthly?) Obama comes from Illinois politics, which prizes payback (positive and negative) highly and he’s paying Warren back for the invite to speak at his church. I read someone contesting that idea (Kleiman?) because McCain was invited, too, but that’s silly. Putting Obama and McCain on an evangelical stage together is much more valuable for Obama than it was for McCain.
December 19, 2008 at 6:32 am
kid bitzer
sigh…it’s a huge disappointment, no matter how you slice it.
can’t be anything like the disappointment felt by opponents of slavery, however, who voted for lincoln because he was consistently and sincerely opposed to slavery, but then in his first inaugural said that he would not oppose an amendment perpetually forbidding the federal govt to interfere with the state institutions of slavery.
is obama playing that long of a game on gay rights? it would be nice to think so.
December 19, 2008 at 6:37 am
kid bitzer
see the thing is, john cole is getting threads up into the 2 and 3 hundreds about the warren issue.
i figured, to rival that, we have to get the civil war denialists to join in too.
December 19, 2008 at 6:45 am
Anderson
There are two kinds of people: those who think there are two kinds of people, and those who don’t.
James Dobson is an example of the former. Obama is an example of the latter.
What creeps me out about the “oh noes Rick Warren!” stuff is that it sounds like the polar opposite of the Dobson crowd, just with different criteria for excommunication. You don’t get different politics by turning the bad politics on its head. Rick Warren’s an asshole in some respects? Sure. Who isn’t?
Whether Obama can make this work is doubtful, but damn if the man isn’t tryin’.
December 19, 2008 at 7:48 am
Charlieford
“Obama was elected, in part, because he effectively demonstrated to a lot of Americans that the “values” questions are not, in fact (and never have been) owned by the right.” Really? You mean he converted “values voters” who otherwise would be voting Republican? And that’s how he won? Now that really would be something. [falls off chair, laughing]
December 19, 2008 at 7:49 am
ari
Whether Obama can make this work is doubtful, but damn if the man isn’t tryin’.
This is a fair point, I think. I’d counter that there are other ways to make such efforts, ways that don’t involve elevating Warren and alienating millions of loyal Democrats. Which is to say, I take your point, I take Cole’s point, I take silbey’s point, but I’m just not entirely convinced. In the end, in order for me to judge the tactic on the terms you suggest, I’ll need some time to see if Obama can make the strategy work. And I’m happy to give the man the time he needs. Disappointment isn’t forever. I hope.
OK, Ari. I give up.
Me, too, Michael. I regret having asked you to make an argument that involved something beyond speculation and bluster.
December 19, 2008 at 9:30 am
Michael Turner
So you’ve been following Obama for a long time, ari? In that case, long ago, you must have run across the following, from a speech he gave in 2006, at the invitation of Rick Warren, and sharing the stage with Sam Brownback:
—
Like no other illness, AIDS tests our ability to put ourselves in someone else’s shoes – to empathize with the plight of our fellow man. While most would agree that the AIDS orphan or the transfusion victim or the wronged wife contracted the disease through no fault of their own, it has too often been easy for some to point to the unfaithful husband or the promiscuous youth or the gay man and say “This is your fault. You have sinned.”
I don’t think that’s a satisfactory response. My faith reminds me that we all are sinners.
—
Well, there you have it: Obama believes that men who have sex with men are sinners. What other conclusion is possible?
Well, maybe some other conclusions are possible, just as it’s possible that Rick Warren might believe that homosexual behavior is sinful, but doesn’t actually hate people who engage in it, which to my mind is what it would take to make the term “bigot” applicable.
Equal rights for gays and lesbians is solidly a majority opinion in America, with one notable exception: the right to call same-sex unions marriage. Where do you establish the “bigot” line? If it’s at a point that makes most Americans “bigots”, good luck with your crusade.
December 19, 2008 at 9:55 am
ari
Where do you establish the “bigot” line?
Michael, Warren has equated gay marriage with incest, pedophilia, and, apparently, statutory rape. Those who don’t disavow such views are bigots. That’s leaving aside the broader question of whether those who would deny any citizen Constitutionally-mandated equal protection under the laws are also bigots.
Is this really the argument you want to be having? I think you were on much firmer footing with the political expediency line.
December 19, 2008 at 10:15 am
Charlieford
“Michael, Warren has equated gay marriage with incest, pedophilia, and, apparently, statutory rape.”
