Andrew Sullivan ... has a big heart. This time, it's getting in his way.
The American inaugural is a distinctly political event, not a religious gathering. It's not coronation day.
Accordingly, this is a political choice and that choice should be responded to with the political mind. (Warren himself is a political force, by his choice, not just a pulpit preacher).
This is not an outreach event. It is not a prayer breakfast. It is not a Townhall. It is not a reconciliation commission or even the beginnings of what I hope will be the Presidential Commission on Gay Rights, under Obama (such a 'commission' is much needed - one that could help to better organize the efforts of disparate gay organizations).
Is the symbolic manipulation of Warren a betrayal (a "hostile act", as Chris Matthews asked)? Yes. On two counts.
To be realistic, who is expecting "victories" in the 111th Congress? God knows, if they happen it will be as much in spite of the Democratic party as because of it - I think that sentiment, today, is widely shared.
For a lot of reasons, most of what we have are symbolic 'victories', especially in the wake of a loss in every contested rights issue in November, so to be denied even small ... assurances as a minority, is ... hostile.
Second, Obama does not have a record. He has words, but not deeds enough to support the context he wants others to have a faith in, a context that includes Rick Warren in a place of honor. It's too much trust to ask, at this point, at a minimum. Given the generous support Obama-Biden have had so far, that's a kind of betrayal, to ask for so much more, so quickly, with so little other than good intentions.
It's fraught with difficulties to analogize, but I wouldn't reckon that antisemitism atrophied in this country because people found the capacity to pray with them. Put another way, I wouldn't worry too much about being a rainmaker, politically. "Centrism" has failed .. and the hope for it does not rise anew, frankly (at least in my heart). If the 'gay agenda' is pushed by Congress, not because they think it is right but because they can accommodate a 'special rights' agenda for a group that pleasures them with lobby money, what good is that? No matter how effective that "calculation" may be, what is that to pin a hope on, a cynic's political sorcery? Pshaw!
Last, the inaugural committee had choices. Warren is arguably not the best way to articulate even a message of dialogue. There are people who have lived in his world and who have come to a different understanding, either radically or in nuance. One of those people would have been a far better choice, in my opinion.
In summary, this choice is very wrong politically. Does that mean that I'm missing an "Obama moment" to break bread with Rick Warren? I don't think so. Many would be happy to dialogue with Rick Warren in another setting - the problem is largely that he's not open to it, having hardened his heart, mostly. It speaks volumes that Warren himself hasn't offered Obama an "out", was quick-as-a-fox on the wires to say he would not quietly find something else to do that day if asked, but is himself seeking to turn the event into a confrontation.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
No, No, No, No, No, NO, No.