I don’t see it, Ari. He has equated (in the belief.net interview) gay marriage with the state sanctioning incestuous MARRIAGES or polygamous MARRIAGES, etc. Whether that’s a defensible position or not can be argued, but how is that bigotry? He’s saying he opposes a major change in the definition of what marriage IS. That’s conservative, it’s traditional, it may be reactionary, undemocratic, unprogressive, irrational or superstitious, but it’s not bigotry.
December 19, 2008 at 10:18 am
ari
Bigot.
December 19, 2008 at 11:06 am
Charlieford
That won’t work, Ari, or at least, not without some spinning. As far as this debate is concerned, if we accept as a definition “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices” (which I’m frankly suspicious of), it proves too much: all we got here is bigots. The second definition, invoking “hatred,” seems more to the point. But Warren’s talking about MARRIAGE, the institution, not about gays per se. To insist that any position on marriage must be judged by its effect on those that are excluded from the institution is simply circular; that is one of the most important questions on the table, after all. One can certainly reasonably hold that institutions must be judged by their effects on individuals, but that needs to be argued. Resorting immediately to charges of bigotry is, intellectually, too easy. It’s also just false: it’s saying, “It is impossible, and obviously so, for anyone to actually care about the institution–they must be advancing their position out of hatred for those impacted by their definition of the institution.” As you certainly are aware, it is in the nature of fundamental moral-political disagreements that it is extremely difficult for partisans of one side to see the merits of those on the other side. To leap to charges of “bigotry” is to deny the possibility that the other is arguing in good faith. But, not only is that uncharitable, it’s also historically, socially, and politically anachronistic.
December 19, 2008 at 11:20 am
ari
Charlie, I don’t think I need to spin anything. Actually, I think by spinning you’re making this issue much more complicated than it really is, obfuscating even. Again, the equation of GAY (to borrow some of your caps) marriage with pedophilia, incest, and all the rest smacks of bigotry, bigotry fueled by hatred. Why else would Warren sow fear with that kind of rhetoric?
December 19, 2008 at 11:24 am
ari
Which is to say, your responsible discussion interests me much more than does Warren’s fear-mongering. If you want to give the invocation, you can.
December 19, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Vance
While sharing the general liberal disappointment, I’ve also been nagged by memories from back when I was a Christian myself, in my intense & earnest adolescence. I was in the Episcopal Church, which doesn’t have the reputation of an exceptionally big tent; and yet I was in closer contact there with people who disagreed with me, on major issues, than at any time since. I remember a serious and open discussion, in a youth group, about war, in which opinion ranged from my (intense & earnest) pacifism all the way to Reaganesque cold-war belligerence. And we didn’t shout each other down or walk out: the bond created by the explicit profession of faith made it possible to risk such divergence without rupture. My inclination to rule Warren out of bounds, or incompatible with Lowery, is in this light a reflection of the lack of that tie. I have no doubt that it’s in this spirit that Obama is inviting them both; I’d like to think there’s something else that might effectively tie us all together in this way, other than “God”.
December 19, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Charlieford
“Charlie, I don’t think I need to spin anything.”
I was talking about the definition of bigotry you linked to. “Obstinance” and “intolerance” are to be found aplenty in this discussion. You’d have to spin it by saying “Ah, but our side isn’t being obstinant about ‘prejudices,’ you see, we’re being obstinant because it’s the only just and right opinion a rational creature could possibly hold.”
“Actually, I think by spinning you’re making this issue much more complicated than it really is, obfuscating even.”
As if that isn’t what they all say.
“Again, the equation of GAY (to borrow some of your caps) marriage with pedophilia, incest, and all the rest smacks of bigotry, bigotry fueled by hatred.”
I won’t rule that out. But it’s not a charitable reading. I see Warren saying, “I’m opposed to the redefinition of marriage in THIS case, just as I would be in those cases. Whatever you think of the morality of the first case, the fact simply is that, as with those others, it is something that for most of Western history has been disallowed, even condemned as immoral. I’m a traditionalist on such moral questions, and we feel similarly on this case as you might on the others.”
One can disagree with Warren’s parsing of what’s moral and what’s not. One can say, on this issue we as a culture have moved on, or should. But it doesn’t require an insistance that he hates gay people and that’s why he opposes gay marriage.
Until fairly recently many states had shockingly low ages at which people could marry, for example. In some southern states the age was in the early teens. In Mississippi, it’s still 15 for females who have parental consent. Many of us would consider that somewhat problematical, perhaps even pedophilia. But one can oppose that law without literally hating the people engaged in the practice.
“Why else would Warren sow fear with that kind of rhetoric?”
Again, adopting the rule of charity, isn’t it possible that he’s reflecting–rather than sowing–a traditional view of marriage? It’s not necessary to conclude that he’s putting them all on the same level morally. He’s rather indicating that, historically, gay marriage, like them, has been excluded from the realm of acceptable practices. One might counter that, pre-Loving, interracial marriage was also illegal in many states and was similarly considered immoral. And Warren could respond, “Yes, and I agree with Loving, but not with gay marriage.”
December 19, 2008 at 2:05 pm
ari
Child marriage is a question of choice; homosexuality is not. That’s why this is a matter of equal protection, right? Or am I missing something.
December 19, 2008 at 2:52 pm
bitchphd
You mean he converted “values voters” who otherwise would be voting Republican? And that’s how he won? Now that really would be something.
I think that he convinced a lot of people who are generally very suspicious of the Democratic party that yes, in fact, the Dems can and do support families, yes.
December 19, 2008 at 2:57 pm
bitchphd
To leap to charges of “bigotry” is to deny the possibility that the other is arguing in good faith.
Nonsense. It is possible to argue in good faith and still be bigoted on the issue. One may sincerely believe deeply bigoted things.
December 19, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Charlieford
“Child marriage is a question of choice; homosexuality is not. That’s why this is a matter of equal protection, right? Or am I missing something.” Now that, I think, will indeed complicate things. Many people have dispositions, either permanent or temporary, that make describing their actions as “matters of choice” problematic. How institutions should respond to those realities is a difficult question. Obviously, one response is to say the institution needs to bend. Others say no, they shouldn’t. We get into another argument that compounds, rather than clarifies, the matter.
bphd, I agree with you that Obama was/is a very attractive candidate on several levels, but I put “values voters” in quotes to refer to that stereotyped group (and we all know who they are). I certainly agree Obama cut into the Republican block a bit (but not much), and I doubt those voters thought he was a threat to families. But, let’s not lose sight of the main contention (in the post of mine you responded to). It’s a pretty simple assertion most historians are familiar with: the backlash thesis. It may be that we’ve turned a corner (I deeply doubt it), but if we have, no one knows it to be the case (it will only become evident in hindsight). But maybe, rather than arguing, we should just watch and see what happens.
“One may sincerely believe deeply bigoted things.” Of course. My point was only to say it’s not obvious that Warren IS acting out of bigotry (if defined as hatred) for gays, in opposing gay marriage. I would certainly agree it is possible, but I think progressives underestimate how strongly conservatives (like Warren) think in terms of institutions and the need to preserve them (which they believe means not changing them). Progressives think in terms of individuals, rights, and justice. These kinds of conservatives think in more organic terms about society and order and such. Rightly or wrongly, they do believe these things.
December 19, 2008 at 4:23 pm
silbey
If it’s at a point that makes most Americans “bigots”, good luck with your crusade.
Shall we make the obvious historical analogies?
December 19, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Neddy Merrill
Ari, if you’re really interested, you could read John Corvino’s article on homosexuality and “the PIB argument,” i.e., polygamy, incest, bestiality. It’s in Ethics from a few years ago; you have JSTOR access.
December 19, 2008 at 4:34 pm
ari
We get into another argument that compounds, rather than clarifies, the matter.
The question, it seems to me, is actually as simple as whether homosexuality is a choice. I, and I believe most of the relevant literature, say no. Given that, the state has a Constitutional obligation to provide homosexuals equal protection under the law, right? And just so I’m not misunderstood again, I’m asking a serious question. The analogy to segregation seems crystal clear to me. I’m curious if others, including you, disagree.
But maybe, rather than arguing, we should just watch and see what happens.
This is clearly the best option.
December 19, 2008 at 4:35 pm
ari
Are you willing to offer a summary in a sentence or two, Neddy? If not, I’ll read it — begrudgingly.
December 19, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Neddy Merrill
I recommend it because, though Corvino argues in favor of gay marriage, being gay, and having sex with John Corvino, he also does (as I recall) a pretty fair summary of the arguments. I’ll email it to you.
December 19, 2008 at 4:40 pm
ari
Thanks. I appreciate it.
December 19, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Neddy Merrill
Bottom.
December 19, 2008 at 5:06 pm
ari
You had to out me? Uncool.
December 19, 2008 at 6:11 pm
RobinMarie
Charlieford — you define bigotry as narrowly as requiring hatred? Well, firstly, not all hatred is conscious, you have to keep that in mind. But even if it was, dictionary.com seems to be more along with my understanding of the word when it defines bigotry as “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.”
I would personally describe bigotry as willful ignorance — ignoring evidence contrary to one’s ideology because at heart, you don’t really care about evidence — but that’s close enough. But if we’re going to really narrow it to “hatred,” then we can only criticize the folks that really bust out the crazy with the “God Hates Fags” signs. And that, as I think the upset about Warren has demonstrated, just puts us back where we started; treating the issue of gay marriage as a polite political difference rather than what it is, a fundamental question about human rights which only those who willfully ignore all available evidence insist on denying.
Which unfortunately is a huge chunk of the American populace, oh wait the majority. Why do I remind myself of these things.
December 19, 2008 at 6:26 pm
RobinMarie
And to Michael’s question about where you draw the bigot line (sorry, I am reading from the bottom up) — this is a good question, and I would answer it as following, since I am aware that my post just above suggests all who oppose gay marriage are bigots.
I do not think the majority of Americans who oppose gay marriage are bigots, but I do think they are *enabling* bigotry. I say this of those who voted for Prop 8 without ever having a sign in their yard or, going to any event to promote it (which, I assume, was the vast majority of them). Those are the Americans who have not been fully confronted with the argument for why banning gays from marriage is an affront to human rights. Oh sure, they have seen the slogans and protesters on TV; but if anything this turns them off, makes them feel as though their values and opinions are being threatened and insulted, and often times creates a backlash. And then they vote yes on something like Prop 8, almost out of default if not in bitterness. Yes, their ignorance on the matter is still their responsibility; but it has not been *willful* ignorance, you see, but rather the usual apathy this country has to political issues and especially the potential for social change. They have not bothered themselves to seriously consider whether they should feel differently, and they’ve had too much poison poured in their ears by right wing pundits who tell them that these people are challenging true American and family values.
But someone like Warren does not have this excuse. Someone like Warren has been confronted, by virtue of his very public stance, with the opposing arguments a million times over, and still insists on spewing such intellectually bankrupt arguments as “the institution of marriage has been between a man and a woman for 5,000 years” (I’m paraphrasing) and so on and so forth. *That*, is *very willful* ignorance, so yes, Warren is a bigot; and willful ignorance like his own should not be presented on a national stage as a polite political difference, and especially not by any president-elect who has claimed to have progressive values or care about the LGBT community.
December 19, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Charlieford
“The question, it seems to me, is actually as simple as whether homosexuality is a choice. I, and I believe most of the relevant literature, say no. Given that, the state has a Constitutional obligation to provide homosexuals equal protection under the law, right? And just so I’m not misunderstood again, I’m asking a serious question. The analogy to segregation seems crystal clear to me. I’m curious if others, including you, disagree.”
First, was there someplace where I misunderstood you, or was that for someone else?
Second, I certainly agree this is an important question. However, aren’t we moving the goal-posts just a bit? We were talking, I thought, about whether someone (anyone? just Warren?) must be a bigot (and here I would confine the definition to those motivated by “hate,” not those merely holding to their opinions obstinately). Whatever the science says (and I agree it’s important), must we assume those operating with different norms of judgment are bigoted (recognizing, of course, that some or even all may be both out-of-step with science and bigoted, but recognizing also that there may be no more than a coincidental connection between those two conditions)?
Whatever the truth about Warren may be–and I’m all for presidents NOT legitimating bigotry; I’d also like to think I’m all for science, too, btw–I’d like to think there’s lots of daylight between operating under norms-other-than-scientific, and being bigoted (just as, when in the early 20th century, Catholics–and a few others–rejected the supposedly scientific orthodoxy of eugenics, I’d like to think their was daylight between that rejection and mere sentimentality).
Third, concerning the proposition that homosexuality is a choice, and my opinion. I’m inclined, as in most matters, to regard a scientific consensus with great respect. And certainly the gay friends I have make a very convincing case that their sexuality emerged early in life–even before adolescence–and was experienced almost passively, much like anyone’s. Often it was accompanied by fear of abnormality. It’s hard to think of it as a choice like, say, the choice I make to have pizza tonite rather than a cheese-steak-hoagie.
Now, the substance of your question: If homosexuality is not a choice, is there not a Constitutional right to it as an activity, and as a matter of equal protection (which includes marriage)? I have to say I’m inclined towards that argument, but haven’t thought it through yet. But again, and not to be annoying: Is it necessary to conclude that anyone disagreeing with your conclusion is a bigot?
Take your analogy to segregation. I certainly think that many–most, even–proponents of segregation combined bigotry with their adherence to “states’ rights.” In many cases, I’m sure people chose a states’ rights politics as a way to advance their bigotry. I’m not willing to charge all states’ rights proponents with bigotry, however. I think they’re a little nutty, but I think there’s a difference between Barry Goldwater and Lester Maddox.
December 19, 2008 at 6:56 pm
ari
See, I really think, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Warren’s a bigot. But I should have said above that your call for a more charitable reading made me pause — if only for a moment. As for the issue of whether you had misunderstood me earlier, no, you didn’t, at least not to my knowledge. As ever, you and I speak each others’ unspoken language — fluently. We should probably get married. Oh wait… But earlier in the thread, a serious but pointed question I asked struck some people as dickish. I just wanted to make sure that the same wouldn’t happen again.
December 19, 2008 at 6:59 pm
ari
Wait, just to be sure, Maddox is the bigot, right?
December 19, 2008 at 6:59 pm
ari
Sorry, goalpost moving: I thought we were talking about several things at once. But if I moved ‘em, I’ll put ‘em back. I’m nothing if not fastidious.
December 19, 2008 at 7:14 pm
jazzbumpa
Interesting discussion, everyone. While Maddox was obstinate, a lot of Goldwater’s views changed late in life – in part, I believe, because there was a gay person in his family. (Is that wrong?)
“Is it necessary to conclude that anyone disagreeing with your conclusion is a bigot?”
No. But we’re not talking about a hypothetical “anyone.” We’re talking about the invocator.
Not sure where denying scientific evidence fits on the hate-to-obstinacy spectrum of bigotry. Or if comparing homosexuality to alcoholism either slants or trivializes slants the interpretation.
But Warren’s parishioners are willing to talk to, pray for, and attempt to convert all the sinners. Repent and be saved? Remember, though, there is no excuse for sin. Not judging. Just telling it like it is.
This is from the Saddleback Church Website. (Thanks to Rachel Maddow)
Item 48 on the linked page.
Notable Quote:
“I’ve heard it asked, “Isn’t being homosexual something that a person is physically born with?” First of all, there are absolutely no facts to support this claim. From time to time studies have been reported in the news that seemed to indicate this, but every one of these studies has proven to be wrong. Secondly, even if some physical difference were discovered, it would be no excuse for sin. We know that some people can develop a stronger physical addiction to alcohol than others, but that’s obviously no excuse for living an alcoholic lifestyle.
“Finally, a word about being judgmental. It’s not judgmental to say that what the Bible calls a sin is a sin, that’s just telling the truth. Not being willing to talk to someone caught up in sin, or not believing that they can be forgiven, or thinking that you are not just as much in need of Jesus as they are … that’s being judgmental.
“Because membership in a church is an outgrowth of accepting the Lordship and leadership of Jesus in one’s life, someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted at a member at Saddleback Church. That does not mean they cannot attend church – we hope they do! God’s Word has the power to change our lives.”
http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/membership/group_finder/faqs_smallgroup.asp?id=7509#q_49
My take is that people with this belief system MUST include the belief that homosexuality is a choice – a sinful choice, because that is how they justify their bigotry to themselves.
December 19, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Chris
First, the 23% of the voting electorate that declares itself evangelical. That’s a *big* chunk of people and one that the Democrats ignore at their peril.
Democrats don’t ignore it at all; they know exactly where it is. It’s the die-hard core of the Republican party base, the ones who would rather massacre a Democrat’s family, burn down his house, and use the coals to barbecue his dog than vote for him. Reaching out to them has about the track record you’d expect.
The thing about elections is they don’t need to be unanimous. You can take 23% of the population and say “Well, those people hate me and everything I stand for. I guess they’re not going to vote for me.” and STILL WIN. In fact, virtually all elections are won that way.
Obama needs hard-core evangelicals the way he needs Southern whites – i.e., not at all. Large percentages of both groups (actually, they’re pretty much the same group) hate him and they’re going to go right on doing so. So what? They don’t run this country anymore. Or define it. Coastal enclaves of liberalism and the Midwest demographically kick their ass and are only getting stronger.
Let the Republicans run as a regional, provincial, narrowly Christian neo-Know-Nothing party – please. It will win them precisely bupkis in an technological industrialized nation. The real American majority is the one that elected Obama. And Warren isn’t part of it.
December 19, 2008 at 8:03 pm
ari
Yeah, what Chris said. And welcome, Chris. Unless you’ve commented before, in which case, welcome back.
December 19, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Michael Turner
The question, it seems to me, is actually as simple as whether homosexuality is a choice. I, and I believe most of the relevant literature, say no.
Doesn’t it also depend on whether homosexuality is simple? And on whether choice is simple? And on whether homosexuality is the sole issue here?
Rick Warren makes much of individual variations in propensity for sin, so I’m sure his theology extends to individual variations in the propensity for particular sins. If homosexuality is a sin, I suppose you’d have to say that I have a greater propensity for that sin than most.
Just being born a particular way doesn’t cut much ice with these people — it’s about choices, and sincere contrition for “sinful” choices. (Who knows what they would make of a woman who’d probably rather be married to a lesbian, but who’d rather be having sex with men.)
Forget homosexuality for a minute. Isn’t this about the right to marry someone of the same sex, regardless of sexual orientation?
Given that, the state has a Constitutional obligation to provide homosexuals equal protection under the law, right?
Which, interestingly, Rick Warren seems to favor (from what little I’ve read of him, which isn’t enough to say for sure.). He stops where most Americans stop: on the issue of what to call the relationship that’s (ostensibly, anyway) enjoying that equal protection.
I’ll admit, I just don’t understand this — how can a majority of Americans say that civil unions should confer all the advantages (and disadvantages) of marriage, but shouldn’t be called “marriage”? It’s baffling. There’s no logic there. But it is a reality, still. The best you can say is that it seems to be changing, and changing for the better.
The analogy to segregation seems crystal clear to me. I’m curious if others, including you, disagree.
Gay marriage advocates often drag out the historical photos to illustrate how “separate but equal” failed in race relations. It’s a failure that also features prominently in some court decisions favoring gay marriage. But the very fact that it’s so easy to visually document the failure of Jim Crow laws should tell you something.
Look at a picture of some people on a bus or at a lunch counter. Can you spot the gay ones? In the cases where you think you can, do you believe that any of the fear that the gay subjects in the photo might feel over being conspicuous to homophobes and bigots is related to the legal status of their relationships? No: to those who hate and/or fear gay people, it’s about what those gay people are doing, in public, “shamelessly,” for all to see, not about what pieces of paper they might have signed down at City Hall, with only a clerk and a friend as witnesses.
An analogy can be “crystal clear” and yet have no force unless people can see concrete damaging effects. For that matter, that’s where the rubber usually hits the road in the courts: whether you were objectively hurt or not. There are no sticks and stones here — it’s all words. Equal protection? Here’s a way to interpret equal protection, in this context: Straights have a perfect right to enter into civil unions. Gays have a perfect right to marry members of the opposite sex. Ridiculous? Maybe. Specious legalistic reasoning? I wouldn’t be so sure.
If I were a legal activist on this issue, I’d be pushing for “separate and better.” I’d push to make civil-union laws more legally uniform, and a better deal, than marriage, in all 50 states. When most straight people who have recently entered into legally-recognized relationships are saying “I just got married” even though they went for the B side of the menu, you’ve won. You’ve redefined the word.
Complain all you want that you’ll never get respect until you can call it “marriage” legally. But guess what? The day you can, you’ll probably be hated all the more by the bigots, feared all the more by the homophobes. People who already respected you will not feel any different about you. Ultimately, it has a lot less to do with law and a lot more to do with feelings.
“Marriage” is a feeling-evoking word in the English language, and languages are democracies. Democratic systems change and adapt as their hosting cultures change and adapt, according to how people in those cultures feel about what’s happening in the culture.
And the English language is changing on these issues. As someone who has been taking e-mail reservations for seven years, I see that “partner” is definitely on the rise over “husband”, “wife”, “boyfriend” or “girlfriend”.
Respect is also changing, on this issue, but language change plays a role in that. Anecdotally:
Last year, I was in huge conflict with my wife over a perpetual sore point in our relationship. To whom did I finally go to for advice? Somebody who’d been married to a very similar kind of person, and who’d had the same kinds of issues, for a lot longer. It didn’t matter to me that he was married (as far as I was concerned) to a man. What I wanted to know was this: what he might know about, and how he might have learned to cope with, these problems that were driving me crazy, even driving me to long periods of separation.
The funny thing here is, I don’t know if it would have occurred to me to ask his advice if he hadn’t started calling himself married. But he had. And so should you, if you feel you are married to somebody. If you want respect for your commitment, just start describing yourself as married, and you’ll get the respect of many (if not most) of us who have been through the ups and downs. The precise term used by a government to refer to your otherwise-equal relationship — how can that possibly compare to what your friends and family think of it, from what they can see of it? And won’t it help them to think of it in the right way if you habitually call it by its right name?
Languages are the ultimate direct democracies. If you want to win the really important blocs of votes in such a democracy, you can’t make it a purely legalistic issue, to be decided for (easily questionable) benefit for a very small fraction of language “voters”, in courts. You’ve got to sell. And because language doesn’t change overnight, you’ve got to be patient and keep selling. And you have to be part of a sales force.
A nostrum of sales: you’re always really selling yourself. So sell yourself as someone comfortable with your meaning of the word “marriage”, by acting consistently with it. You think you’re married? Say so. Two men or two women who have cohabited for a long time, friends of yours, are breaking up? Say, “their marriage is on the rocks, and I think ___ is more to blame of the two.” (If the listener agrees or disagrees about the blame, they have moved right past the issue of whether it’s “really marriage” and on to what really matters — and that’s how language gets shaped, by repeated subconscious acceptance.) Claim full citizenship for your sense of “marriage” in the English language in the most unambiguous way possible: by acting like English already has it, not by insisting that you want English to have it, that it’s your constitutional right for English to have it. Vote early and often, in that way, for your choice of meanings.
“Crystal clear analogies” might seem like great, strong, powerful levers. In academia, maybe they are. In the real world, though, you also need a fulcrum, and a place to stand. No more mumbling, no more circumlocutions. Just call it marriage, nonchalantly, wherever you see it — that’s your stand. Everybody who really cares about you will become your linguistic fulcrum. Happily, proudly, in most cases. Millions of people you’ll never meet, all with their own places to stand, their own willing human fulcrums, their own levers, can make this massive thing with huge inertia — the sense of the word “marriage” in English — levitate, and shift a little. Then you’ll hear the ringing hammers of lawyers, legal scholars, courts, as they work to ratify new legal foundations. Indeed, we already do, if my ears don’t deceive me. And I believe it’s happening for very much for the reasons I give here.
December 19, 2008 at 9:23 pm
ari
Doesn’t it also depend on whether homosexuality is simple?
Not really, no. At least not for an equal protection claim.
Can you spot the gay ones?
Not following you. At least not to where you’d have me go.
Specious legalistic reasoning?
I don’t know enough to know for sure. But an interesting point nevertheless.
In academia, maybe they are. In the real world, though,
Ah, an old favorite of mine.
Indeed, we already do, if my ears don’t deceive me. And I believe it’s happening for very much for the reasons I give here.
I think you’re right. And, ironically, I think Prop 8′s passage will speed the process. But I don’t think legitimating Warren is going to help at all.
December 19, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Charlieford
OK, folks. It’s either keep up with this thread, or keep my job. But, if the conversation somehow ever gets back to Ron Paul, shoot me a note, someone, please?
December 20, 2008 at 11:29 am
bitchphd
Belated answer: PK, having taken a couple of days to think about it, says that he thinks that the preacher choice is “just coincidence; I mean, how many churches *aren’t* against gay marriage?”
I am surprised, but then again, PK is pretty strongly anti-religious, so.
December 20, 2008 at 11:40 am
bitchphd
Cford, re. backlash, my hope is that Reagan was the backlash, and Obama is the righting of the ship. I am an optimist.
Re. conservatives v. progressives: fwiw, I’m actually instinctively deeply conservative, I think–at least, the argument for gay marriage, in my mind, matters b/c families exist for the safeguarding of children. I really think this, and it’s reason #1 why I’m pro gay-marriage and why I don’t get why it’s so hard to dig up a Christian ministerr or Catholic priest to make this case.
December 20, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Charlieford
bphd, glad I checked back when I saw your posts. On “backlash,” you may be right(-ish). The full nature of the phenomenon (and I guess it’s obvious, it’s an interpretation, and is open to revision–anyone know any important work on that we all should read?), its depth and breadth, will come clearer (there’s some optimism for you) when we get more chronological distance from and perspective on it. But to your point, that we’re past it. I don’t think so. We should think of it as coming in phases. (We could start this almost anywhere: back with the resuscitation of the Klan in the 1920s in part as response to “mongrel” America; or the spike in lynchings in part as response to Teddy Roosevelt’s hosting Booker T. Washington at the White House, or back further just about as far as you want.) But if we stick to “recent” America (post-WWII) we see a steady growth of racially divisive, distintively culturally conservative, politics, emanating primarily from the South: Strom Thurmond’s “Dixie-crat” rebellion in ’48, the Goldwater campaign in ’64, and the rise of George Wallace to national prominence in ’68. This culminates in Nixon’s infamous “southern strategy” (where Wallace sowed, Nixon reaped, just as back in the ’50s we saw McCarthy sowing and Nixon reaping) which is what some historians consider the paradigmatic “backlash.” But yes, you’re so right, Reagan adopted his own “southern strategy” (kicking off his 1980 campaign in Mississippi talking about states’ rights), and Bush I’s Atwater-engineered Willie Hortonism extended it, Newt Gingrich’s angry white men of 1994 pushed it further, Dole tried and failed to turn it into electoral success in 1996 by running on the 10th amendment, and so forth. Missing from this account however is the shifting focus of what the backlash is lashing back at: it’s most recent incarnations have been about the 1960s, of course, but with the 1992 Republican convention, the 1994 crowd’s fulminations, and then Bush II in 2004, it’s been the counter-cultural, anti-war 1960s, rather than those “uppity, dangerous” blacks, that’s been at the center of the national-nightmare vision the GOP promises to save us from. In that year, David Brooks became a kind of conservative apostle of backlash fatigue, if you will–why are we talking about events of 40 years ago? don’t we have enough going on now to talk about?–and I, like you, have been wondering/hoping if, a half-century on, America might finally be putting the 1960s behind it. I have to say I’m much less optimistic than you. In part I think it’s because the concerns of the 1960s transcend the specifics of the decade. Really big questions that lay embedded in the American experience but which were only rarely analyzed (by little-read agitating intellectuals such as Randolph Bourne or William James or WEB DuBois, eg) broke out into the open: questions over what “democracy” means and how “inclusive” America is to be (race being the biggest of a set of questions here), over foreign policy and imperialism, over materialism and spirituality and values, over the authority of “experts” and intellect, over tradition and innovation, and so forth. And I tend to think that, because these are deep philosophical questions–larger than America itself–they will continue to agitate Americans and find there way into politics, sometimes in really good ways (Obama’s speech on race this summer, eg), but also in simplistic, populist, defensive or even hostile forms–Clinton talking about “hard-working white Americans” and Palin’s references to her supporters as the only “real America” come to mind. So I suppose I see the “backlash” as a politicized version of a certain kind of conservatism–a kind that recedes under some circumstances and returns (or is resuscitated) under others. I don’t think this will end soon (though whether we will or should continue to call it “backlash” can be argued). It runs too deep. And Fitzgerald was never so wrong as when he said America isn’t the land of second acts. Second, third, fourth–we’re the land of constant reinvention. There’s reason for hope and optimism in that, as well as wariness and despair.
December 20, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Charlieford
OK, you’re forgiven if you choose not to read all that half-baked rambling. My goodness, I need to put a sock in it sometimes.
December 20, 2008 at 2:56 pm
silbey
Paragraphs, man, paragraphs!
December 20, 2008 at 3:31 pm
bitchphd
Well, yes, obviously history doesn’t just suddenly turn corners. Dialectic blah blah.
Comity?
December 23, 2008 at 9:33 am
Charlieford
Andrew Sullivan’s blog entry, “Freedom or Power,” is provocative, to say the least. Here’s a taste: “[T]he notion of the president stigmatizing someone because of his religious views, and the gay movement pressuring to ban such a person from a civic ceremony, strikes me as coming from precisely the wrong place. A president is president of all the people. Unlike Bush, Obama means it. And unlike Bush, he has already proven it. Can you imagine if Bush had asked an openly gay minister to give his Invocation? That would have been the unifying move – and opened up a new space for dialogue. But Bush closed it down. I did not endorse Obama to perpetuate that kind of politics. Using government to advance the worldview of one group of people and to stigmatize another is exactly what went wrong these past eight years.”
December 23, 2008 at 10:01 am
Matt W
Foo on Sullivan. “Not granting a special honor to” ≠ “stigmatizing.” And openly gay ministers seem to be banned from a civic ceremony no matter who’s in charge; if Obama had invited Warren and Gene Robinson to give a joint invocation, that would be the unifying move.
Also, Warren isn’t being stigmatized because of his religious views; he’s being stigmatized because of his repugnant moral views, which he grounds in his religion. I think people’s religious views ought to be respected, but that doesn’t mean respecting their mistaken views about basic moral issues.
December 23, 2008 at 10:03 am
Matt W
Also, how the hell are you supposed to run a government without advancing the worldview of a group of people? Turning the entire government into a tool of the political process was one thing, but that’s not what’s at stake here.
December 23, 2008 at 11:25 am
bitchphd
Sullivan’s always been a little too willing to concede ground to homophobes; it’s weird. Anyhoo, asking a gay minister to an invocation is a sight different from asking someone who wants to deny civil rights to a class of Americans, and if Sullivan can’t see that he’s an idiot.